Caution, may cause dizziness

We are now into week two of the Ontario election and you can start to see how each party is trying to shape the narrative and define for the voter the infamous ballot box question. As party leaders fan out across the province, they do so armed with speeches and talking points which have one simple objective - define the election on their terms.

Sounds like a good time to pause and consider this further. So let me start with the following observations...

1. Dalton McGuinty does not spend every waking moment coming up with ideas about how to tax Ontarians or take jobs away from those born here.

2. Tim Hudak does not define success by killing health care, laying off teachers or turning the environment into a permanent greenhouse.

3. Andrea Horwath does not have the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto tattooed on her arm, and is not looking to nationalize everything.

Yet, obvious exaggerations aside, these types of suggestions are often what we tend to hear as leaders and spin doctors try and shape a narrative for the voter. Why?

To start, each party has its core support; those that will consistently vote for them. These voters not only need to "hear themselves" reflected in the comments of the candidates, they also need to have their worst fears articulated for them. Like it or not, this will help a party mobilize their voters on election day - a key driver of success.

A second observation is that core support is not enough to take any party to victory. This means that in order to win, a party needs to pick votes from their opponents (difficult and therefore not a huge source of support), or convince a good portion of the undecided block of essentially centrist voters to vote for them (a potentially rich and decisive source of support).

How does one do this? Make yourself appear safe and your opponents...not so much. Put another way, parties are always looking for a wedge issue. They want to hit upon something that brings them closer to a voter while at the same time driving their opponent(s) further away.

The "tax incentive for hiring immigrants" versus "taxpayer dollars to hire foreign workers" is an interesting example of two parties trying to use the same issue as a wedge. The PCs jumped upon this Liberal platform commitment and have tried to frame it in a way that drives middle-class voters worried about their jobs to the PCs.

The Liberals (after adding more precision to their policy) jumped on the PC reaction in a way that attempts to frame the PCs as anti-immigrant - a key demographic in Ontario's urban centres.

It's too early to tell whether either approach will be successful, though watching to see which party persists with their message and which one moves on will give some sense as to what internal polling is telling them about their likely success.

Something worth considering is the fact that in many respects, the parties do not differ from one another on the big issues in a hugely significant way. When you consider this and then factor in the realization that in order to achieve success the parties are all essentially going after the same block of votes, you can see the importance of making sharp distinctions.

***

In the coming weeks, Ontarians will be bombarded with all manner of spin and argument - again. It happened last fall with the municipal elections, in the spring with the federal election and now today with the provincial election.

As you consider all that is thrown your way and start to feel dizzy, move beyond the spin. Make this election about more than what is suggested to you. Make it about what is important to you.

Speak your mind.

"So what's going on in Ottawa?" and other holiday dinner conversation topics...

As someone who lives in Ottawa, the holiday season inevitably includes discussions with non-Ottawa family members and friends about politics. The conversation typically starts one of two ways.

The first is based on the perception that, as an Ottawa-resident, you have some special insight on politics. "You live in Ottawa, so tell me why they really scrapped the long-form census?" is indicative of the type of question one might find oneself on the receiving end of during a lull in the Christmas dinner conversation.

The second way these conversations start is premised on the notion that no one in Ottawa actually gets what's happening in the real world. "Out of touch" is one of the more polite phrases that come up in such situations.

While these observations are the usual starting points for a discussion, what follows is often quite interesting. Why? Because what follows is perspective.

These conversations challenge, frustrate, encourage, enliven and inform my view on what's happening in Canada and how our politics is perceived by the people I know. This is a good thing. This is engagement.

The holiday season and early parts of 2011 will serve as a form of reconnaissance for our main political parties, and for current and would-be MPs. The good ones will be paying close attention to these types of conversations and using the individual and cumulative perspective shared with them to inform their views on many of the issues which matter to you and I.

We should take this opportunity and run with it. The period leading up to an election is a chance, however small, to influence the ballot box question. It's a chance to share what's important to you, and in so doing to challenge your current and prospective political leaders to respond.

It doesn't matter if it's the economy or health care, the environment or Afghanistan, funding for the arts or law and order. Those who aspire to lead us need to know what matters to us. And they need to tell us clearly what governing would mean for them. Let's do our part.

Thoughts (and please pass the gravy)?

So what's the question?

The phrase "framing the ballot box question" is one you will have read here and heard in the media. It refers to the one thing an average voter boils all of the electoral noise down to as they prepare to cast a ballot.

My money is on Canada having an election in the late winter/early spring of 2011 (I don't see this Fall happening). If so, we are now entering the period when parties begin to more deliberately frame the question.

For the government, this means getting out quickly and defining an opposition that has thus far failed to define itself. Hence Mr. Flaherty's highly partisan (and highly uncharacteristic) speech last week.

For the opposition, the trick is more difficult. Opposition parties like the NDP and the Liberals need to differentiate themselves from the government. However, they also need to make distinctions between one another. For the NDP, its gets a bit more complicated when you factor in the Greens. For the Bloc it's, well, nevermind. They're the Bloc. It's all good.

So what are we seeing in terms of the party's preferences for "the question?" To start, we have a government focused on making the economy the issue (rightly so), but taking an important issue and wrapping it in the very charged "coalition" blanket. The question will be "Do you trust us or the coalition?" This may (ok, will) be misleading, but it can extremely powerful in making distinctions for voters, generating financial support and putting opponents on the back foot.

For the Liberals, the plan seems to be about defining a broader, more inclusive Canada. Mr. Ignatieff's comments about family and household issues not being seen as "touchy-feely" gives you a sense as to where they are going. It will be a have your cake and eat it too message - Canada can be progressive, inclusive, prosperous and financially sound. However, without the details voters will struggle. The Liberals will also look to convince voters that they, and not the NDP, offer the best chance of stoping the Conservatives from getting their majority and offering credible opposition.

The NDP is fighting the government, the Liberals and the Greens. A tall order for a party that took a credibility hit during the gun registry vote. They will appeal to the voter who is looking for the House to keep the government honest; the voter who knows it will be a minority and therefore sees the need for a third party in the House that can be effective and has experience. Theirs will become a riding-specific fight as they look to hold back the Greens.

As for the Bloc? Nevermind.

Thoughts?