I've fallen and I can't get up - #elxn41 and the Liberals

Prior to May 2, 2011, the Liberals had never finished anything other than first or second on election day. Today, they are facing the prospect of at least two terms in the wilderness - and that's the good news. Their next steps are, not to put too fine a point on it, crucial.

I won't get into a "what went wrong" analysis here. An excellent article was published today in the Toronto Star which provides an overview (as do both Jane Taber's and Michael Valpy's pieces in the Globe and Mail).

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/987422--what-really-sunk-michael-ignatieff-and-the-liberals?bn=1

Having fallen so far, the question now is whether they can get up. In this third piece on each of the three mainstream parties, I offer some (unsolicited) advice to the Liberals.

1. Start with a blank piece of paper

Before going down the road of leadership, you need to develop a stronger sense about what you want to represent as a party. Despite having over two years to prepare, the Liberal narrative and vision for Canada never really seemed to take form.

The constant Conservative attacks on Mr. Ignatieff's leadership clearly had an impact. These attacks undermined Liberal efforts to shape a narrative. However, the Liberals must also take some of the blame.

Too often their focus was on what, rightly or wrongly, the public saw as the minor foibles of the government. They rightly understood that there was a reason the Conservatives were stuck in minority territory, but failed to tackle the more important issue as to why they could not capitalize.

Over the next few years, a lot of time and energy needs to be spent determining what it means to be Liberal. It is no longer sufficient to assume that you are the default party of choice, so take a blank piece of paper, look carefully at the results of 2006, 2008 and 2011, and start thinking. Look as well at the challenges you could avoid focusing on in 1993, 1997 and 2000. You won majorities, but were heavily dependant on Ontario, vote-splitting and urban centres. Be honest about your weakness and go from there.

2. Be the middle man

Building on the point above, we know that the Liberal platform tacked left in an attempt to attract NDP supporters. It turned out that while Canadians may have liked the message, they did not like the messenger. This reasoning would suggest that the Liberals simply find a leader who can carry the same message more effectively.

That would be a mistake.

By tacking left, the Liberals left the impression that the Conservatives were the only party occupying the centre/centre-rght. This partly explains why the NDP surge sent people to the Conservatives.

Looking ahead, the Liberals need to re-establish their brand as a centrist party in Canada. This means finding the balance between compassion and discipline; between willingness and prudence.

Being in the centre means you invest, rather than spend. It means you engage before deciding. It means demonstrating that you have convictions, but that you are prepared to listen such that your convictions can be informed.

This was the space that the Liberals used to occupy and it is the space to which they need to return. For the time being, it is unoccupied. That won't last, so move in quickly.

3. Cash is King

You are about to lose the public subsidy and, unlike 1993 when the Progressive Conservatives fell to two seats, there are now strict limits as to what you can raise from corporations. You need to develop a more robust fundraising mechanism.

Following up on points one and two above will be important in this regard. People like to know what they are buying, so put something compelling in the window. Invest in the technology, leverage social media, engage youth. Every dollar counts, so go after them.

4. Choose carefully

You will be choosing a new leader. Recognize that there is no such thing as a ready-to-go Prime Minister. Whomever you choose will need time and more than one election to have a realistic chance of winning. Give them that time.

When you choose, make sure you remember that you can't build a sustainable party around a leader; the leader must represent the vision of the party. If you don't know where you want to go, how can you pick the driver?

Mr. Dion was a compromise candidate. Mr. Ignatieff was seen as someone who could play a Trudeau-esque role (forgetting that Mr. Trudeau had long-held views on a range of issues and had been politically active for some time - something Mr. Ignatieff did now have on his cv).

Today, you need a standard-bearer for the Liberalism you want for 21st century Canada. You want someone who typifies what you want your party to represent.

***

You have to be down before you can get up. That's where the Liberals are today. Despite showing early promise in #elxn41, they fell badly from the debates onwards such that today there are many questioning their future in Canada.

I don't think they are dead. I think the inexperience of the NDP will create opportunities for them. But they have to be ready. They have to be ready with a vision, a leader which represents that vision, and who can effectively communicate it. And they have to be patient. There is a long road ahead for the Liberal Party of Canada, and it is going to take time to re-establish themselves in Canadian politics.

OMFG. Now What? (from the diaries of Jack Layton)

Early in the morning on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Jack Layton went to bed having celebrated becoming the presumptive Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. A few hours later, I am tempted to think he woke up, looked at what had happened and for a second thought "OMFG. Now what?"

It's not just that the NDP increased their seat count to 102. Or that they relegated the Liberals to third party status. It's not even how they did it, with such strong results in Quebec - a province where they had previously only held one seat.

No, I think that to the extent there was an "OMFG, now what?" moment it occurred when he considered more fully the make-up of his new Official Opposition caucus - his "government in waiting."

As the shampoo commercial goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression." Yes, the stakes are high for the NDP.

So, continuing on the posting of earlier this week I would like to provide some (again, unsolicited) advice to Mr. Layton.

1. Figure out what you want to be when you grow up - quickly

The NDP benefitted from the popularity of Jack Layton, a lack of confidence in the Liberals, the implosion of the Bloc, anti-HST sentiment in BC, and the continued support of its base. It did not obtain 102 seats because of a strong understanding and support for its platform or from the strength of the entire slate of candidates.

However, it now occupies the role of Official Opposition, and as such must decide pretty soon what it wants to be as a party; what it wants to be when it grows up. Is this a traditional New Democratic Party, as its platform and approach over the past few years suggests? If so, make that clear through the positions you take on the policies of the day.

Or do you want to be Canada's version of New Labour? Are you looking to ride a popular leader, and mix social democratic principles with a commitment to fiscal responsibility and a vision that fits within a 21st century economy?

Put another way, decide if you want to stay where you are or whether you want to move towards the centre.

When the dust settles, a large part of your new job is to present Canadians over the next four years with a credible alternative. The Liberals suffered from not defining themselves until the campaign, to some degree hoping that they could be the default option. It didn't work for them and it won't work for you. Be clear about who you are and what you represent.

2. Staff Well

You have 102 MPs, several of whom will form your shadow caucus and become your spokespersons on a broad range of issues. While you have the opportunity to draw on your experienced MPs for these roles, beyond them you have a lot of neophytes.

- Some who have never served in government - I don't count school councils.
- Some who have served and been served - but in campus bars.
- Some who had never voted before Monday - because they were too young.

With the lack of experience across a large swath of the NDP caucus, you would be tempted to call them the real "green party".

What they need is staff. They need to work with people who have been on the Hill, understand Parliament, understand the press gallery and how to communicate (and how not to). They will need guidance, someone to say no, someone to help them translate their idealism or indignity into a coherent policy option.

A strong staff provides discipline, order and can limit the errors that are replayed endlessly and which can prove fatal to an MP and his or her party. Staff well.

3. What to do about the Liberals

A large part of the upcoming Liberal discourse will focus on the party's relationship with the NDP. You will be drawn into this debate whether you like it or not, so you should start to consider what is your long game.

You can try to leverage your new platform and define yourself sufficiently in the eyes of Canadians such that the Liberals are increasingly marginalized. In other words, go for the kill. Don't lament the end of the public vote subsidy, develop a strong fund-raising mechanism of your own and pick up the pieces as the Liberals suffer.

Alternatively, acquire more (albeit damaged) centrist credibility by offering an olive branch to the Liberals to work together and develop a new alternative centrist option in Canada. Call it a merger, a partnership, whatever - just don't say coalition.

But don't wait too long to have your Peter McKay moment, if that is where you intend to go. If you do wait too long, the Conservatives will make it the defining issue of the next election and you will lose momentum and the ability to develop your own narrative.

4. Je me souviens

Quebec. Be careful how you play in this space. Don't make promises you can't keep or open doors which lead nowhere. You beat the Bloc soundly in this election, and that should be commended. However, how you handle Quebec issues over the next four years will be crucial. Do it well, and the possibilities of a real federalist, social democratic option are strengthened.

Do it poorly, make too many missteps, or demonstrate your lack of influence in Parliament and the PQ and the Bloc will both benefit.

***

Above all else, find the right mix between hyperbole and realism. Be honest, measured and informed. Use year one to establish credibility and make people say "wow, they were better than I thought." It will do you a world of good.

See, the NDP had a great result and reason to celebrate. But after every celebration comes the hangover. Today, the NDP has less power as the Official Opposition to a majority government than it did as the third party in a minority Parliament.

But, what they do have is an opportunity and a platform. How will they do?

Where do we go from here, Mr. Harper?

So, where do we go from here? I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the political landscape in Canada has been altered significantly. As is the case with any big change, some people are worried, others are excited, and many are uncertain what it will mean.

I decided to use this blog post to provide the (unsolicited) advice I would give to the government Mr. Harper will now form. Why? Whether we like it or not we are now in this as a country for the next four years.

We need to shift our focus away from politics and towards government. We need to consider how Canada can win, and not how parties can be beaten.

This is a conversation we haven't had for five years. Yes, we have had discussion about the recession and how best to respond. But beyond that, the success or failure of parties has dominated our discourse when we should have invested in discussing Canada. This cycle needs to end now.

So with that in mind, I decided to use a few blog postings to provide my views and advice to our MPs, new and old. Today, I will start with Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

1. Read the results honestly and respond in kind

Whether you agree with it or not, there remains a strong sense that your politics and policies over the past five years have been guided by instincts which at their heart have been partisan and adversarial. It would be wrong, therefore, to read a majority government as an endorsement of that approach, or even of the policies you have espoused.

There is enough in the results to suggest that many Canadians do not whole-heartedly endorse the Conservative platform or agenda. In Quebec there is a strong desire for change that did not include the Conservatives. In Ontario, vote-splitting and a concern among more centrist Liberals about the NDP fed your results.

This reality needs to be recognized and reflected in your approach to Parliament and to the views of others. We have moved beyond a focus on the base or the swing ridings - you are now a government for all Canadians. Show Canadians you recognize this as the privilege that it is.

2. You have what you want, but be mindful how you use it

We have spent too much time talking about the need for a majority to "get things done." To say this diminishes the role that collaboration and dialogue are intended to play in a democracy.

Power is used best when it is used with discretion, thoughtfulness and consideration. Put another way, just because you think you can do what you want doesn't mean you should. All majority governments make this mistake, but in truth yours will be watched more carefully that those in the past.

There is a reason it took three tries to get a majority. How you use the power it provides is therefore important.

Reach out. Seek opportunities to build a consensus; to get the views of others. Make these things your first instinct. Canadians did not provide a majority as an excuse for parties not to work together. Show us you recognize this point and the role you can play in helping to repair our politics.

3. You didn't run a national campaign, but you have to think about the nation

Part of your success in #elxn41 resulted from a five year campaign which focused on swing ridings, keeping your base energized, and attacking your opponents. While this helped you win, it came at the expense of a conversation about what Canada needs to succeed.

As a majority government, ask yourself whether Canada needs a tough on crime agenda to succeed in the 21st century. Where does this sit, relative to how we consider health care, or how we position Canadian companies for success in a world that has changed dramatically? To which issues should our energies be directed - the environment or issues like long-gun registries?

You have an opportunity to engage Canadians on a broader range of issues than the ones which have traditionally fuelled your approach to policy and government. This doesn't mean thinking big, but it does mean thinking more long-term, moving beyond what has too often been parochial.

***

I have written before about the distinction between politics and government. The challenges and opportunities we face demand the best of government, not the worst of politics. This does not have to mean active or expansive government; but it should mean engaged, open, collaborative and constructive government.

We need to move beyond the cycle of partisanship, short-sightedness and attack. The election around the corner has come and gone, and there is now a long road ahead. How we walk along it will have huge repercussions for Canada.

Quite. A. Night.

So there it is. Canadians have finally spoken and #elxn 41 has provided results which offer up a lot of food for thought. The headlines are simple:

- the strong, stable Conservative majority that Mr. Harper sought;
- the rise of the NDP as the official opposition;
- the decimation of the Liberals; and
- the virtual elimination of the Bloc in Quebec.

But like so much in this campaign, the headlines only tell part of the story.

I am going to take a night to consider the results further, but there are some initial observations I would make.

1. The Harper majority would have been less likely had the NDP surge not occurred. The degree of vote splitting, particularly in Ontario, was decisive. In many, many ridings it took Jack to give Stephen what he wanted as many centrist Liberals went Conservative, presumably out of concern about the NDP.

2. What will Mr. Harper do? Expect to see over the next few years a continued erosion or scaling back in the role government plays in our everyday lives. Through tax cuts and a strong nod to provincial responsibilities, the ability of the federal government to act decisively has already been changed - this trend will continue.

3. What happens when the NDP wake up tomorrow? In their "break out" years, Reform or the Bloc each had about 50 neophyte MPs elected. The NDP have elected a sizeable number more. Are they ready to oppose? The good news, I guess, is that they will have 4 years to learn. It will be a steep learning curve for a party that is now effectively in the role of "government in waiting."

4. And what of the Liberals? Their base is eroded and public subsidies are not long for this country. As a result, their ability to re-build will be limited. This puts all questions on the table. Can they reassert themselves as a centrist party or are we now seeing the starting point for a re-alignment of the left?

5. And finally, Quebec. The virtual elimination of the Bloc has the potential to be a watershed moment in the province and in Canada. Quebec remains effectively "out of the government."

So, some random thoughts as we look into tomorrow and beyond. I will be writing more, but would welcome other's observations and commentary.

Above and beyond what I have mentioned above, #elxn41 has served as an important reminder about engagement. The engagement we began to see in this campaign needs to be sustained, nurtured and grown. We owe it to ourselves to take the time now and invest in our democracy and the role we play as informed participants within it.

Poll-Axed

By this time, virtually everything you read concerning #elxn41 and the final days before the vote is squarely focused on the rise of the NDP. We are seeing discussion of their national numbers, the story in Quebec and the growing sense that Jack Layton could replace Mr. Ignatieff as the Official Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, it's been quite a week.

For the Liberals, how the next few days play out could have a significant impact not just on how they do on May 2, but on their future. So, what happened?

To start, the Liberals tacked left and looked to make the campaign about a choice between the Conservative agenda and one which was more squarely focused on families. While they quite rightly argued that a sound economy should be rooted in strong a social foundation, their message did not catch.

This isn't to say that people don't like the message. The programme they put forward was intended to appear to NDP voters, women and students. Initially their strategy appeared to be working. They stayed on message, ran a disciplined campaign, and were receiving plaudits.

However, throughout the initial period leading up to the debates it appeared that voters were torn between the message and the messenger. Mr. Igantieff as a leader was simply not getting traction.

Queue the debates and the performance of Mr. Layton. While I was not overly impressed by him, many were - particularly in Quebec. By displaying equal measures of forcefulness and joviality, Mr. Layton looked principled and committed while Mr. Igantieff often appeared angry. It was Mr. Layton, and not Mr. Ignatieff who looked more likely to do what many Canadians want - find a way to make things work.

In hindsight, I think an element of his message was not so much "us or them", it was more "let's just get it done." In so doing, he appeared more above the fray (though not entirely).

This appears to have resonated most strongly in Quebec. If the polls are correct, the NDP could be on its way to an historic breakthrough in the province. For many, the NDP appears to offer a third way; a break from the traditional federalist-sovereignist divide.

They are offering a progressive, social democratic programme which is aligned with the views of many Quebecers. They are also increasingly speaking to a demographic that is removed from the old squabbles on national unity.

Think about this for a moment: We are 16 years removed from the last referendum, 31 years since the first referendum, 35 years since the historic PQ election and more than a generation since the Quiet Revolution.

For many voters in the province, the battles of the past are history; they represent the narrative of a different generation. The problems and opportunities of today are real and pressing and that is where they would prefer their politicians direct their energy. The Bloc looks faded in such a light; the NDP looks new and more engaged.

Of course, we still have a few days until the vote and much can happen. Ground game is an issue for the NDP, as is the possibility that the prominence of their story and the predictions of success could push people back to the Liberals. There are also real challenges with the costing of the NDP platform.

Mr. Ignatieff will hope that this proves to be the case. Despite running well and demonstrating passion and eloquence, he has been "poll axed" over the past week. Each new poll seems to make the story worse and the prospect of a bad defeat seem more likely. Momentum is a funny thing. It's hard to get, but when you do it can often take on a life of its own - a band wagon effect. When it's lost, it is very, very difficult to get back.

Mr. Layton appears to be benefitting from the former; Mr. Ignatieff suffering from the latter. One way or the other, May 2 is now shaping up to be more interesting than we thought at the outset of the campaign.

The Curious Case of Canadian Complacency

This time next week, Canadian politics watchers will be sitting through their version of the Oscars or the Super Bowl. Yes, it will be election night and at the end of it we will know who won, by how much, who's in and who's out. We will then inevitably shift the the conversation towards asking "now what?"

With an eye towards the dust settling on #elxn41, I have found myself thinking about the notion of complacency and the impact it is having on our politics. This is not a new thought for me, but I think that events during this campaign and in fact in the months preceding it have given it fresh life in my thinking about the challenges we face in Canada.

Simply put, complacency is challenge number one. If we do not (a) understand it and (b) address it, then we are limiting our ability as a country to address all of the other challenges on the national list. And if we fail to re-set our levels of engagement, we will never truly be able to seize the opportunities in front of us.

The first question I ask myself is "why are we the way we are?" From where does our complacency originate? I have a couple of observations.

First, I believe in Canada we suffer from a form of economic complacency. Geography dealt us a strong hand. We have an abundance of natural wealth - historical wealth (lumber, fish, minerals) and future-oriented wealth (energy, potash). Geography has also graced Canada by virtue of our proximity to the U.S.

This good fortune has pre-disposed the country towards having a resource-based economy. It also contributed to the growth of a branch-plant economy which benefitted from the risks taken by others and by their entrepreneurial mind set.

I don't mean to suggest that we have succeeded or prospered by accident or without effort. Quite the contrary - our history has many stories of enterprise and vision.

However, I do think that as a country we have been content to reap the benefits of our geography when we could have done more to invest in them. We've done well, but we could have done so much better. A Canadian parable of the talents, if you will.

Second, I believe we suffer from political complacency. We believe in government, but don't hold it to account. We know what we want, but assume someone else will figure out how to deliver it. Our lack of understanding about how our system of government works has been laid bare in the past 18 months - sadly, at the very time such understanding is genuinely needed.

Why? I think there are a few reasons.

The dominance of majority governments - particularly through most of the 70s, all of the 80s and and 90s and the first half of the 21st century - has given Canadians the "luxury" of not needing to focus on what happens in Ottawa in the periods between elections. Yes, the noteworthy items (free trade, national unity) drew the requisite attention, but stability and predictability meant we did not need to be as engaged. We did not need to understand the system under which we are governed.

We also have an approach to policy in Canada which, while perhaps appropriate, can also be mind-numbing. The American theorist Charles Lindblom called it the "science of muddling through" and what he meant is that policy is typically made incrementally, in small steps. It is endlessly worked and re-worked.

This has been the Canadian model. Slow, reasoned, cautious? Yes. But engaging? No. This approach can work when one has a sense of destination or a vision. Whatever you want to say about the U.S., there is a strong sense of America.

However, in Canada I think we have incrementalism without the vision; without the sense of purpose. We have failed to tie the various policy streams together under a shared sense of what it means to Canada.

So what do we have?

Prosperity driven by geography, political stability, and an incremental approach to policy that lacks vision and common purpose. Taken together, I believe these characteristics have engendered a complacency mind set in Canada. I think they have shaped our levels of engagement, affected our see on the role of government, and limited our sense of the role we can and should play in our democracy.

Today, one week before an election that will one way or the other shape how we view government, what are we going to do about it? Are we prepared to remain complacent? Or are we ready to step forward and become more active participants in our democracy?

The atrophy of complacency or the momentum that flows from engagement? It is our decision.

How's the view (from outside the bubble)?

Having spent a few days outside of Ottawa I've had an opportunity to hear what people are saying - what they think about the election and the various campaigns so far. My take is that this election is a non-event for many.

Why do I say this? First, getting people to share their views on the election has been akin to pulling teeth. "It's not something I have thought about..." has been a familiar refrain.

Second, for those that have thought about it the sense is often one of apathy. For these people, the refrain tends to be "what does it matter what I think, nothing changes." The people in these first two camps have tended to represent the majority of the views I have heard.

For a guy watching politics, this can be depressing stuff. It shows a lack of engagement and interest in an election which could, depending on its outcome, have a major impact on a range of issues which I believe these are people are concerned about or in which they will have a fair degree of interest.

For the parties, this type of view also favours one person: Mr. Harper. A lack of engagement means a lack of interest in change. It means that the criticisms leveled at the government have not resonated.

That's the "above the fold" story. What about "below the fold?" First, the NDP story that is dominating the national political discourse does not appear to be playing out on the ground in London. While there is one NDP incumbent, don't count on any other candidates joining caucus.

Second, Mr. Ignatieff as a person does not appear to resonate with many voters, even when his policies do. I have had Conservative attack lines about Mr. Ignatieff "being in it for himself" recited to me by decided Liberal voters. This is not a positive sign for the Liberals.

Third, there are people who understand the opposition refrain about Mr. Harper and his approach to politics and democracy. However, they appear prepared to look past this and give him the nod due to concerns with the alternative.

So after a few days outside of the bubble of Ottawa, my take is that the majority of people here are not seized by this election or by any of the narratives being presented to them. This bodes well for Mr. Harper, but perhaps not well-enough to deliver him what he covets most - a majority.

London Calling

The notion of life inside the Ottawa-bubble and outside of it has been discussed from time to time during this campaign. What captures the attention of people in Ottawa, or those who tend to follow politics, is often different than what seizes most Canadians.

With that in mind, your intrepid blogger has decided to temporarily pack-up and burst out of the bubble. Good-bye Ottawa and its "corridors of power"; hello London, Ontario and its suburbs, schools, farms and factories.

To borrow from the the Clash (who borrowed from the BBC), "This is London Calling."

There are three ridings in London (West, North-Centre and Fanshawe), and a number of others in the areas of southwestern Ontario that surround the city. Within the city, the three ridings are split evenly among the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP. Outside, it is more or less a sea of blue.

Over the next couple of days, I am going to do my best to learn what matters most to the people here. Do the main points of the Liberal narrative resonate - do people care about the contempt vote and the democracy questions? Are the priorities in the Liberal platform their priorities?

Conversely, is the Conservative narrative getting traction? Is this seen as an unnecessary election? Are people worried about a coalition? Do they feel that the economy would be jeopardized by a change in government and that we therefore need a Conservative majority?

Finally, is the NDP story that has been filling the political airwaves evident here? Do we see momentum behind Jack Layton and if so is it sustainable over the last week of the campaign? As of now we are not seeing it, but remember London was the home of David Peterson and it went NDP in 1990...

Right now, local polling and the sentiment I have picked up seems to suggest that London and the surrounding areas will vote more or less as they did in 2008. Interestingly, the few ridings that are considered too close to call are currently held by the Conservatives and could flip to either the Liberals or the NDP.

Some things to consider:

1. The university and college dynamic. There are lot of students in this area (Western and Fanshawe in London, plus Guelph, Waterloo and Laurier), and we are seeing evidence that the youth vote is more active in 2011. Whether and how this group votes could be very decisive.

2. Local issues. In London, there are issues concerning possible funding for a local aircraft manufacturer (Diamond Jet) which people feel may hinder Ed Holder's re-election as the Conservative candidate. In Simcoe-Grey, we have the Helena Guergis story. How issues like this play out on May 2 may have more impact than views on learning passports, corporate tax cuts and the G20.

3. Turn-out and ground game. I don't have the figures on turn-out in 2008, so I am not certain whether the city and area was above, below or more or less consistent with the national result of 58.8. However, the demographic in the area - London in particular - is interesting. We have a strong mix of seniors and youth, "born and bred" and immigrants, white-collar and blue collar. Which groups are engaged and decide to vote will be decisive, which puts pressure on the local riding associations to know who their voters are and to get them out.

So, with that in mind off I go to talk, listen and get a sense as to what we can expect from a part of Ontario that is conservative by nature, if not always by political affiliation. My sense is that the people of London and southwestern Ontario will throw us few surprises.

We'll see if I am right...

Jack in the (ballot) box?

Many will have woken up this morning to the news that the NDP is on the move up in the polls. One has them leading in Quebec (CROP), another has them tied nationally with the Liberals (EKOS) and all show a positive trending for Mr. Layton's party.

I say Mr. Layton's party for a reason. A huge driver of the move appears to be the popularity and credibility voters see in Mr. Layton. This was something that we started seeing after the debates (particularly the French debate) and which has been slowly building over the past week.

So what should we watch for?

1. Sustainability - will the NDP be able to keep these numbers up for the final 12 days?

2. Ground game. Getting your vote out in places where you expected to do well is one thing. Getting it out in places where you really didn't think you had a chance is another. Is the NDP ready for election day in, for example, Quebec?

3. The Liberal numbers in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If these continue to fall, they have a problem.

Keep an eye on http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ for their usual, excellent analysis. As of this morning, they are not seeing these polling numbers translating into seat changes, but it make take some time. Again, sustainability is critical.

All to say, watch this space to see whether things revert to type or whether voters think of Jack at the ballot box.

Bursting Bubbles and Ground Games

Election day is now 12 days away, and the campaign is heading into the final phase. Between now and May 2nd we will have holidays (Passover and Easter), which will further cut into campaign schedules as candidates become increasingly focused on two things: polls and the clock.

When I look ahead and start consider what we might expect to see over these remaining days, I come down to a few things that I will be looking for.

1. Is the Liberal message getting traction; are they bursting out of the bubble? A huge part of their campaign has focused on the transgressions (real and otherwise) of the Conservatives. For their part, the Conservatives have tried to portray any accusations as process-related, Ottawa-centric non-events. Their gamble has been that they won't resonate in a meaningful way with the average Canadian.

The Liberal "rise up" refrain and the fact that they are persisting with it (and actually looking to take it to more people through a just-announced 30 minute "special" on the weekend), suggests they feel they are getting traction. If they are right, we have something interesting on our hands. If not, their chances move from slim to something less.

2. Building on the point above is the Liberal (and to a lesser extent NDP) message on health care resonating with voters. This is definitely an "outside the bubble" issue, and one that essentially comes down to trust. The Liberals have come out hard and need this to work, particularly among women voters - a key demographic for them.

3. How will we know what's happening with respect to points 1 and 2: the polls and the behaviour of the parties. An important thing to look for over the remaining days is whether the Leaders are staying on message, or whether they appear to be in "spray and pray" mode. If it's the former, it suggests that polling (and in particular their internal polling) is telling them they are getting traction. If it's the latter, they are in damage-control mode.

Also look at where the Leaders are spending their time. If you see Mr. Ignatieff spending a lot of time on the island of Montreal, or in downtown Toronto know that they are playing defence. If, however, you see him in ridings that could be turned to the Liberals it's because they feel they have a real chance. Similarly, if Mr. Harper is with his incumbents he is playing defence. If he's in Liberal ridings, he feels he has a chance.

As for the polls, as mentioned previously pay particular focus to the provincial results. The national average is becoming less meaningful. The real story is what is happening in the provinces - tightening in BC, Ontario and Quebec in particular.

4. Look at how parties are approaching the NDP. This applies to the Conservatives (in BC), the Liberals (in Ontario) and the Bloc (in Quebec..though you probably knew that one!). Messaging in respect of the NDP and Jack Layton will let you know who's worried, where and why.

The last thing I want to mention concerns the ground game. At some point in the very near future, it will cease to be about platforms, spin, talking points, visits, media coverage and twitter. It will become all about the ground game and the ability of a party to get its vote out.

The Conservatives are very strong in this area. A huge part of their messaging - in campaigns and while governing - has been focused on their base, keeping them energized and ready. That's why they are such good fund-raisers and that is an advantage for them on May 2.

Going into the campaign, this was an area of concern for me when I looked at the Liberals. Today, I am not as concerned. Throughout this campaign they have demonstrated a surprisingly strong ability to mobilize their people. They are also showing themselves to be more adept at using social media; something which, combined with their "rise up" message may be more likely to mobilize the youth vote.

So, what am I looking for? Bursting bubbles and solid ground games. What about you?