Nothing to fear but fear itself...

Here's a little secret that all parties know. The politics of fear can be extremely effective. It does not matter whether you are Conservative, NDP or Liberal; whether you are swimming in the federal pool or the provincial one.

Fear is a motivator. It drives engagement. And it mobilizes those most likely to vote.

Fear is what helped keep back the Reform / Canadian Alliance / Conservatives during the Chrétien-Martin years. I recall a Maclean's cover which pictured Stockwell Day and the caption "How Scary?" It was an image that played squarely into the Liberal narrative about what a Day government might look like.

Fear also helped Mr. Martin get his minority in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. The final days of the 2004 campaign saw the Liberals again employ the not-so-subtle tactic of suggesting the worst would come from a Harper government. Call it "How Scary? Chapter 2."

Of course, after 2006 the tables were gradually turned. While both the Liberals and the NDP continued  to sound the alarm about a hidden Conservative agenda (something which arguably helped keep the Conservatives away from majority territory for 5 years), the Harper government began its own attack.

It started with Mr. Dion and the spectre of the carbon tax. However, it took that "coalition crisis" to demonstrate the degree to which the government was prepared to play the fear card. The "threat" of the so-called "Separatist-Socialist" coalition grew from a clarion call in defence of prorogation to the ongoing mantra of the government whenever it faced criticism from the opposition. This carried right through to the election of 2011.

***

While the Liberals had used fear and the defining of the unknown to help frame a narrative, the Conservatives took it further.  Changes to the party financing laws in Canada made the individual donor a critical ally for anyone with hopes of power.

The Conservatives recognized this more quickly than their opponents. Importantly, they also recognized that fear brings in money. It mobilizes your base and rallies them (and their wallets) to act. There are a lot of reasons why the Conservatives are more effective fundraisers, chief of which is the database they have developed and maintained.

However, the ability to use wedge issues - think carbon taxes, gun registries, coalitions - should not be underestimated as a critical skill for generating engagement and filling party coffers.

***

I have written on this blog about the election around the corner and how it stifled policy debate in Canada; how it drove our political discourse away from substance and towards sound bites. The politics of fear has had the same effect.

Today we see the Conservatives employing these tactics against Mr. Mulcair. Over the next year we will see both the NDP and the Conservatives use them against the Liberals and whomever winds up leading them. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Unless...

Right now there seems to be a growing interest in the need to facilitate non-partisan discourse. Martha Hall Findlay's recent piece on supply management is a good example of the importance of taking partisanship away from serious issues. Interestingly, it often seems that former politicians are the most vocal about the need to change the tone and focus of our politics.

Canadians have a small window within which to seize the opportunity afforded them by a Conservative majority. With no election until 2015 or so, there is time to start to define what a less fear-driven politics can look like.

This will take time, and there will most certainly be no immediate pay-off at the polls.  It will take small steps, patience and perseverance. And make no mistake, it will be attacked.

But it is the right thing to do if we want to break the cycle. Right now, to borrow from the phrase, fear is the thing we should be most fearful of.

Leadership and Brand Go Hand in Hand

This week the Liberal Party of Canada announced that its convention for selecting a new, permanent leader would be held in April 2013. In the hours before this decision was made, Bob Rae - the current interim leader and at the time the presumptive favourite for the full-time job - announced that he would not seek the job.

Cue more existential discussion about the former natural governing party of Canada.

Attention has inevitably shifted towards Justin Trudeau - the man some are now saying is the party's last, best chance at picking itself up and re-inventing itself as a player in in Canadian politics.

I read through two articles which came out today on the subject. The first was by Warren Kinsella and the second by Rex Murphy. Both make the argument that Trudeau should run, albeit for different reasons.

Kinsella's argument seems to be based almost exclusively on the notoriety factor; that the name recognition and pedigree of Trudeau are sufficient to make him the party's first and only choice in what is likely to be a less than inspiring field. In short, his view is that Trudeau has the characteristics of a winner.

While Murphy also suggests Trudeau should run, he argues this from a completely different position.  To him, a refusal to run could potentially be the final nail in the coffin in a party that has now failed to convince your McKennas, Manleys and Tobins to seek the crown. A Trudeau refusal would be seen as a confirmation by the party elite that it has no future.

So, we have Kinsella saying the party must pick Trudeau and Murphy saying Trudeau should pick the party.

What's missing is a good discussion about what this party would represent.

The arguments thus far have tended to focus on the need to avoid the pitfalls that previous leader selections - Dion and Ignatieff - created. Without question, leadership is critical. A major element of the leader's job is to be the symbol and spokesperson of the party's brand.

And there's the rub.

For a party to succeed it needs an effective leader (the symbol / spokesperson) and a brand - those characteristics which it embodies. Unfortunately, the current Liberal debate is focused almost exclusively on the former, with limited discussion on the latter.

I believe that over time the sentiment that the Liberals were Canada's natural governing party became something of an albatross around the neck. Gradually it stifled thought and fostered an ever-growing sense of entitlement.

Post-2006, the party seemed to rely on the sense that electoral defeat was akin to time in the penalty box; that after they served their time out of power, they would get back in and that things would return to their rightful place.

What they did not recognize is that while they were in the penalty box the game changed.

Even now, six years removed from power and demoted to the third rung on the political ladder, the party is not doing enough to define itself. A failure to define itself in the old Liberal-Tory political axis is one thing. To do it today with the ascendant NDP is something altogether different. And dangerous.

The Liberals need more than a leader. They need an identity. They need to clearly articulate what they represent as a 21st century progressive political party. This means being definitive about yourself and purposely drawing distinctions between yourself and the other parties.

The further you are from power, the more important it is that you get your decisions on leadership and brand correct. The clock is now ticking for the Liberals.

Shifting right or tuning out?

One of the questions that has been asked with some frequency by politics watchers is whether Canada is growing more conservative. Whether over time, we have moved away from our more traditional centre and towards the right.

While this might be a fair question to ask, I am not sure it is the right one.  The problem with a question like this is that it leads to somewhat narrow answers which offer limited perspective.

The answer many offer is that three election victories for the Conservatives is hard evidence that the country is more aligned with Mr. Harper's policies than those of his opponents.  Proponents of this argument also point to not just three victories, but three increasingly stronger results culminating in the May 2011 majority.

Fair points, yes.  But surely there is more for us to consider as we ponder whether the country is shifting right.

• The progressive alternative has been splintered as the Liberals have fallen and the NDP have grown.  This game is still playing out, and as a result the Conservatives have been able to capitalize.  The combination of a fractured opposition and the first-past-the-post system have worked for Harper in much the same it did for Chretien, particularly in Ontario.

• Building on the point above, Mr. Harper strongly benefitted from not one but two ineffective Liberal leaders.  Yes, the vicious Conservative attack ads contributed to the ineffectiveness of Dion and Ignatieff.  However, that these ads were "complemented" by a Liberal reluctance or inability to define oneself as a credible option should not be overlooked.

• The Conservatives were highly adept at using the financial crisis as a platform for success.  First, they were essentially implored to spend - which they did in spades, thereby being able to legitimately wear the moniker of the government that steered Canada through "the worst crisis since the Great Depression." Second, as the global political winds have shifted and spending made way for austerity the Conservatives have gained a degree of legitimacy for the shrinkage of government they have always favoured.  Imagine being able to look out an ask rhetorically "do you want us to be like the EU?".  

These points are less about whether we are shifting right or left, and more about a lack of defined alternatives combined with a very unique and shifting "crisis environment."  And yet even then, I think there is something more that explains what we have seen over the past several years that goes beyond an ideological shift.

It is not that people have shifted right, it is that people have increasingly tuned out.

Our politics is more partisan.  It is more sound-bite driven.  There is less policy being discussed.  Parliament is by-passed at the earliest convenience and with greater frequency.  And every day that this happens, more and more people tune out and try to get on with their lives.

In the end, I think the better question to ask is not whether we are shifting right, but whether we are paying close enough attention to what is going on around us.  And by "we" I don't mean those of trapped inside of the bubble of Ottawa (or those outside, but fixated on those within it).

To say Canada is shifting is to say that Canadians are engaged.  We are not.

The Perils of Being Painted Into a Corner

If you live in Quebec, over the past several weeks you have been treated to daily reporting of the student protests against the Charest government's plans to eliminate a freeze on tuition. The issue has claimed one Minister and a Chief of Staff to the Premier, with thousands of students taking to the streets to voice their anger.

Students, eh? That crazy lot.

The cost of post-secondary education is an important issue. It is well-understood that a modern economy needs an educated workforce; a work force that is able to compete and succeed in what is a rapidly changing global environment.

However, when I look at the protests and consider the issue I am drawn towards another angle. Tuition rates in Quebec have been significantly lower than in the rest of Canada for several years. There have been no increases of note in over a decade. In fact governments of both stripes have patted themselves on the back for maintaining a freeze and derided those who suggested otherwise.

As a result, the issue has been politicized to such an extent that both the Liberals and the PQ have been painted into a corner. Reasonable debate about the province's ability to maintain a strong post-secondary system take a back seat to ever-escalating rhetoric.

There is a lesson in all of this for the other provinces and the federal government.

I see a parallel between this issue and the issue of tax increases. More and more we see the use of the tax system being pilloried and attacked. The party that proposes any form of tax increase is attacked, and often backs away from their proposals regardless of their initial merit.

Taxes fund public services.  Some of those are very visible, such as health care.  Others less so, but they remain important (defence, food safety, research).  Is there waste in the system?  Without question.   But the fact remains that taxes are a very important tool which governments use to govern and sustain the state.

Unfortunately, Canada seems to be following the path of the United States where the Republican Party has made an art of anti-tax rhetoric and policy.  As I noted here, the U.S. has "effectively taken off of the table one of the major tools available to a government to manage the affairs of the state."

Should Canada mirror the U.S. example and stigmatize taxes to such an extent that no one dare mention them unless the propose a reduction, then we will be depriving ourselves of real and important debate on what we can and cannot afford; about what we are willing to pay for and what we are not.

Quebec politicians have painted themselves into a corner; a corner which the Charest government is desperately trying to get out from - for the right reasons.  The system is simply not sustainable with the freeze in place.  Yet this conversation is getting lost in the noise, and more's the pity.

Across Canada we should take heed and consider the implications of extremes.  We should ask ourselves whether a debate on taxes is being avoided or stifled.  We should be challenging ourselves to think ahead and consider the corner we could paint ourselves into tomorrow if we avoid the difficult conversations today.

Students.  You can learn a lot from them.

Time Out...Back in Time

The passage of time is something that always fascinates us. Time flies. Where did the time go? Time out. Time heals all wounds. It's about time.

In recent weeks we have been treated to some observations about the passage of time...

- the Titanic sank 100 years ago;
- the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are in danger of losing their 40-year grip on power;
- the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is 30 years old;
- the one-year anniversary of the Harper majority is 12 days away; and
- your favourite political blogger has not posted in 53 days.

While certainly not the most important of these milestones, the last one - my break from blogging - is the one I want to take a moment to write about.

In the run-up to my break, the conversations of politics watchers were filled with references to robo-calls and dirty tricks. The general observation - mine included - was that our politics was in a state of perpetual decline, characterized by hyper-partisanship on the Hill and a decided lack of engagement everywhere else.

While I believe that observation to be correct, I nevertheless found it to be gnawing at me and not just influencing what I wrote about, but how I wrote. One thing I have always tried to do with this blog is remain outside of the fray. While I am progressive in mindset, it has always been important for me to retain a level of objectivity in my writing.

I started to find this difficult, so I took a break.

In taking a time out, I wanted to step back and start to look at our politics from more of a distance. Away from the partisanship and the scandals, real and imagined.

More to the point, I wanted to take some time to remind myself why I started writing in the first place.

The purpose has always been to promote a dialogue and foster a greater sense of engagement in our politics. This means looking at the issues that will define Canada. It also means taking a critical eye to all of our political protagonists, regardless of their affiliation.

So where does that leave us, dear reader (yes...I still cling to the illusion that someone reads this blog)? Hopefully right back where we started when this blog began. With the issues and the challenges and opportunities Canada is facing.

Our cast has changed (welcome Mr. Mulcair), but the issues have not (hello austerity, jets, deficits, and provinces...good to see you again). So let's re-start the dialogue by reminding ourselves that engagement is like oxygen to a healthy, well-functioning democracy. It is critical.

And it's time.

Robocalls: Making the Case for Engagement

Much has been written over the past few days about the use of robocalls, particularly during the 2011 federal election. We have all had them. Usually during dinner. Their timing is great...#sarcasm

At the heart of the story are a growing number of allegations that robocalls were targeted at Liberal and NDP voters in swing ridings, informing them that the polling station had changed. These calls have been traced to a company in Edmonton with ties to the Conservative party.

At this time it is not clear who was responsible for these calls, nor whether they were part of a Conservative party-orchestrated plan to mislead or disenfranchise those who would typically vote for other parties (text vetted by crack team of A Guy Watching Politics lawyers). However, should the allegations be proven it would not bode well for the image of the Conservative party.

Now let's be honest with one another. There is no real chance that anything will change on the Hill between now and the next federal election. We will not re-cast our votes, regardless of how any debate or investigation might play out.

Yes, the government could be embarrassed. Potentially people could lose their jobs, and perhaps face criminal charges. But the government will remain the government until as late as 2016.

Sigh.

If you were the government and you had to choose when to have a scandal emerge, this would be the time. Unlike the Auditor General findings which unleashed the sponsorship scandal in the later years of a Liberal mandate, this issue comes at the beginning of a Conservative one. All to say, they have time on their side.

This is where you come in, dear voter.

These allegations are part of a pattern; a pattern of a party which remains in perpetual campaign mode. As much as the election around the corner flowed from successive minority Parliaments, it also flowed from a Conservative government which has never seemed able to resist its more base, partisan instincts.

It is also a pattern characterized by an avoidance of accountability and a rejection of the principles upon which the Conservative party first successfully won power - accountability, transparency, and the elimination of scandal from Ottawa.

This is why we need to remain engaged. These issues are not just about things that happen in Ottawa.

- Misleading voters about the plans of a sitting MP is, in the Speaker's words, reprehensible.
- Labelling opponents of legislation with child pornographers is despicable.
- And supporting (or turning a blind eye) to efforts to disenfranchise those would vote against you is borderline criminal.

The government is not going to change between now and 2016. But we can. We need to be more vigilant and engaged. The voter should not fall victim to the idiom that time heals all wounds; that in four years time no one will remember or care.

We need to challenge ourselves to define what we expect of government, and then explore all efforts to hold government to account. This is what engagement means.

Thank-you robocalls for the reminder.

Follow the Leader?

The question of leadership is in vogue right now. In Canada we have two federal leadership campaigns either underway or imminent, while in the United States we have the current battle for the Republican nomination after which comes the campaign for President.

While there are numerous and obvious differences between these contests in terms of policy and party dynamics, each one is giving visibility to the notion of leadership and the expectations we have of those elected to lead. For some, a leader is simply a manager. Others seek a visionary. For many substance and policy take a backseat to electability and the ability to deliver power.

In truth, a leader needs to be all of these things. They need to articulate a vision and direction, not just for the party of which they are a member but for the broader electorate. They also need to demonstrate an ability to provide effective stewardship. While this can mean different things depending on your political stripe, in the end it comes down to being able to demonstrate competence.

All of this leads us to that third category - the ability to deliver power. Electability is the ultimate litmus test for any leader, but it is often the one most difficult to gauge at the time of a leadership campaign.

***

At its heart, a leadership campaign is made up of two simultaneous conversations. The first is a conversation between the candidates and party members. As such, the starting point of the conversation contains a lot of common ground and shared principles. Everyone is on the same team, so to speak.

However, a parallel conversation is also taking place between the candidates and the broader electorate, particularly those who are not committed to or aligned with one political party.

What's important here is that these voters do not necessarily share the same views as those committed party members, and in some cases might outright oppose them. Nevertheless, increasingly the path to victory depends on these non-aligned, swing voters.

The ongoing campaign for the U.S. Republican nomination provides a good example of the challenges a leadership candidate faces as they look to strike that delicate balance between winning the party faithful, and appealing to the swing voters.

Mitt Romney is the preferred candidate of the Republican hierarchy. Why? Because he is seen as the candidate most likely to attract moderate, centrist voters - the voters who will decide the Presidency. But before he can fight that battle, Romney needs to win over the rank and file of a fractured Republican party and conservative movement.

His challenge is that these members, and in particular those aligned with the tea party and the Christian conservative elements of the party, don't see themselves in him. As much as he may speak to the broader electorate (a debatable point, yes), he does not speak to large swaths of the party he wishes to lead.

All of this puts Mr. Romney in something of a trap. To win over the party he has to take positions and adopt rhetoric which appeals to them. Doing so, however, will hamper his chances with swing voters should be win the chance to take on President Obama.

What he needs to do is articulate a vision for both - something which will be extremely difficult to do in such a fractured political environment.

***

What, dear reader (hello, anyone?), does this have to do with Canada? For me, it serves as a good reminder for those who aspire to lead the NDP or the Liberals (or both...?) of the importance of not losing sight of those two, parallel conversations.

The candidates vying to replace Jack Layton know that winning over NDP members will not guarantee them Official Opposition status after the next election, never mind power. They also need to remember that the positions they take now as they appeal to the rank and file have the potential become future talking points issued by their opponents. The same holds true for the Liberals.

So what is a candidate to do?

- Speak to Canadians.
- Articulate a vision that bridges the gap between the party and the country.
- Define what your government will stand for and present a credible path towards achieving the goals you set out.
- Avoid the trap of simple solutions, such as "cut this" or "tax that."
- Be honest about the challenges we face and the choices we will need to make.
- Engage people by speaking to both their worries and their dreams.
- Be yourself; authenticity is critical.

The candidate that can best measure up against this scorecard stands the best chance of winning the leadership and positioning themselves for a general election. Anyone up for it?

What good is policy if you can't debate it?

Closure is a word that people outside of Ottawa more commonly associate with turning points in their lives. A break-up, coming to terms with the loss of a loved one, or more generally dealing with major events such that we can move forward. For many it is part of a healing process.

Not for the first time, things take on a different meaning in Ottawa. These days, closure is a word used by politics watchers as they consider a Parliament in which debate on key policy issues is limited and then cut off by the government.

It has become the go-to tool of the new majority government and, much like the way the election around the corner killed debate under successive minority governments, the use of closure is depriving us of meaningful discussion at the very time we need it.

Woe Canada.

There are some great policy issues which deserve a spirited dialogue, regardless of the side of the fence on which you sit. The crime bill, gun registry, the wheat board, pension reform - debates which have come and gone, and which were cut short.

What will happen with the 2012 Budget? With proposals on reform to Old Age Security? How thoroughly will our Parliamentarians debate new trade agreements, or changes to immigration policy?

We all deserve an opportunity to hear about the perceived merits and limitations of the policy initiatives brought forward by the government. This is why we have a Parliament.

Circumventing that in the name of expediency is wrong. Arguing that in electing a majority government, Canadians gave tacit approval to an agenda that was not discussed during a campaign is simply false. And replacing evidence-based policy with initiatives driven by conviction is, to be frank, scary.

***

Canada, like so many countries, is at something of a cross-roads. The world is changing around us. Whether we are talking about the environment or demographics, the economy or security, we are faced with difficult and potentially defining choices.

Faced with these choices, we need to remind ourselves that the biggest challenges and greatest opportunities deserve the broadest possible debate.

Considering Consultations

In the coming weeks, the Harper government will table Budget 2012 - a budget which is expected to lay out those areas where the government will look to reduce spending in order to eventually eliminate the deficit. For politics watchers in Canada, this budget could be a big deal.

Ongoing discussions in the U.S. and the EU regarding austerity and the affordability of public services have once again put the topic of deficits near the top of the political agenda. That, coupled with the sense that a long-term objective of the Harper government is to re-shape the role (and size) of the federal government, is resulting in growing speculation about what we can expect.

With so much speculation out there, it is worth taking a moment to consider how budgets are "built", and in particular the role of consultations.

Governments, regardless of their stripe, do not build budgets in a vacuum. They consult - internally across departments, and externally through discussions with leading economists and key stakeholder groups. One element of this dialogue are the on-line pre-budget consultations initiated by the Department of Finance, found here.

A parallel set of consultations are conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance; consultations which draw heavily on input from an extremely diverse range of stakeholders. You can view the briefs submitted over 2011 here, and the final report here.

These consultations can be interesting for two reasons. First, for the wide range of views that are expressed. Stakeholders representing a range of interests provide their views on how government should tax, spend, regulate and more generally provide stewardship over the economy.

Second, because majority governments have often used the Committee report as something of a trial balloon, floating ideas in order to gauge reaction. In some cases, a report may be more radical, thereby allowing the government to position itself as the reasonable compromise.

I have no issue with any of this, and in fact feel that the process does allow one to get greater perspective of the multiple views that exist in relation to the challenges and opportunities we face. However, I do think the process could be improved in one major way.

Right now, we have a one-way street. Government (through the Finance department) or Parliament (through the Committee) asks for views, and stakeholders oblige. However, at no point in the process does the government table any meaningful information about what it is considering.

Imagine a process whereby the government tabled a white paper, or series of broad options or policy objectives under consideration. In other words, showed us what at a high-level they were thinking and solicited our reaction and input to that thought process.

That would be a true consultation. And it would be a consultation which would promote more of a dialogue about the choices we are facing, and the difficult job a government has in balancing between competing interests.

Perhaps most importantly, it would provide a degree of transparency which would open up the policy process and hopefully lead to greater engagement by a broader cross-section of the voting public.

Thoughts?

Choices

Over the coming weeks that old beast we call policy will rear its ugly head, as politics watchers prepare for and then comment on the 2012 federal budget. In this budget the government will present the fiscal health of the country and then lay out its plan for tackling the deficit.

A reduction in public spending will be the main focus of the government's plan. The expected scaling down of some government activity was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister this weekend in a letter to his caucus, in which he wrote that Canada's future prosperity will require "tough choices."

The use of the word "choices" interests me. More to the point, it is Mr. Harper's additional comment that the choices to which he was referring would need to be made "together with the Canadian people" which has caught my attention.

To start, the fact that choices need to be made is entirely correct and in keeping with what we should expect of government. Governing is about making choices, and given what is happening in Canada and around the world it is clear that there are a number of policy areas which warrant discussion and decision-making.

My question is where is the discussion?

Some time in the coming weeks you and I will get to see the government's decision. We will get to see what they intend to do (and will safely pass with their majority). What we won't have is a real opportunity to actually consider the choices. And there is no evidence to suggest that any meaningful changes to the budget presented would be accepted by the government.

What we get is, for all intents and purposes, a done deal. There is no choice on offer that can reasonably be described as being one that will be made "together with the Canadian people." Equally frustrating, there is no sense as what options the government has considered as it built this forthcoming budget.

In the absence of any meaningful transparency, I found myself reading two articles today. The first is on health care and the need for the government to think more broadly about how we fund the system and the role of the federal government.

The second is about austerity, arguing that governments have made austerity the defining issue of the day without having a good debate about the other options we face.

Two articles, both thoughtful reads and illustrative of the type of dialogue we should be having as we debate policy. Unfortunately, we are about to debate decisions that have been taken - something which is tantamount to being able to say your peace, even when you know it won't change things. We deserve and should aspire for better.