is a failure to communicate.
The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.
The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.
Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.
The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.
Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.
Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.
The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?
I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.
That is bad strategy.
As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.
Bad strategy.
With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.
And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.
That's bad strategy.
If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.
We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.
You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.
canadianna
15 comments:
I totally agree, the excellent communications they had going last year is no where to be seen this year. It is better to take the heat for one day for a mistake or a omission then to endure it for three weeks. If some stalwart CPC official is reading these blogs and I am sure the scan them. Pass this one on to PMSH.
Okay but all the people do not vote for them. The base works for free, gives them money and votes for them. Let's start with the base thank you.
(real conservative)
It is the same approach as last year, only this year, they are pushing it even further and don't have an absolute pass from the press on it.
The aggressive politicization of committees is actually new - at least in the past gov't unfriendly witnesses were allowed to testify, and did so with great frequency. Remember the public accounts committee with the continual parade of people with axes to grind?
You shouldn't scold them for not being more Goebbels-like in their communications, but rather for their apparent disdain for anything approaching a contrary view. You may be surprised to find that solutions for problems are often found in a synthesis of different approaches.
Problem is, that is not something rigid ideologues accept easily.
Have just listened to Don Newman on CBC and the whole of the the so-called political pundits section - aka Liberal hacks - was about Don Martin's "leak".
I guess my first question is, why is this news ? I already know that all political parties have guide books regarding election politics, so why would they not have information about how committees should operate, particularly in a minority government. To take one item: when someone is called as a witness, the MP from his riding should show up to "show interest". Well, duh, and duh again. This is hardly rocket science. Also having seen some of the pages flipping across the screen on CBC, they look to me much more like part of a slide presentation - landscape as opposed to portrait, large print, bullet points - than an actual how-to manual.
On the Shane Doan, thing, I agree with you that they were completely outfoxed, and should have have stood up to the opposition.
On the Afghan prisoners, this was an accusation without merit or substantiation, and since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, score another one for the Liberals. Let it die and bury it.
On the Court Challenges thing, this is a program that was originally set up to protect minority language rights, and was hijacked by all kinds of special interest groups, especially gays and feminists, Re-write the legislation with a much narrower focus.
I'm not sure the CPC is actually losing ground, polls notwithstanding, because I think most people are not paying attention. The media however are, and they ar pushing some of these issues as hard as they can. As Susan Delacourt noted this afternoon, "WE are taking note of these things and we will remember them !!!"
The conservatives have always had a commuications problem, and they really need to do something to counteract some of the articles floating around in the guise of opinion these days.
Well, I guess Don Martin can't be trusted.
Why all the moles lately though?
I totally disagree with the post. The Conservatives have never had good communications. That is likely their largest obstacle: too many in the media who want to fry them for piddly junk like this. I looked for years while Chretien was PM, but there were rarely any stories about him. It was like a perpetual summer. There were so few stories, that I always wondered what he was up to. I found out that very little was accomplished during his reign. Contrast that with the amount of news about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. There is a tonne every week. We are inundated with it.
"If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies." That's the problem. The issue does not die. It goes on for weeks even if they own up to it. The media just keep dragging more liberal, bloc or ndp MPs or supporters to reiterate the same points as though it is "news."
On the Afghan detainees, the government said they would look into the allegations. They said that for over a week, but it still stayed in the news. A monotonous bombardment of "news" stories that only show one side until finally someone figured out who set up the agreement in the first place. A new deal was struck and the issue then finally faded. The Conservatives fixed the problem.
I am surprised to read people suggesting that these tactics have never been written down before. They have been used for decades. They have probably been used for millennia! All seasoned politicians know how to work the system. Good on the Conservatives for trying to educate their people, so they can become seasoned politicians themselves much more quickly. It will help them in the future when trying to get legislation passed that their voters want.
Perhaps it is bad strategy, but the alternative is worse.
The Conservatives started out strong, focusing on their five priorities. I think they were expecting to be fighting an election by now; which I'm sure they spent a lot of time getting ready for. It now seems as if they don't quite know what to do with themselves. They lack focus.
real conservative -- if you play only to the base, you never expand the base. While it's important to dance with the ones that brung you, it's also essential not to alienate everyone else.
anonymous -- The disdain you see is less contempt for the views of others, and more a reaction to the contempt aimed at conservatives in general.
Yes, 'synthesis of different approaches' (consensus) is the best avenue, but consenus requires some willingness to yield on the other side as well and too often the Opposition will push ridiculous or dangerous points (Kyoto implementation and Afghan allegations) without regard to the consequences, simply in an attempt to damage the government. Sometimes there is more than just the government at stake.
anonymous 2 -- this is news because some undisciplined Conservative committee member chose to make it news.
I totally agree with your idea on the Court Challenges program. It's much better than what I thought of.
john m reynolds -- Chretien had majorities. It's a totally different game and the Conservatives need to learn to play it.
With the Afghan detainees -- the Conservatives said they'd heard nothing. They denied. If they'd even admitted to having heard allegations and then set forth some measures to investigate, it never would have got this far. They didn't say they'd look into it; they said there was nothing to look into.
I'm not suggesting these sorts of tactical guides have never been written or used. Let's be clear -- I'm suggesting that they have made somebody frustrated enough to pass this on to the media.
You'd have thought they'd have learned their lesson with Garth. I don't like the man, but when someone is complaining, they'd better listen inside caucus or they'll be hearing it outside.
Alright Canadi-anna. Now you are almost getting somewhere. Do you have any proof of your suggestion for the motive behind the leak? This is the real story. Not that it existed, nor that it was used, but why, how, and by whom it was leaked.
John m reynolds -- I'm basing my assumption on Don Martin's report. While he has an axe to grind with Harper, he has no reason to fabricate the way the report fell into his hands. Martin says it was a Conservative committee member.
Why would a person hand this to Don Martin of all people, unless there was a burr under the saddle?
Speculation, yes. But happy people don't do this kind of thing.
The main problem facing the federal Conservatives at this time is largely this...
Almost everybody in Ottawa who is in politics, or follows politics closely, thought that we'd be in the midst of a Spring election right now. In fact, aside from Bob Fife, Gilles Duceppe, and the Prime Minister himself, I can't recall hearing anybody in the media, or an elected MP, indicate that there wouldn't/probably wouldn't be a Spring election.
So... after one fairly big political story after another (the buget which is an annual major political event - made larger this year by Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams' incredibly harsh response to it... the Quebec provincial election, and the stunning success of the ADQ... Belinda Stronach leaving politics... the unprecedented Red-Green Alliance between Dion and May), the media was really hoping for a Spring election and big ratings.
Very few people - even very few Conservative MPs or supporters, it seems to me - thought that Stephen Harper was actually telling the truth when he said that he didn't want an election. It turns out that he was being completely honest all along (as I had argued over at Dark Blue Tory's blog), and all the election hoopla was for naught.
This had two effects...
1) It left the MPs in a temperament of election frenzy but with out a campaign to fight - this, combined with a minority government situation, has lead to an increasingly combative and hostile situation in the House of Commons which is naturally counter-productive to getting things down, and to fighting/scavenging over every morsel of public credibility - admitting a mistake is tantamount to political suicide in the frenzied minds of many MPs in Ottawa: Conservative, Liberal, and NDP alike. People were geared up for an election, but now don't have a campaign to use their built-up political energies on - so they're simply sniping at each other over the internet, and/or in the House of Commons.
2)The media was ticked at Harper, to put it mildly. He didn't stay true to their desired 'script', and that meant that many of them look like fools for predicting a Spring election, and it also deprived them of a ratings bonanza. Never believe the media when they say that they don't want an election - they love elections; it's what gets them greater relevancy to the public at large, and better ratings.
The Prime Minister thought that everyone would simply take him at his word when he said "I don't want an election"... that's the problem.
Now that the media is ticked at Stephen Harper, and there's probably some discontent in the Conservative ranks for not calling an election back when the Tories were polling at 40% or higher, you have people leaking information to get back at the Prime Minister, and the media gladly reporting on every tiny little 'scandal' for just that reason.
The Doan inquiry, from the Tories perspective, was simply a matter of not losing Quebe support, and perhaps getting something other than Afghanistan or the environment on the front page of the newspaper/leading a Mike Duffy Live segment.
The Afghanistan prisoner situation is a complex issue where the Tories simply don't have any good options - they have four different opiniosn (more, or less), and none are all that good (as I outlined on Dark Blue Tory's blog probably about a month or two ago).
The Liberals and NDP are naturally making hay out of a situation that they know full-well the Tories have no good options on (Dion's suggestion would actually be the most disastrous course of action of them all).
Anyway, we'll soon be breaking for Summer, and hopefully things will settle down a bit come the Fall. I have to agree with Craig Oliver on one thing though - I think that Stephen Harper may regret his decision to stay true to his word and not bring about a Spring election.
So, yeah, Candianna, you're right - it's a failure to communicate. Stephen Harper failed to really hammer home the fact that there wouldn't be a Spring election - althought, what more he could have done to get that point across, I don't know.
Two mistakes I want to correct from my last post...
"Getting things down" should read "Getting things done", and "four different opiniosn" should read "four different options".
Ryan R, the media have been gladly reporting on every tiny little 'scandal' since before the Jan 2006 election.
They could be upset at the opposition instead for not bringing down the government. It would be easy for the opposition to do since combined, they have around 60% pf the MPs.
ryan r commented on Stephen Harper's failure at communications.
This article by columnist Stephen Maher in today's Halifax Chronicle Herald explains this very well.
http://halifaxherald.com/Opinion/836406.html
PMSH just has to stand up and talk to us. He does that a lot and he does it effectively. I hope he does it more. Explains the issues, gives background, talks right at us...He is the conservative's Ace.
Post a Comment