Over the Line

Posted by ealboim under All

Elly Alboim

In a panel discussion on CBC Radio’s the Current this morning, Senator Pamela Wallin suggested that “Liberal” Speaker of the House Peter Milliken had issued his famous ruling to help build his legacy as Speaker. By labeling him with his party, she clearly implied that he had had partisan motives as well.

For an appointed Senator whose very existence depends on the legitimacy of Parliament and its institutions to question the integrity of a Speaker of the House is remarkable. Presumably if a member of the House did so, there would be consequences.

There is a partisan fury that seizes all parties at this time and particularly those tasked with doing media panels (although as an aside, it is never clear that the cacophony of those panels attracts a single voter). But presumably common sense says there has to be a limit beyond which even partisan rhetoric should not go. Doing damage to the office of the Speaker seems well beyond those limits.

The Conservatives use Ms. Wallin in these situations because of her background and high profile. That is understandable. But precisely because of her credibility and profile, she probably has special responsibilities beyond those of most of her colleagues. Undermining an institution that is central to the functioning of Parliament is not among them. Or at least should not be.

Elly Alboim is an associate professor of journalism and a former CBC TV Parliamentary Bureau Chief

Budget credibility

Posted by cwaddell under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links

Christopher Waddell

While everyone remembers that the Chretien government balanced the federal budget and produced a surplus in the mid-1990s, there’s another aspect of what Paul Martin did as Finance minister that gets much less attention. He also returned credibility to the federal budget process.

Fixed budget dates in early February, a $3-billion annual contingency fund that could be used only for unexpected debt servicing costs or would go to debt reduction at year-end and even under-promising and over-delivering (until that tactic became too obvious) all played a part in restoring the credibility of the federal Finance department, the minister and the budget-making process.

It was needed following a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney that regularly promised the deficit would be eliminated two or three years into the future, yet annually delivered $30-billion shortfalls and could rarely say no to spending on unexpected and unbudgeted political demands.

Read more…

How to spend billions in the twinkling of an eye

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links

Elly Alboim

Staggering is the only word for the windfall Canada’s provinces received this morning. It totals in the billions of dollars. It also says volumes about the way politics are conducted in Canada.

Under a ten year deal signed by Paul Martin, Ottawa’s health transfers to the provinces have been growing by 6% annually –it’s called the 6% escalator for obvious reasons. The deal is due to end in 2014 and everyone had been anticipating a set of very difficult federal-provincial negotiations. Well apparently, thanks to the federal election campaign, those talks have ended before they started.

This morning, Michael Ignatieff issued a open letter on health policy and committed the Liberals to continuing the 6% escalator. He did that just five days after issuing his platform which did not have this commitment in it. In fact, it said among other things that “while provinces and territories are struggling with escalating costs, it’s far from clear that more money is the only solution.”

Read more…

The “news” of election campaigns

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Elly Alboim

In 1989, some of the best and the brightest of Canada’s political establishment – politicians, political operatives, pollsters, journalists and academics – gathered at Queen’s University to talk about the election that had just ended.

For two days, in front of television cameras, they discussed what had gone wrong in the experience they had just shared . This was after what has since become idealized as the best and most substantive election campaign in recent Canadian history – the free trade election. Further, it was the first election after the introduction of the GST – the largest change in Canadian tax policy in decades – and conducted in the middle of the disintegrating Meech Lake ratification process.

It is hard to imagine a more complex and important campaign policy agenda. And still, there was a collective feeling of a 56 day (yes, campaigns were eight weeks long then) failure to conduct and report on the campaign and its choices in a way that properly served the public interest.
At the heart of the discussion and the multiple sense of grievance, was a set of dilemmas and questions that persist, and once again was dominant in week two of the current election campaign.

Read more…

Launching Week Two

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Elly Alboim

The Liberal platform launch was unusual. It was part game show and part infomercial, putting Mr. Ignatieff at centre stage directing traffic, taking questions and delivering substance in bits and pieces. It was somewhat surprising because normally a platform launch is the occasion for something more sober and austere that emphasizes the agenda for government as its centerpiece.

But the current Liberal task is more complex than that.

Mr. Ignatieff’s constellation of leadership attributes has been weak and he must be seen to be an alternative prime minister before the Liberal party can be taken seriously as an alternative government. Today’s launch seemed to be driven by that underlying thesis. It was another – and much more important venue – to showcase his performance skills. As journalists have been reporting, he was very fluid, and comfortable. He handled questions apparently without specific preparation and did so off the cuff. More importantly, he structured his answers to questions very well using value propositions, anecdotes and accessible language. His summary attacking Mr. Harper’s governing style and its implications for “democracy” was a harbinger of the character debate that will underpin the Liberal narrative for the next four weeks.

Read more…

Iggy’s – so far – excellent adventure

Posted by padams under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Media commentary, Media Commentary, Political Strategy

Paul Adams

During the last week of the 2008 election campaign, a news photographer caught a humorous scene. Stéphane Dion, whose campaign was foundering, was sitting on a television news set. Behind him was a weather graphic: five days of unremitting dark clouds and pouring rain ahead.

Dion was a complete innocent in this embarrassing photo of course: a hapless victim of a clever photographer. Even Robert Stanfield actually had to fumble the football before his cringing-inducing moment was plastered on the front page of the Globe and Mail. What the photographers had done in both cases, though, was to find a symbolic pictorial representation of a broader media perception about the success of the candidates and their campaigns.

This morning I arrived a little late to see Michael Ignatieff make an announcement on his day care policy at a pre-school in Winnipeg South (the constituency I grew up in, as it happens). I had not seen Ignatieff at a political event in person for about a year, and what surprised me was his obvious comfort and self-confidence. He seemed like he was enjoying himself, which has not always been a given for Ignatieff in his time as leader.

Read more…

Emerging Narratives

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Day six of the campaign and media narratives, many of them predictable, are emerging.

Journalism loves narrative, especially at election time. One of the great classical story lines is “the surge of the underdog.” The other is the ”comeuppance of the prideful”. Both are equally attractive as dramatic narrative. For Michael Ignatieff at the start of the campaign either was possible as a framing narrative.

On another level, political journalists love a contest – it adds dramatic tension and makes you feel that getting up in the morning in yet another city is worth doing. Every election campaign begins with the journalistic hope for a meaningful contest.

There are signs that we are seeing both story lines emerging. Although it is all impressionistic – as these things are – there is a sense that coverage of Michael Ignatieff is clustering around the “underdog beginning to surprise” and in doing so, turning what seemed a probable rout into a possible contest. It is early days and there will need to be more evidence to sustain the story line over time if it is to be viable. But today’s poll showing for the first time that the Liberal number starts with a 3 will be seized upon. If there are others showing that, or a narrowing of the gap, the media dynamic will change substantially and accelerate.

Read more…

Spinning Compass: you’re not just nuts, you’re Liberal!

Posted by padams under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Media commentary, Media Commentary

Paul Adams

The CBC’s Vote Compass feature, which claims to help you figure out which of the five political parties most closely aligns with your views and values, has been a phenomenal box office success. Almost 700,000 people have already used the interactive feature on the CBC’s website as I write, and the number is growing by more than 100,000 a day. While the growth may settle down as we move into mid-campaign, you’d expect another surge as voters get closer to having to make their final decision on May 2.

Like anything popular — Justin Bieber round my house for example — it has critics as well as enthusiasts. Today the Ottawa Sun ran a story headlined CBC Vote Tool Flawed: Prof, quoting a Queen’s political scientist, Kathy Brock, as saying she used several strategies —  giving the same answer to every question (e.g., “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree”) — and always came out Liberal. Similarly, someone (obviously a Tory) has posted a video purporting to illustrate that the Vote Compass is “totally rigged” towards the Liberals.

The Sun quotes a researcher who worked on the project as saying that since the questions are deliberately split between the left and the right of the spectrum, if you give the same answer to everything you end up in the middle. In other words, if you strongly agree that Canada should get out of Afghanistan immediately and that military spending should be increased, that the problems with oil sands are exaggerated and that there should be a carbon tax, you are not only nuts, you’re a Liberal!

Read more…

Here we go again

Posted by ealboim under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Elly Alboim

The decision by the networks to exclude Elizabeth May from the Leaders’ Debates goes to the heart of the media’s sense of hubris in election campaigns.

Elections always feature a continuing struggle between media and political parties for control of the agenda. Media take on for themselves the role of arbiter of the truth and organizer of the hierarchy of importance of issues. In doing so, they work under two often contradictory values – loudly proclaiming the importance of accessibility and transparency and insisting on what they call news value in determining what they cover. Implicit in their narrow definition of news value is that the issue be interesting and/or entertaining to their audience, a judgment they insist is their excusive purview to exercise.

In the debates (and I’ve been party to those discussion many times), media organizers and producers worry first and foremost about the “watchability” of the debates and how to make it “good TV.” Although they cloak the discussion in high-minded discourse of making it accessible and interesting to viewers to foster increased democratic participation, it really is about applying game show and sports entertainment values to the process. They prize direct confrontation and angry conflict. Boring and incremental discussion doesn’t cut it – hence the rules on thirty second answers and the reportorial focus on “knock-out punches” and winners and losers in the coverage of the debates themselves. It isn’t really clear why that is important to them – after all there are no commercials to sell and no inter-network competitive urges to satisfy. But they can’t seem to stop themselves from being driven by production values because that is what they do every other day of their professional lives.

Read more…

Debating the debates – round two

Posted by cwaddell under All, Election 2011, Election 2011 Campaign strategy, Election 2011 Faculty links, Election 2011 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

So we are back where we were in 2008 – should Elizabeth May be in the leader’s debates or not?

Of course she should, as her party receives an annual subsidy based on votes and in 2008 collected 937,613 votes – 6.8 per cent of the total votes cast.

The broadcasters’ rationale that only parties with seats in the House should be in the debate is a circular argument – almost no coverage of smaller parties even during campaigns and then keeping them out of debates so they don’t get the visibility that might help them get enough votes to elect an MP – designed to make it almost impossible for any new national party without a strong regional base to get in.  (Where is the Competition Bureau when you need it!) In fact it is an approach designed to encourage the further regionalization of the Canadian political system.

In 2010 as media coverage of elections fractions in a million directions between the mainstream media and everyone else on the Internet, leaders’ debates are too important as the one common media experience open to all voters to assess the alternatives, to remain the personal fiefdoms of the political parties and their broadcast colleagues.

Here are my conclusions from round one of the debate about the debates in the media chapter in The Canadian Federal Election of 2008 – the book Carleton produces after every election.

Read more…