Communications suggestions for the NDP and its new leader

The following are the ideas I have so far in terms of a focus for communications.

I don't want the NDP to try to use the argument that was used against the NDP that the Liberals were the only bet and not to waste a vote on the others. There are good reasons not to use this argument:

1) it is hypocritical since the NDP has always fought this argument-- it makes the NDP look bad for using it;

2) the NDP is not guaranteed to always be above the Liberals and if we use this argument we will have a hard time if sometime in the future the roles are reversed once more;

3) there are substantially better arguments to make about the relevance of the Liberals-- that their track record in government gives no cause to trust them; that while they are not as ideologically extreme as the Conservatives, they are very much a party of corporate Canada not the people in spite of rhetoric that says the opposite; that they are not offering anything interesting or new and that their leadership is poor;

4) The Liberals used this argument because they could not engage us on specific policy-- we don't need such an anti-democratic argument. We need to make the point that when you look at all the options we are the best and not try to argue that anything else should not be considered;

5) By welcoming others to the debate we also welcome the supporters of others to change their minds and support us for good reasons not coercive ones.

Let's also abandon the Liberal Tory same old story argument as well because:

1) we are claiming Harper is an extreme government the likes of which Canada has never seen before at the federal level;

2) we are claiming that the Cons are not the PCs of old that looked like the Liberals but that they have not only a radical policy agenda but are also assaulting our institutions and democratic structures like never before;

3) to say the Liberals and the Tories are the same suggests that we are the ones that are unusual-- we are trying to say it is the Harper conservatives that are outliers;

4) the differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives do exist and they don't change the fact that they are both providing the wrong answer --I'd prefer the NDP admit it can see what everyone else can see because only then can people buy the next argument that we can see the differences and they are still both wrong-- If we can't tell them apart, how can we judge them?

5) The NDP can point to weaknesses in both and has much better pointed arguments against each of them individually rather than general, rather tired, generic arguments designed to fit them both;

6) The NDP understands degrees-- so while the Liberals and Conservatives are both favoring a corporatist agenda, the degrees to which they favour it are significant and worth discussing-- and to pretend that one is not worse than the other denies those differences;

7) At moments the Liberals have been every bit as bad as the Conservatives on individual policies, however, the number of time the Conservatives are worse remains clear-- to say the Liberals at times can do as bad as the Conservatives is not removed by the argument that the Conservatives are over time consistently worse;

8) Allowing this difference does not give a reason to vote Liberal any more than to think a person should accept being kneed in the crotch just because someone else would cut their legs off. It is up to the NDP to put serious advantages to the NDP option rather than sloganeering.

I hope the NDP will actively and consistently refrain from messages that:

1) make only the cheap points that embarrass rather than make the case that the government is not acting in the interest of the people

2) over-emphasize things that don't matter much over things that do both in criticisms and proposals

The party must put a clear and very, very, very obvious emphasis on the policies that will affect people in all communications. In other words before there is any major point being made, the party should make sure that this test is applied. So if this is not important do not over emphasize it. One way to do that is to sort who speaks on certain issues. The leader, the finance critic and the deputy leader should avoid speaking about issues that do not have a direct significant impact on the lives of Canadians or important principles of justice. Those leading lights should completely avoid any scandals that do not speak to these issues. Other MPs can score a hit once in a while if that is important but do not use the leader for that kind of communication. This way the leadership of the party will be associated not with old politics but with talking about things that matter. The party should accept that things that are merely embarrassing can and will come out by the media, other parties and other people-- or they simply are not that important. By clarifying the need to have the airspace of the leadership spent on things that matter the party will have to make sure its responsibility to be speaking all the time is answered. If this means the party spends more time developing and advancing issues that matter rather than investigating potential embarrassments for the governemnt that people do not care about, then that will be an improvement.

The party should lay out its themes for the next election now. I don't mean slogans and I don't mean specific policies. I mean the topics we will be speaking about. If we have cleared the way for these, including provided enough education and engagement and public participation (listening as well as talking) we will then be able to fight the next election on the topics Canadians already understand as the most important.

Finally, we should not let the other side define the topics we want to discuss. One way to do this is to separate at least two communications people into proactive and reactive. One would have the job of making sure we are out there responding to what needs to be responded to. Another will know that this is being taken care of and this person will have the job of charting public discussion in our direction. The director of communications would have both of these people reporting to them and will look for ways to re-link these messages. This is one way of ensuring that you always have initiatives and are not just reactive while you are always listening and involved in the national discussion even if it is not where you want it to be. The director will want to make sure that each is measured in terms of their specific objectives. There are other specialty jobs that must be considered as well. It is worthwhile having a person be the internal communications critic. You make that person report to the director on all areas that can be improved. This is the person who is told to avoid drinking any Kool-aid- the person to tell us what we want to hear even while everyone else is being optimistic. That person has the job of finding every possible way we can improve our communication and that person is also in charge of auditing all communications efforts-- did we reach enough people? How were we received? Are we engaging new people and bringing new converts to our movement? What is the cost of any controversial policies and when we take a stand some won't like is there some way to offer something else to those upset by a policy we feel is essential?

Each of these people should do monthly reports at minimum.

When we are speaking about the personality of Mulcair and his ability to be aggressive it is essentially that this be managed and directed. Canadians will appreciate an aggressive attack on those things that matter most but will have no tolerance for attacks that are not on important things. This is the key distinction the NDP leader needs to make. Never come out angry or negative unless this is something that Canadians will want or understand you to be angry and aggressive about. Otherwise be the nice guy. Those who are pretending Layton was always nice need to take off the tinted glasses. Layton's talent-- perfected after a long period of effort --  was to do exactly this-- come out aggressively on what matters and otherwise be very kind and pleasant, open minded and positive. When Layton went negative people did not see it as such because he was fighting for them.  Mulcair if he directs his anger and uses it wisely can do the same thing. Those comms specialists I referred to above can count the number of angry presentations and ration them. Do it a limited number of times and don't use them up without purpose and public support. When it comes to moving people politically, convincing them, not threatening or criticizing them is the way to go. Aggression consolidates and shows where your priorities are but it does not move people politically or ideologically. So conciliation and aggression must be used carefully. Obviously given Mulcair's reputation he has to be careful how he responds for quite a while. He will need to make himself a public rule to not go after people personally and keep it to policy and even then stay positive. He must very clearly reverse that part of his reputation. I think he can do this with some effort and self-control. He needs to avoid being baited.

The party should also make sure that all communications technologies are employed to the greatest positive effect.

Mulcair needs to learn how to deliver a strong speech -- being tired is not an excuse-- leaders are often tired. This is a specific skill and he can acquire it. This is in fact easier to acquire than the ability to think and respond on your feet which he already has (albeit requiring an ability to self edit in flight). Mulcair should put effort into this side of things recognizing the cultural differences-- what works in Quebec is no the same as what works elsewhere when it comes to style.

This is all part of the modernization that I hope Mulcair was referring to in the party communications.

Discussing these things here amongst ourselves is a nice exercise, but is anyone from NDP HQ - or whatever they call themselves - actually interested in anything we have to say?

I have had one person from HQ contact me personally to say yes indeed they read what I write here and that person has discussed some things I wrote off-line and has stayed in touch for over a year now. It is one reason I come here and write. I took it as a huge compliment actually as I put a lot of effort in to some of the ideas I present here. I have no doubt that similar contacts are made between them and many others here who also put a lot of effort in to coming up with ideas. As well I would imagine there are those  from HQ who read what is here and make no additional contacts.

Of course I cannot know who is listening to any individual statement, or even the identities of many who are participating openly. I suspect HQ people are here lurking or posting because this is a good place to get a cross section of what people are saying-- not only people supporting the party but those who could possibly but are not now.

I think the NDP Comms could consider posting here openly discussing official positions, explaining themselves and telling people they are listening. For whatever reason they have not so far, but I am at least aware that there are some who read these threads. It would be interesting if such people from other parties did as well-- such as the Greens and smaller parties. This place is a digital Agora for political discussion where people both within and outside of parties like the NDP can exchange ideas.

Really thoughtful post. It's a fun exercise to think about this stuff. It's a major hobby for a lot of us, and I'd venture to say some people here are smart enough that they could (and should) get directly involved.

I hope someone IS reading.

I think it IS an important insight about the Liberals. We've often said they've given us the same problems as the Conservatives. I know that to be true: while Mike Harris was cutting up the social safety net at the provincial level, Chretien was doing the same thing at the federal level. HOWEVER... we want to be careful not to insult Liberal voters and supporters.

It's a tough balance. We also don't want to let the Liberal party seem all that reasonable and appealing.

I agree with Sean that there is evdience there are people 'in the centre' reading on a regular basis. But I'm pretty sure none will ever participate here.

Brian Topp has been an exception that proves the rule. For one thing, although very 'in there', he has never been staff. To Brian's credit, almost no one else that in there would participate in an incontrolled forum [which he has also done before and at the same time as Babble]. But there is an important fraction of difference to not being staff.

And even Brian- he would mostly listen, and ask questions to hear more. Throw in the odd clarification when he thought people were off on the wrong track [more or less factually], or clarify some misunderstaning he had created in his columns [not 'clarify' for the party]. He didnt discuss strategy of any kind here. And in practice, I dont think there is any such thing as 'only general discussions'.

In summary: we get the benefit of discussing things here. That is something more than we are able to come up with elsewhere. Then there are decision makers that read that, and they do not have to directly engage to benefit from a discussion process. For one thing, they can take ideas from here and have their own discussions. All of this is going to tend to move along together.

Even beside security and confidentiality issues of staff participating openly and directly here- it would not necessarily be beneficial to the discussion. There would be some benefits. But to some degree, their participation would change the 'pitch' in directions that would not be productive.

The most straightforward point: dont shoot the messenger. Ivison is just saying something that we are going to be facing. He even says it a lot nicer.

One of the problems here is "just" language. Mulcair and the party are going to have to eat having used the term "tar sands". Too late to change that now. Its done. Ironic with Mulcair talking incessantly in the campaign that 'modernizing' referrs to the language we use more than policy. But even I am willing to accept that is Mulcair speaking in the frame of mind of Leader... which is different than being the unrestrained pit bull he was. Even when he used "tar sands" in that article so recently that he should have known better. Oh well. Nothing to be gained from dwelling on that.

This by the way is another reason for not even trying to recruit Topp to the inner circle. One, there isnt time for them to build a relationship. But more, its not at all like what Jack Layton was looking for. Jack wanted someone he could set to tasks, and to bounce off of.

Tom Mulcair needs someone who will tactfully but firmly speak truth, who does not have the same natural inclinations as the Leader. Brian Topp is plenty tactful- he excels at it. But just not at all the right person in this case.

Wow-- lots of stuff coming here.

Great posts by Ken. In response I think the stress should be on what we put back in terms of the Alberta economy has to be equal whatever we take out for any environmental or other interests. Specific plans. If this is out there early then we can continue a discussion without being anti- any part of the country in our policies.

On Ken's point that the NDP may not want to appear here-- I do not mean that they would engage in everything but to be present enough to encourage people that they are listening -- perhaps as Topp has. Also to clarify and respond much in the way the party is to journalists asking questions-- not straying off message or taking risks but using the opportunity to clarify if people are not aware of something. I agree that it may not be required however.

RIs post 14 first bullet exposes a point I neglected to make-- the proactive and reactive people I am thinking of are not the spokespeople. Those messages can be delivered by the same person. I was thinking about the comms people who set up things as opposed to the spokes people. These are the people who monitor and suggest directions as opposed to those who deliver the points.

I agree with all of RI's points except the second to last one. I don't want to brand the NDP as a protest party. Nor do I want the NDP to try to take ownership of something that belongs to grass roots people, many of whom have no affiliation or are connected to other parties. We need to discuss and comment on events but not take those as parts of what we are. They are a context and in many, but not all respects, allies. The NDP does not have to deliver, craft or control all messages that are helpful to be out there. In fact it is better to be seen as part of a wide range of opposition than part of every single opposition effort. You can respect and support without being part of it. I think co-opting that message would be both dangerous as it is not controlled by the party and an attempt to control that would be an insult to the truly broad variety of people out there. Now I know that is not what you are suggesting but I think the more the NDP shows the images as part of its message the more we would be doing that. This is another thing happening at the same time that we can co-exist with and support at another level but we should not have it define who we are. I say this fully supporting the opposition presented during the G20 and fully sharing the anger with what the government did.

I take your point RI -- but repeatedly?

I think there are many things we need to say and we need to recognize that repeating what is out there is a dangerous game as you have a ration of space and time on the national stage-- when you use it badly you don't get more.

The protest is important. The response is dreadful. However, the role of a political party is to propose alternatives in policy that would not create these protests rather than brand us as the  victims, the outsiders etc.

In these protests the public was pointing out that the Conservatives placed Canadians on the outside looking in and I acknowledge the protests as a response to that and the response from the government as disgusting. However, our role must be to show how that dynamic is not needed, how the government can be on the side of the people.

To use a metaphor, the NDP should sing in harmony with the protests not sing the same note. The NDP needed to come out and thank them and to defend them but years after the fact repeating those images would take away from what we need to do to change the government so that those protests would not need to happen.

There are two issues here I am considering-- the original complaint of the protesters which I want the NDP to trumpet and the complaint about the response to the protesters which the NDP needs to be on record supporting but that should not overtake the original issue because our role is to provide an alternative to that real issue. As with any ally-- your role is not to duplicate them but to provide a better context and support.

The best way we can support those protesters is not to repeat and re-show what they did over and over again but to trust them to make their point and to make ours about an alternative way of governing -- that is a message in harmony and support.

Perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other and not so far apart-- but in communications we should not be showing those images constantly because they will replace what it is we need to say that is a more positive message that the conflict should not ever happen -- and here is how...

Remember that images are more powerful than words and the repeating of those images will swamp the proposals we need to make that are harder to photograph.

I predict Harper is going to use the ideology (family values), business power, unity, and 'freedom' (for trade, even religious freedom - he won't pull any stops) themes throughout, that's my prediction. Just like Riefenstahl.

That is the weak spot - a 'security' agenda (your dollars and your property is safe in Conservative hands) backed by men in impressive clothing - just like Triumph of the Will - so my way of countering Harper's 'peace through security' messages is to simply show it to be false, with images of the violence, the protests, the discontent, the poverty - the 'insecurity' we all feel. And to do it through non typical media, like You Tube, where people can watch at their liesure and see comments and even engage in the dialog (to give a sense of control in the present moment - link that control to the NDP).

That's the irony of the Triumph, right? he promised order and gave them chaos. So we show voters the irony - and the chaos - I think they're smart enough to catch the message. I see your point and it is fair enough - we'll just have to see what the communication folk at the NDP have in store for us.

Does anyone have a copy of the long ad that the Council of Canadians and the CLC (or was it CUPE or CAW?)  placed in the G & Mail the Saturday before the first election that the Cons won (2006?)?

It was a small-print 2 or 3 page insert with Harper's speech to  U.S. neocons spelling out his plans for Canada.  I was disappointed at the time, that it had not been released earlier and that it was so long and in such small type.  I have been surprised that it hasn't been pulled out of mothballs and cited piecemeal over and over, in digestible bits, to unmask the Harperites. 

Perhaps it's time the NDP went back to that speech and started using Harper's own words to demonstrate what his real agenda is.  That should scare at least 25% of the voting population, I'd say.

Just a thought.

We need to do two things:

1) Reaffirm to Canadians that NDP values are Canadian values.  Even if you disagree with the means we've historically advocated, you're sure that the country we're trying to build is the one you want to live in.

2) Be open to using different, non-traditional means to achieving our traditional ends.  If there are ways to build a fair and just society without raising taxes and nationalizing industries, we need to be open to those.

The NDP message is much more palatable to political "moderates" (and those who don't think Harper is an evil baby killer) when we focus on what we want to accomplish - the type of society we want to build - than it is when we jump straight to the traditional policy planks. 

Most Canadians want the same things the NDP wants, they just need to be convinced that the NDP means to achieving those ends are the correct means and that the NDP is not ideological in its means.  They need to know that where we want to go is more important than how we get there. 

When we say that we want a more fair and just society that provides all Canadians with a realistic opportunity to achieve the things they want to achieve in life, only a small minority disagree with us.  When we say we need to raise taxes and nationalize a bunch of industries, the opposition is much larger.

Jack Layton was often characterized as likeable and genuine, even to people who disagreed with WHAT he wanted to do, because they knew that his "heart was in the right place".  People were sure that the policies he advocated were policies that he thought would move the country toward those laudable outcomes that few people could disagree with.  We need to continue to talk to Canadians with those outcomes at the forefront of our conversations and be willing to adapt our means of achieving those outcomes.

Not to deflect the discussion, but there is no basis for equating that the general public [including our voter universe] seeing the possibility of raising taxes on anybody and anytime as equivalent to calling foir the nationalization of industries [which we have not done for a LONG time].

Oh yes, R.I.  I don't suggest we don't address the violence and repression.  It should provide the very threatening background to much of our campaign.  But the context and the reasons for the demos must be front and centre, and the repression presented as the Cons (and the LPC's) response to peaceful petitions for redress.... all I was saying... I'll shut up too.

Not that what Topp said or would do matters in itself anymore.

But no one ever suggested that we would advocate raising taxes- even 'just' on the wealthy- because the idea was just great and would stand on its own. It was assumed that would be part of an ancompassing inititiative.

And people who are not political junkies- that being most people- need something cncrete to realte to. If you about the interpersonal discursive seminar room model of first explaining why- they tune out.

The 'whys' come in a package with the concrete proposal. Neither comes first.