The Conservatives communications and style of governance
I am starting a new thread much in the same way as I started the NDP communications thread to look at the approach of communications-- this time of the Conservatives. This is not intended to repeat the specific policy or latest cuts threads that are already out there, to examine the specific pain being caused, to look at the political risks of the current government, the horse races. All that is covered elsewhere and may be covered here in the context of looking at their style. I hope that the impacts themselves will not be the direction of this thread -- otherwise it would have been a mistake to open it. This is instead intended to look at what can be said about what the government is saying to Canadians and the style and approach of how they are saying it.
This is the Communications thread to examine how and the broader messages the Cons are communicating. The CAP thread, for example, deals with the impact of the cuts. This thread is to look at the method of announcements like this in the bigger context of the government's constituency and communications and the broader messages they deliver.
Get used to it.
As important as the CAP was what we are seeing is more than that. The budget was designed to set the stage but not to issue the actual specific bad news. The cutting of immigration supports was delivered on a Friday before Christmas; the cutting of healthcare with a wholesale withdrawal of the federal government from the field of health was delivered on December 19th. The government is timing its releases, sorting the ones you are meant to see and the ones you are not meant to see. Sure they know that people will learn about them eventually but they will be old stale news before any opposition comments.
In years past the budget had more detail but not the latest budget. Purposely this budget won't disclose most of the specific cuts. Those are not meant to be there when the mass of journalists are gathering to pour over the details and the opposition and interested people are lined up to comment.
The cutting of Katimavik and the slashing of the CBC are in the budget itself because the government wanted attention for those two vindictive cuts. Both were seen by the Conservatives as kicking sand in the eyes of Liberals-- that they are hurting the public directly is something the Conservatives don't understand or care about.The people hurt are seen as the Liberal or "socialist" public and the Conservatives want to point out that they are not here to serve Canadians. They are to serve Canadians of value and those are patriotic, god-fearing, Conservative Canadians. They are of course here to serve big money as well but that is not for the headlines. Arguably, the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives were first to serve big business but these new Conservatives are to serve small minded right wing extremists first, and then big, preferably big oil, business. That in itself is a major difference.
The shock and awe of the Katimavik cuts are especially notable. The government did not just cut the program at the end of its commitment. That would have been news enough. The program runs with 3 year commitments. The shock and awe was the fact that the government broke the commitment so abruptly that it is leaving hundreds of youth now accepted in the program, who had paid deposits and were leaving in just 3 months to begin their work, without plans or time to make them. It is leaving the community programs those youth would have worked on suddenly at sea. In the manner of killing it the Conservatives are providing a large number of youth and volunteer organizations in communities across Canada with a memory of a lifetime-- how a vindictive government can act in a truly heartless way. But this was an iconic Liberal program and the Conservatives wanted to trumpet their nastiness like the bullies they are. They wanted to send the message that people should abandon Liberal and "socialist" programs like rats off a sinking ship. It was meant to say "You can't count on them." This was a public flogging and was meant to be so.
Many of the other program cuts are meant for Friday afternoon press releases. It is against the Conservatives' religion to look for too much attention while poor bashing. A little like sex which you are to have, but pretend it is not fun. This is a pleasure that must be reserved for Friday night press releases as much as possible. Only those poor who get social assistance or direct government help are to be flogged in public for their crimes, unless the program had an iconic Liberal pedigree. Even the attacks on the courts and the one-size-fits all punishments can be taken as an attack on the "Trudeau Constitution."
This is a government that had five years of minority to practice and learn the ropes. During that time they lost their idealism even from a Conservative point of view. They came in thinking that they could guide Canada to the Conservative promised land and be cheered along the way by throngs who would find the new-found freedom exciting, invigorating. The cold hard steel of governance woke them up to several realities. The country actually has a lot more people in it who care about the most vulnerable. And worse, there are a lot more of the vulnerable out there to betray and a lot fewer of the rich to reward. Ideas, of democracy and openness had to fall away once they realized how much of a minority the group they served actually is. The reality that they need to convince large numbers of people to vote for them against their interest was found to be essential to success. During their minority years they learned how to Con people into supporting policies against their interest, to hide policies that hurt large numbers of Conservative voters, to subvert the democratic institutions and processes to make a majority possible. They learned not to tell the truth ever, but to let the chosen mouths of the party spout the well-practiced propaganda that would not hurt their cause. They learned that they could not win over all the journalists. Shockingly, in spite of the capitalist nature of the media owners, journalists are part of a competitive process needing to sell stories so ducking and running from some of the employees of their capitalist friends, who are chasing a story, became essential even as they could depend on the opinions and biases of others. It was necessary to control the media even though it was by and large friendly. The competitive desire to get a good story first was not conducive to maintaining the level of secrecy required. It was essential to repeat the absurd claim that the media is "socialist" or Liberal in order to justify the lack of openness. They can reward the faithful and excuse the mistreatment of the unfaithful.
By the time they got into a majority government, they had the arts of deceptive, crooked, controlled governance down. There would be breaks in the veil but not that many. They knew the budget had to have little detail in it. They put in a bit of red meat: cuts to the CBC, cuts to Katimavik. They covered over the rest with a big controversy over retirement age and will leave the bulk of pain to be meted out in Friday night press releases.The retirement age is a big deal but one the Cons cannot hide. Still they did it in a matter-of-fact way like a statement of a reality rather than a new policy. They presented it first overseas and told Canadians it was an obvious no-choice policy. Still they covered their constituency, the boomers, even as they used them as an excuse for the cuts. These cuts are to hit generation x which does not vote Conservative. They have their warning: they need to shape up and fly right. There is reason this one is in the open.
The government will be busiest just before and during holidays. Smart journalists who want to cover the cuts won't take summer holidays with their kids -- that is when the government will eek out the details. Defence Minister McKay raised his middle finger to Canadians on Good Friday saying, yup, he knew about the lie he told two years ago and no, he is not resigning. He knows it does not matter. There will be no election for three and a half years and the propaganda machine with all the advantages of a titled system will be there to win government again when it is needed. He will be able to point back to the date and say he told us and we are all complicit in accepting that a 10 billion dollar lie is really no big deal. It was after all a lie of omission and about a policy not yet finalized-- there is no contract he says. And of course there will be more and perhaps bigger lies. This one will be forgotten.
The government wants the cuts to the civil service to be seen to be political. That is not a mistake. Fear itself has a purpose. You better watch yourself or you will get the closest thing to a knock at the door in the night: the Friday Night Release that says your job is gone.
The other story now is how little of the rest of the story is meant to be seen. What you see, is for a reason, what you don't is also hidden for a reason. When they tell you directly it is because they are making a statement -- shock and awe but the rest is to leak out when nobody is looking, if at all. That is the government we have.
The signs were there years ago. We got here incrementally. We should be worried that this is not the final destination and consider where we are going.
I hope people will increasingly place what they witness coming from this government into a context of understanding what the messages are and what the government is trying to get across. We should also default to asking why they are doing something before presuming it is isolated, accidental or a mistake. Then we can better understand who is governing Canada and where they are taking us.
Just wanted to put out there that I'm working on some thoughts about chunks of Sean's post.
Which is great, but unbelievably long.
Try breaking it into pieces.
Hi Ken,
I understand that-- unfortunately I wrote it as an article -- I used it as a started of a thread at least so it did not throw a block in the middle of a conversation.
There is a theme here that is counterpoint to the way the Left in the main looks at what comes out of the Harper propaganda machine:
1.] They have their sinister plan.
2.] They are devious.
But what people on the left strongly tend to do is to miss connecting the dots between those two.
"Devious" is seen essentially as the lies and the obfuscation.... which despite protestations that people 'are not waking up' and suchlike cynisism and pessimism.... we expect Harper and team to be caught in and for their deceptions.
Cynicism/pessimism is the other side of the dualistic expectation that Harper should be tripped up for their deception... and would be if it wasnt for corporate media, people dont care, whatever.
Truth is that while there are lies and overt deception aplenty, Harper and company get their way primarily because of effective communication. Yes of course there is deviousness to that. But for the left, obsessing on the devious part is a deflection and distraction from addressing what matters: how it is effective. Which is because it is well done.
Passion we need. But ranting does not help us. In fact, it very much inhibits our capacity to communicate. And we cant start in a better place to learn better communications than to take a cold and distanced look at why would the Conservatives do is so effective.
The F-35 boondoggle is about as stariaght up an example as you can get of outright lies.
But its a serious mistake to think that even as bald a lie as that is going to catch the Cons.
And again, its not only because of the media or a generic right wing bias of our times towards right wing ideology. The Cons have consistently manage to push the envelope considerably beyond what the bias of the media and hegemony of right wing ideology gives them without working hard or smart.
They start from a position of wanting the F-35, AND knowing they want it more than will the swing voters they need when those folks are presented with the full case. So when the Cons get all the numbers in- just stick with the rosy predictions pulled out of the air. People are probably only going to find out in increments. Even if it isnt that easy, they'll be means of bafflegabbing your way around it. It doesnt matter whether or not people believe the bafflegab. Assume they wont. What matters is getting around the whole thing.
The Dexter government in Nova Scotia did something similar. They knew from the start about the $300million gift to the Irving family. It was a key part of winning the bid. But dont bring it out until you have to- many months later with the Budget. By then everybody will be falling all over loving the deal, and it'll be just one item in the Budget. No communications strategy calculation that it will slip in and hardly be noticed. But that kind of black or white achiement is not necessary. Grey will do perfectly well.
The answer to this is not to emulate the lies. But it is to emulate the long term thinking and the nuanced starategy as opposed to the black and white, good or evil, us or them thinking that dominates the world view of the left looking at their opponents.
Agreed that the Cons are very good at taking their marquee changes that they know will not be popular, going ahead with them, but doing it very carefuly as to the timing and the rollout.
The Cons do NOT just go ahead heedlessly with their agenda against the grain of what the swing voters want who they need to keep happy. If it will never fly with the swing voters, they just wont do it. They'll do no more than siddle up to it and mention it. Red meat for the base.
But they work on taking their marquee changes and making them just acceptable enough to get through the swing voters.
And I think Sean missed how that was done in this particular case- the communications strategy is totaly cynical, but not as crude as Sean suggests. Because the boomers do not vote disproportionately for the Cons. That is the over 65 age group, which few boomers are.
Yes, the OAS changes did leave us untouched. But that has more to do with the time distance of the changes, rather than the age groups involved.
So you do the bullshit of using the 'expensive boomers' scare tactics as a justification.... but the real goal is to ratchet down social programs. Definitely doing it is more important than speed it is done. Sure they'd like to push the age up in a few years, but what matters is concrete progress to their goals of disembowling government services and getting people to not count on them.
So you lower the age far enough off into the future.
And you dont even have to worry that you wont be government then. Bob Rae has promised they will roll back the change. Not a chance. Because by then the beast of government fiscal capability will be stripped enough that nothing like than can be done without generally raising taxes. The Liberals will never go there. And we'll see about the NDP. [Worst case scenario for the Cons: a mine planted for the NDP so that there is at a minimum hard choices the NDP will be forced to make to drop the 67 OAS age change.]
Awesome post, Sean!!! And, just saw this earlier today: Harper's disregard for aboriginal health
excerpt:
When governments make a decision that is stupid, embarrassing, overly partisan, or risks causing an outcry, they tend to do so late in the day and late in the week, preferably on the eve of a holiday long weekend, when citizens - and journalists - aren't paying much attention.
So, late Thursday, the government of Stephen Harper dropped this bombshell, as related in a brief announcement posted on the web site of the National Aboriginal Health Organization: "NAHO funding has been cut by Health Canada. It is with sadness that NAHO will wind down by June 30, 2012."
@Ken-- I think the Boomers are the Cons constituency-- this is the group who must vote Conservative if Harper is to keep his job. The over 65s really are less likely to change parties. The Boomers are soon to be the 65+ group the Cons want to count on and they won't be burned by them now. You have to look at the full generation -- Boomers are the post war. Those born in 1946 are now 67 or about to be. The group now hitting 65 are all boomers.
It is important to consider what the choices were. They could have lowered the claw-back and that would not have had to wait. This option was partly I think to exempt that boomer generation; partly perhaps to promote the pooled pension approach, it may also have been dreamed up on the fly to impress the European right wingers which would explain why they would increase the age rather than lower the claw-back because the age is what would be understood over there. You cannot completely discount how much of policy like this is back of the envelope stuff...
True, but I still think they make this fly primarily by setting the effective date far in the future.
But which mechanism is the most important is a sidepoint to the general approach of planning how to soften.
....thought that they way the Conservatives framed this might be on purpose as a wedge issue to pit boomers against other Generations...
Their core strategy seems to be divide and conquer..
Agree with the idea that they are trying to make folks not look to government to help them
Agree with Sean...there is close to nothing that they do not do on purpose...
I think Sean that boomers are not just a gaggle of right wing jerks. (you can guess my age from my name) I don't believe it was the boomers who provided Mulroney with his majorities. However I think that demographic would have been a major part of Cretins voters. Do you have any age cohort figures from the last couple elections that show the boomers voting preference? I would be interested in perusing them.
Harper and his advisers have seen the success of the two tier approach to workers benefits. The sons and daughters of WWII vets get to keep what their parents fought for. Everyone after them has to go back to the dirty thirties. You are right Sean that many unionized workers in the boomers cohort have voted to save their benefits by selling out the new hires. Since voting to preserve benefits for one's self is not the same as voting for the people who gave you that distasteful choice I hope the Conservatives will pay a price in votes. The 1957 cut off leaves a large number of the younger boomers out as well.
The attack is being directed at generations X and Y not most boomers. So how are those generations going to fight back. If you look at demonstrations world wide it is when you get the 35 to 50 years old in the street along with the under 30's that real change becomes possible.
Never said boomers are a gaggle of right wing jerks
Never said they all vote conservative-- however the older male ones 55-65 are the strongest constituency Harper has-- stronger than the over 65 ones by the demographics I have seen. Under 50 are not voting Conservative in the same numbers.
Never said they sold anyone out
Did say they are Harper's constituency in that this is where he is looking for votes and where the votes he has need to come from. They are also by their numbers the backbone of his current support-- yes he has older supporters but those older boomers aged 55-65 are critical.
I don't have the demographics that you are looking for but I have seen it.
Sorry, Boomers did vote heavily for Mulroney -- and they did also for Chrétien. In other words Mulroney had a lot of support from 20-40 year olds and Chrétien had a lot of support from 30-50 year olds. At the time there was less of a split between ages as between genders. Both Mulroney and Chrétien got very close to the same percentage of boomers as they got from other generations-- Votes split by gender and income and education but not as much on generation lines as they did for the last few years. My suspicion is that there is a real chance of that happening again with the exception of the younger voters. If it does then the Conservatives will not be able to govern as the natural governing party as they hope.
The key to continued strength for the Conservatives is not to piss off the boomers because if they lose that generation then they are cooked. If the boomers age voting for a more even mix of parties the advantage is likely to go to other parties over time.
The other parties are well aware of this as well.
Hope that clarifies.
So does the new NDP leader guy have boomer appeal then ?
Hard to say-- if the NDP can split the Boomers though I think they will get the advantage.
Pennies 4 Katimavik
Sean would you like to post some statistics that show the voting preferences by age cohort. At least two posters are referring to them but there are no cites to the sites the statistics are from.
thx
I don't have time to find them right now but I can say the following:
This age group, particularly men was the backbone of Con support that allowed them to win and certainly the demographic that votes very heavily as well.
You can see this in almost every poll before the Mulcair leadership victory. The strongest drop that I have seen in support for the Cons in demographics is this one. In fact the NDP is now leading (according to Forum's last two polls) in this age group. Arguably, whoever wins this group on election day will likely govern. They vote heavily and have supported both Liberals and Cons in the past (now leaning NDP). With the over 65 and the 35-44 group apparently still Conservative and the 18-24, 24-35 and 45-54 going NDP this 55-65 age group is a tie breaker. Every party that has ever won in a long while seems to get this group. (Now remember that this is a changing group as people are aging- but when they get to this age whichever party they support usually gets the prize.)
I think you can go and look at Ipsos, Harris Decima and earlier Forum polls and a number of others and see this. The NDP now tying or leading the Cons is mirrored by the Cons starting to lose this age group to the NDP.
As I say I have been watching this age for over 20 years (now the people you were in it then are well past 65). This has long been the king-maker generation politically.
Generally if you want to govern you need to win the following swing vote areas:
1) suburban voters
2) Ontario
3) middle income
4) Age 55-65
If you can get these usually you also have enough of everything else to win.
Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Harper all got these.
The boomers are now 55 to 65. We were not in that demographic during the Trudeau or Mulroney years. Trudeau mania happened before most of the boomers had a vote. In the '68 election only those born in 1946 and parts of 1947 could vote so his majority could not have come from that cohort. My first election was 1972 and I was eligible to vote under the old rules. They changed the age to 18 in 1970. That still left those from 1954 to 1959 without a vote.
The 55 to 65 year old cohort that gave Trudeau and Mulroney their majorities did not include any boomers. I agree that governments always need to win the 55 to 65 demographic. The oldest boomers are 1946 so they reached 55 in 2001. The youngest of the cohort will reach 55 in two years.
I am hoping that the boomers will in fact be a more progressive influence as they move through the 55 to 65 year old cohort than previous generations that gave us Trudeau and Mulroney and Chretien. After all it is them who are being hammered by the financial thievery taking place around the globe. The complacent industrial workers who have worked for 20 to 30 years are waking up to the fact that the pensions they have been working towards are just an illusion and don't really exist. The only question is whether anyone will give them something to vote FOR.
Yes Boomers are now 47-67--
The Boomers tended not to be ignored as much because they were always a large section of the population. Certainly Boomers were important in every vote since Trudeau. In 1975 the boomers were the 20-30 year olds and just starting to be heard politically. Everyone voting in the last Trudeau election of 1980 who was under 35 was a Boomer and there were lots of them. In Mulroney's election it was almost everyone under 40. At the time they voted more than people that age do today-- and there were many of them. The percentage of the voting population under 40 in 1984 was much more than it is today both because they voted more and because there were more of them. By 1993 which was Chrétien's first as leader the Boomer were those aged between 28-48. A new generation of Xers was voting but this was a smaller generation and they did not vote at the same rate as the boomers. By the time Harper won in 2006 The Boomers were aged 40-60 and still represented the biggest voting block. In 2015 they will be 50-70 years old and likely as important as ever.
The generation after the boomers is small and does not vote as much. The one after them Born 1980-1995 is the next politically significant generation. They are the 30 and under crowd. The group in their 30s and early 40s is the smaller cohort and likely not listened to much. They are also the ones getting slammed by successive government policies. They faced layoffs as their careers were starting in the 1990s then are facing delays and cuts to pensions now. The Boomers are staying in the workforce and this middle cohort are facing career competition from the Boomers whoa re staying and the generation Y that is coming up. This generation is the one that may do worse than its parents-- and possibly also its children. And they have no political clout and never have and never will have any.
Something to think about.
For the purpose of disclosure I am at the start of gen X and am called either early gen X or a trailing boomer-- I'm 47.
After 2015 the Boomer influence will wane as their children -- Generation y -- will begin to become more significant -- provided gen y will vote more.
I found this interesting report about the 2008 election. I was not surprised to find out that the boomers while voting more than the younger cohorts vote substantially less than the older cohort did at the same age. It seems the key to winning political power is to engage the boomers and the youth simultaneously.
In BC the pipelines will forge that fighting bond just as Clayoquot did in the past. The Conservatives are going to learn that the people will stand and defend the Salish Sea and Hecate Straight. It is hard to communicate a message that the oil tankers will be okay when the people of the coast know that Hecate Straight is one of the most dangerous pieces of water on the planet.
The federal NDP with Cullen's lead on the issue should benefit at the polls if the Conservatives persist and try to ram either pipeline down the throats of BC'ers.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/estim&docu...
Yes Indeed.
I also think that Boomers are not quite as Conservative as the previous generation -- which would also make them a target because they cannot be taken for granted by the Cons and are worth pursuing by others.
So they are a massive generation that is capable of voting or not -- but also when they do vote not quite as predictable. It is ultimately their swing that decides many elections.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is lashing out at provincial officials who he says are collecting unauthorized information on long-gun buyers, threatening to use legislation to make them stop.
In a letter to RCMP Commissioner Robert Paulson that was copied to all provincial chief firearms officers, Toews said the firearms officers "are attempting to collect point of sale data that they are no longer authorized to collect pursuant to Bill C-19 [the bill to end the long-gun registry]."
"To be clear, the Firearms Act neither authorizes this activity, nor any other measures that could facilitate the creation of a provincial long-gun registry," Toews wrote in the letter.
Firearms groups have been complaining Ontario gun vendors are still collecting personal information about legal purchases in ledgers, calling the books a way to create a "back-door" registry.
Ontario Provincial Police Supt. Chris Wyatt, the province's chief firearms officer, said last week the ledgers aren't new.
"Ledgers existed for decades before the long-gun registry," Wyatt told host Evan Solomon on CBC's Power & Politics Thursday.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/08/pol-gun-ledgers-toews-c...
Unauthorized?
Isn't the provincial government an authority?
If you read the Canadian Constitution Act Sections 91-92 you will see the following: Both have some areas of exclusive jurisdiction. A gun registry does not fit into either with one exception. The federal government can criminalize those who do not comply while the provinces can only fine them administratively.
The province does of course have the right and power to establish a registry for guns. If they wanted to they could register BBQs as well. The federal government is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction by claiming that the provinces do not have this power.
Here is where the provincial power comes from- S92 (provincial powers):13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
With the above powers it is hard to imagine the provinces not having the right to set up a civil gun registry.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is defending the government's accounting of the costs of Canada's military mission in Libya, following the release of new figures by the Department of National Defence that lay out the final cost of the deployment.
The deparment puts the incremental costs of the mission - costs the military says would not have been incurred if Canadian Forces had not been deployed - at just under $100 million.
And the total cost of the operation - a figure that includes everything from jet fuel to pilot salaries, including the salaries of military personnel - comes in at $347 million.
Last October, MacKay told CBC Radio's The House the Libyan mission had cost taxpayers less than $50 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/11/pol-libya-mission-costs...Speaking of Conservative communication, it seems they're moving away from just attacking Liberals and have started their attacks on the NDP. See http://www.mulcairsndp.ca
Interesting that Mulcair is not directly targetted. Instead, there's a bunch of shots at the shadow cabinet. Curiously the main attack seems to go against Megan Leslie, who's from Nova Scotia. That puzzles me, I'll confess.
The theme of the attacks is more for their base than for the general public. It's all SSS -> Socialist and Separatists kowtowing to Special Interests. So I think they're just looking to raise money, and they're waiting to see what the landscape will look like after the Liberals choose their new leader, before they start any really serious attack.
They aren't waiting for the Liberals.
Its just not a good time to start attacking Mulcair. That will end when the downside of starting now is passed by the downside of letting him establish his own narratives without major contradiction.
The shadow cabinet are easy targets. And like you said, its perfect for priming the base.
But why would they feel it's not a good time to start attacking Mulcair? If they wanted to really attack the NDP now and shrink its polling numbers, then it would be a good time to start attacking Mulcair. I think their main concern is to protect fortress Ontario, and they currently feel that the Liberals are a greater threat to them here, so directly attacking the NDP would be counter-intuitive. They've conceded both Quebec and the NDP held ridings of BC, but are a bit concerned about the Atlantic, so highlighting Leslie and making a direct swipe at her makes sense. The Liberals have almost completely collapsed in the Atlantic, so attacking the NDP by highlighting one of its rising stars there makes sense. However, in Ontario the Liberals have not completely collapsed, and in fact still remain the greater threat in many Conservative ridings, so attacking the NDP head on (IE, attacking Mulcair) currently doesn't make sense. If the Liberals begin to truly collapse in Ontario like they have in the Atlantic, and the NDP starts seriously threatening the Conservative held ridings in Ontario, then we'll see attacks directly on Mulcair. In essence, they are waiting for the Liberals (specifically, the Liberals' prospects in Ontario).