What's Behind the 'Real Change' Phenomenon?

Well, here we are in Canada, with the new Trudeau Government's massive 'real change' program underway at home and around the globe, while the U.S. Presidential marathon - only a month shy of he Iowa caucuses - well underway. What ties these election campaigns together is one thing -  the desire for 'real change'.
Canada's new Parliament with the Liberals firmly in power, met for their first Question Period today, and it's a preview of what is to come. A change in policies and, one hopes, a change in tone. My preview of the expected changes in Question Period are quoted in this CBC News article.
Once every generation, comes a tidal wave of change in the political world - in Canada, that was 1968 when Pierre Trudeau brought massive change to Canada - in politics, public policy, and style. In 1984 it was Brian Mulroney.
In 1960, it was John F. Kennedy who woke America up after the sleepy Eisenhower '50s with panache and vision. In 1980 it was Ronald Reagan. In 2008 it was Barack Obama.
The  Tidal Wave Hits Canada
Flash forward to 2015 and that huge tidal wave is crashing into    the world of politics in both Canada and the United States. Justin Trudeau, leader of the third party, put together a platform and a campaign strategy that swept into power, understanding that desire for 'real change' - not just in the  'what' but the 'how' of politics and policies.
The Speech from the Throne, the agenda setter for the next year or two of Parliament, was titled, 'Making Real Change Happen'. That pretty well says it all. From middle class tax cuts, to taxing the rich, to climate change and many social issues, the 'change' agenda is underway.
The Tidal Wave Hits the U.S.

A 'steal' from Ronald Reagan

In the Presidential race, Donald Trump is able to throw caution (and common sense) to the wind and double down on the 'hard right' side of almost every issue. He has been leading the Republican race for months by throwing conventional wisdom on its ear and catering to the (primary--voting) Republican base. The latest example includes today's announcement that he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country.
It feeds on - and feeds - racist stereotypes that the San Bernardino and Paris terrorist attacks have intensified.

Not the real Larry David

And on the farthest side of the political spectrum from Trump is Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) (a.k.a. Larry David) who has channeled the public's antipathy to 'politics as usual' into becoming a contender for the Democratic nomination.

Four years ago, who would have thought that either man would be a serious contender for the nominations of their parties?
What's Behind the 'Real Change' Phenomenon?
1. A feeling that 'politics as usual' has led the world to the mess that we're in. This would include global issues such as climate change and Syria. Both are huge generators of demand for real change for the left and the right.
2. The randomness of the home grown ISIL terrorist attacks has brought the specter of fear home to roost. In Canada, it's a much lower-grade 'concern' as the public aren't arming themselves in anticipation of Armegeddon. However, their concern about security was loud enough that the Trudeau government was forced to do a minor 'pivot' on their promise to bring over 25,000 Syrian refugees by December 31st, 2015. Instead, they moved the deadline to the end of February 2016 to ensure that the security checks would be thoroughly conducted. By listening and shifting accordingly, the public will forgive such a move.
3. Safe, 'moderate' politicians seem so yesterday. In the Canadian election, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, leading in the polls, positioned himself as a 'safe' balanced budget kind of social democrat in order to buffer himself from the wild 'tax and spend' accusations that would rein down on him and his party. Justin Trudeau, sensing that was the wrong way to go, adeptly moved to the 'left' of him on the economy -  promising deficits of $10 billion annually - as well as on social issues (legalizing marijuana). Trudeau became the most viable and strongest 'alternative' to the status quo (Stephen Harper's Conservatives). In the U.S. Presidential race, Hillary Clinton made the mistake of calling herself a 'moderate' not that long ago. She quickly re-booted herself as a 'progressive' because that is the voting base of the Democrats. It also ensured that there would be no more slippage to Sanders. It seems to have worked. [Also Canadians noticed how often Tom Mulcair now invokes the word progressive' - alas, since the election.]
4. Social media has created numerous communities of interest who connect with each other, realize they have a voice, and have the channels to be heard. This has escalated in the past four years to the point where every age group is spending endless hours every day of online socializing, consuming and sharing information. It has, of course, a dark downside - as, for example, a recruiting ground for terrorists. But it also has the power to create huge waves of change - from the Arab Spring, to Ukraine, to those who felt that no one was listening and that they had no voice.
5. A charismatic leader who can focus and ride that wave of change with vision, energy and a tone of optimism for the future. Barack Obama in 2008 came out of nowhere to take the Presidency by storm, combining many of the elements identified above. Unlike Sanders and Trump, who are highly unlikely to win the Presidency, Obama was able to secure the nomination and broaden his appeal to grab the undecideds and swing voters, which put him over the top.

Charisma isn't enough - nor is any one of these components. It takes strategy and near-perfect execution. The Trudeau campaign put all of that together, and now they have the ability to follow through on their promises. Oh, and the fastest way to lose that mantle of leadership? Fail to follow through on your promises!

So, welcome to the world of 'real change'. It's not going away anytime soon.

Until next time!
Barry
P.S. If you're interested in our Encountering the Media®, Getting Your Ideas Across® or Overcoming Panic and Fear: Risk and Crisis Communications in-house programs, just visit McLoughlin Media
For how to lead organizations and teams through change, with our leadership and coaching programs, visit TransformLeaders.ca

Trudeau sweeps the country - how he did it?

Here we are the morning after the end of the longest Canadian federal election campaign in modern history. The election of a majority Liberal government in a profound change in the style and attitude to government, the media, and the policies and priorities of government. How did Justin Trudeau and his team do it?

Three years ago, I wrote my blog post, Prime Minister Trudeau? Possibly. In the piece I gave five reasons why he could very likely win the election - in spite of the fact that he was still just a candidate for the Liberal leadership. I review them today, not to say, 'I told you so', but to use them as a basis for understanding why he has gone from zero to the steps of 24 Sussex Dr. (the house where he lived as a child).

Much of it has come true. The single greatest reason, is 'time for a change' became not only dominant, but thanks to a very strategic and well-executed campaign, Trudeau was able to successfully position himself and his party as the clearest choice for change. After a decade in power, the tidal wave of 'change' takes out most political parties.
Stephen Harper was intent on positioning himself as 'stability vs. risk'. No matter how he tried to execute that theme to his favour, it didn't work. The 'niqab' issue was raw meat for the Conservative base and for Quebecers but it ended up shifting votes away from Tom Mulcair and the NDP in Quebec - over to the Bloc, and even the Conservatives.
Trudeau's opposition to Harper on the niqab issue didn't really hurt him, as he had little to lose in Quebec and everything to gain by the NDP slide.
Overwhelmingly, Justin Trudeau resonated with the voters - 70% of whom wanted change. He echoed their frustration with the status quo; he filled in his policy blanks with an unexpected shift to the left of Mulcair on the economy (although Mulcair hotly disputes that). The bold, but easily accessible commitment to $10 billion annual deficits, combined with his 'tax the rich' policy not only didn't hurt him, but was the key to his successful re-positioning from a middle-of-the-road 'all things to all people' position of the past to a strong alternative to Stephen Harper's increasingly 'double down' strategy to secure and animate the 'right' side of the political spectrum.
Trudeau continually exceeded expectations in most of the debates, and thanks to the steady Conservative airwar of 'He's just not ready' ads, he not only exceeded expectations, but scored several hits on Tom Mulcair in some of the debates. In my post-debate analyses on CPAC, CTV and other media interviews, I found myself saying consistently that Trudeau exceeded expectations, and would benefit the most from them.
The lingering strategic question, is 'why didn't the Conservatives try to reach an additional 5% of the voters'? That is a voter segment that is a 'disruptive' target. Meaning, that whatever appeals to the first 32% (the base) is anathema to them. These would be known as the '10 second Tories', or the Red Tories -more socially 'progressive' but fiscally conservative - who would have made the difference between failure and success. So-called 'dog whistle' politics, as embodied by roiling the 'niqab' waters, could never have reached that critical voter segment.
The inking of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) came late in the race and has not been disclosed in sufficient detail to make it into a  critical 'pocket book' issue for those voters. Ironically, all that the NDP and the Conservatives could do in the final days was to hammer the TPP from opposite sides in order to cement their own ballot questions. Trudeau deftly dealt with it, saying 'I'm pro free trade but we have to see the deal first'.
The last minute flare up of a 'scandal' involving a senior official providing advice to an energy company client, was the last gasp effort of both the Conservatives and the NDP but it came too late in the campaign, and it just didn't gain traction.
What can be learned out of the Trudeau victory?
1. When the voters are feeling anxious, don't give them fear, give them hope.
2. Engage the voters and the media. Stop hiding from debates (Conservative candidates seemed to send a signal to their voters that they didn't want to face them, or be accountable to them). And yes, the media can hurt you but when you start blaming them for your problems, it's more Nixon than Reagan.
3. Understand what leadership today is all about. It's about listening, consulting, developing a consensus, generosity of spirit, empowering and trusting others. Trudeau projected a leadership aura that gave people an optimistic sense of the future. All successful leaders have done that - FDR, Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan, Mulroney, Chretien, Jack Layton, to name but a few.
4. 'Fresh and new' with a bold agenda for change can trump experience, status quo policies with not much new being promised for the future.
5. To go past ten years in office is possible, but it's a narrow window to get through, and can only be done with a clear narrative and a strategy brilliantly executed over a number of years.
6. Campaigns matter! The third place Liberals at the beginning of the campaign were transformed through the 78 day campaign into a party and a leader that the public is willing to trust for the next four years.
Regardless of anyone's political leanings, that is an accomplishment worthy of the history books.

Until next time.....thank you to all candidates from all the parties who got involved and had the courage to run - all of whom want a better country. A big recognition to the voters who turned out in record numbers (the most since 1993) to cast their ballots. It's great for democracy and a sign of hope for the future.

6 Realities of the Duffy Trial

Senator Duffy Goes to Trial

Yesterday marked the opening day of the trial of Canada's best known suspended Senator, Mike Duffy. This 41 day trial, is gearing up to be a the highest-rated criminal trial in recent history. The media saturation coverage of their former broadcasting colleague guarantees that the trial will be a huge distraction for the electorate as the Harper government is trying to close the deal with voters in the run-up to the October election. As someone who has provided communications counsel on some political 'high profile' criminal trials (Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien) and Commissions of Inquiry (the Oliphant Commission of Inquiry into Mulroney/Schreiber), I have some thoughts on the realities of this trial.
6 Realities of the Duffy Trial
Although it's a bit of a mug's game to predict outcomes in any criminal trial - and  I certainly won't -  it is interesting to deduce what we can about the impacts and outcomes of this trial:
1. It's not a 'slam dunk' for the Crown. After the first day, it does seem pretty unlikely that Mr. Duffy can emerge from this trial without some of those charges sticking. After all, it took 13 minutes just to read the list of charges! However, it will prove difficult for the prosecution to reach the bar of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on a number of those 31 criminal charges of fraud, bribery and breach of trust. Assume that half of them will be thrown over the side  as that bar will prove elusive to reach. If this were a civil suit, 'the balance of probabilities' bar would be much more achievable.
2. 'A wrinkle a day' can do more damage than one bad day. There may be no 'smoking gun' about the Prime Minister's knowledge of his former Chief of Staff Nigel Wright's cutting a cheque for $90,000. The damage will be in the form of 'a wrinkle a day' of bad news for the Harper government over the course of Mr. Duffy's carefully orchestrated defence strategy. His lawyer, Don Bayne is clearly brilliant at what he does and is positively surgical in his strategy and tactics. Expect to see numerous incisive cuts, jabs and twisting of the knife as he gives Mr. Duffy a powerful defence.
3. Stephen Harper may be the real beneficiary of the media tendency to 'overkill'.  It happened with the Rob Ford soap opera last year which triggered a backlash among voters who didn't want to hear any more about him, and they seemed to close their minds about any further criticism of Mr. Ford. It's hard to sustain 41 days of compelling interest in this story - except for the issue fanatics, commentators and journalists - who will be deeply fascinated by every twist and turn. Stephen Harper's base has already made up their mind about what they think of Mike Duffy. So the real battle is the not-so-committed voter who may - or may not - find the Duffy trial all that fascinating or may take a 'pox on all their houses' attitude to politicians.

4. Stephen Harper needs to manage public expectations. The media - and large segments of the population - expect him to be bloodied and battered by this - and if it turns out to be far less than expected, he may survive intact just by staying cool and continuing with his own agenda. That was evident yesterday when the Harper Government attempted to 'change the channel' for voters by making some pre-budget announcements. Although such news-making efforts are rarely successful at cancelling out the 'bad' news; nevertheless, watch for the Harper government to counter the trial's narrative with one of their own - heavily focused on the economy.
5. Leave the prosecution for the Crown. The Opposition Leader, Tom Mulcair, has a chance to return to his prosecutorial style of attack in Question Period throughout the Duffy trial. This will give him a chance to recover some of the ground he has lost to Justin Trudeau. He knows that Mr. Trudeau's attacks are rarely as effective as his. He must know by now that the voter rarely falls in love with the prosecutor. However, both of them have to be cautious about getting in the way of the story emerging from the Ottawa courthouse a few blocks away. If Mulcair and Trudeau get too 'hot' or outraged over the daily trial news, they will merely look partisan and ineffective. Sometimes humour is the best way to inflict some damage.

6. Why not have some fun with it? The NDP didn't waste time in poking fun at Sen. Nancy Ruth and her inopportune comments about the Auditor General daring to question her about her expense claims for breakfast on the mornings that she would be on board a plane. She told a 'scrum' of reporters, in high dudgeon that she had breakfast because she had to suffer the outrage of "cold Camembert and broken crackers". (Although the clip of her on TV pronouncing Mike Duffy 'guilty' was that much more delicious than the Camembert.)

So, yes it's fascinating to follow - even on Twitter - which is how I did it yesterday. Mr. Duffy will take a pummelling, of course. Mr. Harper will be hurt, but he will have over four months to try to recover. There will be enough pain to go around, but the greatest pain recipient will be the Senate, which has absorbed so many hits to its reputation that now an openly hostile public wants to see it eliminated.

In the meantime.....we've got the Masters this weekend....and the Senators are still alive (the hockey version that is:) so life can't be all that bad!

Until next time.....
Follow me on Twitter @mclomedia where I will be - what else? Tweeting on the trial and other matters.

5 Reasons Why Doubling Down Won't Work

Welcome back!
It's been such a busy New Year that I haven't got around to a 2014 blog post until now. Laura and I just got back from New Jersey - where we did a seminar, and then New York City where we took a few days to unwind. Among the highlights was when we took in the new Broadway play, 'All the Way' about the first year of Lyndon Baines Johnson's presidency as he pushes the Civil Rights Bill through Congress.                                                                                                                                    
Playing LBJ was the multi-talented Bryan Cranston whose tour-de-force performance brought the Neil Simon Theater audience to its feet. We had a chance to meet him after the show, and I was impressed by his great attitude and patience with all the fans. The Breaking Bad star told me how he loved working in Canada, and rhymed off all the cities where he had worked - Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver. There wasn't a hint of Walter White that emerged!

Gov. Christie Tries to Recover His Brand

While in the Tri-State area we were able to catch up on the travails of Gov. Chris Christie as he tries to recover from his Bridge issue. Although no one brought it up at a Town Hall meeting, the national media were all over it, looking for evidence that the issue had created permanent damage to his political brand - and thus his 2016 putative Presidential bid. Although two years is a lifetime in politics, he now has a mountain to climb in order to recover. What the allegedly deliberate traffic carnage revealed was a petty, partisan motive that was at odds with his brand of the truth-teller who wasn't going to let partisanship get in the way of helping his state. [Recall his bromance with President Obama in the post-Sandy recovery. A devastating critique by the New York Times' Maureen Dowd pretty well sums up his challenges. Which probably means...Jeb Bush will be testing the waters in a serious way.

Doubling Down....and out?

I have just finished reading Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's insightful new book Double Down, their account of the 2012 Presidential election campaign. It's the follow-up book to their smash hit, Game Change, which was a brilliant chronicle of the 2008 Presidential campaign.  Double down can be defined as, adopting a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Romney deployed it increasingly throughout the primaries and then in the Fall campaign - to increasingly disastrous results.
As the Romney campaign 'doubled down' on his Republican base, and President Obama did the same with his Democrat base [which is wider], some lessons can be learned that apply elsewhere.


5 Reasons why Doubling Down Won't Work
1. The public is increasingly fed up with 'politics as usual'. Although this has been a long time in coming, any political party or leader who smacks of playing the same old partisan games is offside with the voter. When people are looking for signs of principle and character, such games are a major turn-off.
2. It makes it hard to reach the uncommitted voter. Although it's vitally important to keep a political party's base onside the name of the game is the middle class voter who is worried about jobs and the economy. Doubling down on the base makes no effort to 'cross the chasm' to reach the uncommitted voter who is not politically invested.
3. The political zeitgeist is undergoing a profound change. Personal attacks and cheap shots have lost their 'appeal'. Although they can gain headlines, getting personal is reminiscent of school yard bullies. Although it doesn't automatically show up in polls, when the public sees someone who represents change, not only in policies, but in vision and tone, they leap to it. Witness Obama in 2008 and - for a limited time in 2012-13 - Gov. Chris Christie. North of the border, Justin Trudeau is betting that his 'non-partisan' messaging and actions such as his Senate initiative will position him as less partisan and more in tune with the political zeitgeist.

4. It's hard to project true leadership when you're busy attacking your opponents. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has proven to be an effective 'prosecutor' of Prime Minister Harper on the Senate 'scandal' issue. Yet very few flock to a prosecutor as a visionary. That may partially explain the lack of 'lift' under Mulcair in the past year. This past week, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson went out of his way to attack Lt. Gen. (ret.) Andrew Leslie for accepting a $72,000 payment to cover the costs of his final move, as allowed for in Canadian Forces policy]. While it might be red meat for the base, such an aggressive, personal attack runs the risk of being seen as mostly political in its motivation - as Leslie is now a declared Liberal defence policy adviser to Justin Trudeau. l.

5. People get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. This is true in politics and it's also true in television. Piers Morgan doubled down on his belief that viewers would tune in to his repetitive anti-gun diatribes [no matter how legitimate some of them may have been]. The news that CNN is pulling the plug on Piers Morgan Tonight is not a big surprise.

I can't sign off without a special congratulations to my partner, Laura Peck, who started this company with me 30 years ago this year. It has just been announced that Laura has won the WCT [Women in Communications and Technology] Award for Communications Excellence. The Awards Ceremony will be held on April 7th and I will proudly be there along with her.






On a final note.....Our thoughts are with the Ukrainian people...
Our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, with the events unfolding in Kiev leading to the removal of the President by the Ukrainian Parliament and the ordering of an election, I couldn't help but think back about five years when Laura and I were in Kiev and conducted three seminars for the three main courts of Ukraine. Hopefully, part of the new revolution will ensure that the rule of law will prevail, with an independent judiciary. Our thoughts and best wishes are for the Ukrainian people as they go through this historic revolution.
So for now, it's off to Saskatchewan - where it's a dry cold - and we will see you all soon!
Until next time....

Will suspending Senators work?

The day after the impressive ceremony the Speech from the Throne, the Conservative Leader in the Senate, Senator Claude Carignan, announced, unceremoniously, his intention to introduce a motion suspending the three controversial Senators - Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau from the Senate. On top of that he said that they should be suspended without pay for 'using their privileges to abuse their power' and 'gross misconduct'. Sen. Carignan called them 'very severe sanctions'. That's for sure!

 It is clear that the Harper Government wants this issue to recede and does not want to have them sitting in 'the other place' during this session of Parliament.  Is it the right thing to do? We will leave it to legal, Parliamentary and other experts to pronounce on it from their perspectives. However, looking at it through a comnunications lens, let's see if it's going to get the government back in control of the agenda.
First, what options did the government have in the management of the issue? Given the messiness of the Duffy case - with the now infamous $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright and the restrictions on public communications as a result of the ongoing RCMP investigations - the government has by now run out of options. Suspension is seen as the only viable step. The reason is simple. It stopped just being a Senate issue months ago. Now it's an issue for the Harper government.
Second, will it be perceived as fair? Already, talk radio is filled with voices saying that it's not fair. Senator Wallin has gone so far as to threaten legal action if the Senate goes ahead. Many claim that it is trying them without giving them a chance to defend themselves. Almost all institutions have provisions to suspend employees and officials for serious allegations of misconduct - financial or otherwise. The Senators have had months to present evidence in their cases and so far have not been able to dent public opinion running heavily against their expenditures and claims.  Sen. Mac Harb proved that resigning took him out of the spotlight. When the other three did not follow him, the spotlight focused even more heavily on them - and by extension - the Prime Minister and the brand of the government was obviously being damaged.
Should Senator Wallin be treated the same as Duffy and Brazeau? In an ideal world, perhaps not. She is repaying $100,000 and has strongly pushed back that she has followed the rules. There certainly appears not to be a 'smoking gun' in her case. Unfortunately for her, though, she is getting lumped into the 'soap opera' elements surrounding Senators Duffy and Brazeau.
Why not suspend them with pay? By banning them from access to their office, staff or resources of the Senate, it would be a huge penalty in and of itself. By cutting off their salaries and benefits, it appears to be over-kill. If they were fired, they would probably receive one year salary and benefits. For really angry Canadians, they'd say 'tough'. But for the middle ground who want to see fairness in process, they would probably be more inclined to support 'suspended with pay'.
So, what should happen in the Senate vote? In my view, once the motion has been tabled, an amendment should be proposed and seconded that would remove ' without pay' from the motion to suspend. [Ideally, the original motion should drop that provision.] In that way, it would be strong action, but not cross the line into unfairness - either in fact or in public perception.

Will it enable the Harper government to 'turn the channel' on the issue? The Throne Speech didn't change the channel (even as it vowed to unbundle them!)  The EU trade deal was important to the economic credibility of the government, but it can't match the Senate issues for audience interest, so it won't change the channel. The Senate suspension won't change it, but will give credibility to the Senate itself for taking action -- and by extension the government.

So going forward, what will it all mean? The first few days of Question Period - with the return of the Prime Minister - will be the roughest. If he can respond calmly and credibly, and then  turn the focus to the series of legislative initiatives and announcements previewed in the Throne Speech, he may be able to move the dial back in his government's direction. How Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau handle their attacks on the government will be critical to their ability to pin the government down on the issue. If they get over-heated or over-the-top in their attacks, it would be a gift to the Prime Minister, whose experience and ability to handle such attacks is formidable.
Until next time.....

5 Political Lessons from Blackberry

Welcome back!
Here we are with one of the most beautiful autumns in memory (at least for most parts of North America); with major league baseball playoffs filling our screens, all the football and hockey you could want, everything seems perfect. And yet...... Congress can't pass a budget bill, the U.S. debt ceiling deadline is days away...the iconic Canadian technology company, Blackberry, has collapsed, Ontario's government giving away $1 billion in penalties for canceling the gas plant contracts, and the ongoing saga of Senator Mike Duffy and his expenses. Is there anything that connects the dots in all these events?

Blackberry's Lessons for Politicians
At a time when one of Blackberry's rivals - Apple - has just knocked Coca Cola out of the slot for the No. 1 brand in the world (with Google no. 2).  That's gotta hurt - when you consider that Blackberry once 'owned' the smartphone world. On a personal note, as a longtime Blackberry customer, as with millions of others, I genuinely agonized over the new, but less-than-thrilling - Z10 before I decided to go 'over the side' to the Samsung Galaxy 4. The Globe and Mail ran a great piece recently that tells the story of what went wrong: Inside the Fall of Blackberry
However, in my view, many of those lessons are transferable to the world of politics:
5 Political Lessons from the Blackberry Debacle

1. Not listening to customers (voters)
The smartphone marketplace was changing dramatically and Blackberry appeared not to listen to their changing desires. Instead, they became overly reliant on their legacy products, while delaying the entry of a brand new operating system.  This week's Nova Scotia provincial election saw the incumbent NDP government, led by Darrell Dexter, dumped to third place behind the victorious Stephen McNeill-led Liberals (and losing his seat in the process). The Dexter government clearly disconnected with the voters - raising harmonized sales taxes and creating a massive deficit clearly led to the voters' disenchantment. The volatility of voters means that they will now usually give you only one chance to make good on your promises before they give governments the chop (B.C. Premier Christy Clark, who found life after certain death only by the questionable campaign of the Adrian Dix-led NDP.)  So all political parties better be truly listening - and delivering. Remember the eight words that get governments re-elected: "We did what we said we would do."
2. Loss of focus
While Blackberry wasted time delaying - and finally releasing - their Tablet (that tanked instantly in contrast to the game-changing iPad), they took their eye off the ball. The creative forces within the company were split - with some developing the Tablet and the others the new phone. The result was a loss of communication and coherent leadership. When a political party divides itself (Tea Party Republicans vs. mainstream Republicans, they tend to plunge in the polls (witness the fact that 62% of Americans blame the Republicans for the budget debacle).

Senator Mike Duffy's ongoing saga appears to only get worse with each new 'revelation'- causing a continued de-focus for the Harper government, who clearly want it all to just go away. If Senator Duffy remains in the Senate, it will continue as a de-focusing exercise for the Government as the House of Commons reconvenes next week.
3. Failure to adapt (while disappointing your base) The Republican Tea Party base has been temporarily satisfied in the budget battle. But even they will be disappointed when the inevitable compromises are made (stand by for that). Stephen Harper's Conservative government works hard at satisfying the party's base, (witness the battle over competition in the telecommunications sector), yet they need to bridge over and regain the support to the middle ground. For months now they have trailed Justin Trudeau and are only slightly ahead of Tom Mulcair and the NDP. (Look for the Throne Speech to hit the themes to reach 'families' and the 'middle class' as they try to regain traction with the voter).

4. Ignoring or discounting your competition Blackberry under-estimated the Apple brand promise and the resurgence of the less-expensive-but-very-cool Samsung product line. As the Republicans have been slamming Obama at every opportunity, after a while they sound like yesterday's news. People want to know what you're constructively going to do. Competition for voters is as much up in the air as in the business world. Loyalty to a particular company - or political party - has mostly gone by the wayside.
5. Failure to protect your brand
Your brand is your promise to your customer. Blackberry failed to deliver - and to deliver on time. They missed the window of opportunity. The brand of a political leader will usually diminish over time, so it's important to be innovative, to refreshen the brand and to keep moving forward. Stephen Harper is clearly facing that challenge - as is Barack Obama.

Then there's the sad legacy of the McGuinty Government in Ontario incurring over $1 billion in costs for the cancellation of the gas plants in order to save two or three ridings in the last provincial election. It's  an example of a complete failure to protect the brand of Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party. Even though it seemed to work as a short-term tactical (albeit a highly cynical move, one might reasonably deduce), it put paid to his declining brand and as more evidence emerges of the true cost and the political calculations around it, even his departure may not be enough to save the Kathleen Wynn-led Liberal government. The Premier apologized profusely but where's the action to somehow make up for it? When it gets that bad, apologies are not enough. Sometimes, though, one is saved by the quality of one's enemies (Clinton's 1995-96 government showdown with Newt Gingrich); (Harper vs. Stephane Dion in 2006); B.C. Premier Christy Clark vs. the NDP's Adrian Dix earlier this year). You just can't count on it happening.
So to sum it up, politicians - as well as companies - are gradually waking up to the reality that your brand is everything - understand it, refresh it, build it with tangible accomplishments - but ignore it at your peril.
Favorite Video of the Week
There's something about upending the conventional friendly news anchor-reporter banter that is particularly enjoyable to watch. In this clip, a local news anchor rakes a reporter over the coals for his lack of reporting skills: check this out and enjoy!
Until next time....

Common sense ain't that common

Welcome back!
1t's been a very long time indeed since my last blog posting - must be the pace of our lives - but of course I have not stopped thinking about writing a new post. Laura and I have travelled to New York, (twice), Vancouver, Toronto (many times), Peterborough, Boston (for my Kennedy School reunion - hard to believe it's been 30 years!) and all points in between. It seems that between the thought and the deed of actually writing the blog post, there is a huge chasm of.....procrastination! So, enough of that and let's get to it! 
Scandal-apaloosa
The news is filled with 'scandals' involving Mayors (Michael Applebaum of Montreal faces 14 charges of corruption and Mafia dealings) and Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's alleged crack-cocaine smoking). And as if that wasn't enough the continuing saga of Senators and their expenses and residence claims;  I commented on Global TV's 'The West Block' with Tom Clark on the crisis management of the issue by the Prime Minister's Office.  These 'scandals' certainly grab the media's attention. As with many news stories, their prominence may not match at all their importance in the scheme of things. Long-time readers will recognize this phenomenon as 'urgency trumps importance'.
Hyper-partisanship is here to stay
As we see in political culture everywhere, the era of hyper-partisanship is here to stay. First, the Harper government targeted newly chosen Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau with some tough ads, with the theme, "he's just not up to the job". Then Mr. Trudeau countered with an ad of his own. How did that go? Here is my appearance on CTV's PowerPlay with Don Martin in which I give my analysis of whether or not they worked?

Now the Harper government has turned its fire on Justin again with attacks on his charging charities for for his speeches (and at least one wants their money back). Mr. Trudeau has offered to talk with any of them that may have an issue over their payment to him - probably the only step he could have taken. Of course, there is nothing wrong with charging for one's speech - but it couldn't have come at a better time for the Harper government after weeks of attack on the Sen. Mike Duffy - Nigel Wright file. After all, the best defence is a good offence.
Taunting - and Pressuring - the Russian Bear
The leaders of the G8 nations are holding their meeting in Northern Ireland (and it was intriguing to see Stephen Harper take on Vladimir Putin, in no-uncertain terms over Putin's backing of 'thugs', that is,  the brutal Assad regime in Syria.) The Prime Minister seems to have grown very comfortable with these meetings and, - perhaps buoyed by his successful and historic speech to the British Parliament - was spurred to stand up to the former KGB spook and master of the bare-chested photo-op, Vladimir Putin. 

Now the Siberian tiger-hunting, President-for-life wouldn't be too used to this kind of treatment. See the painfully staged media interview in which the normally bare-chested alleged Super Bowl ring-stealer and his wife, Lyudmila, announced that they were divorcing. You've gotta ask, 'what took her so long?'


How not to handle allegations of spousal abuse

Speaking of abusive husbands, what to make of the shocking photos of British art collector and legendary ad exec Charles Saatchi with his hands around his wife, Nigella Lawson's throat at a swish Mayfair restaurant? The public reaction was powerful and immediate in the condemnation of Saatchi - as well as of the diners who seemed satisfied to take photos but not to intervene. His wife gathered up her dignity and promptly moved out. 
Saatchi in damage control mode
Saatchi scrambled to recover his badly damaged reputation, as follows:"About a week ago, we were sitting outside a restaurant having an intense debate about the children, and I held Nigella's neck repeatedly while attempting to emphasize my point," Saatchi, 70, said in the statement."There was no grip, it was a playful tiff. The pictures are horrific but give a far more drastic and violent impression of what took place. Nigella's tears were because we both hate arguing, not because she had been hurt," he continued.  

Saatchi cautioned for assault

Well, this didn't exactly sound humble, apologetic or anything even close. For such an experienced ad man, one would think he would know that this 'I did nothing wrong' approach is no way to deal with such a humiliating experience that he had triggered for his wife. Where was the apology to her? Sorry Mr. Saatchi, only a fool would believe that story line. It's the classic difference between advertising and public relations. Being skilled in one doesn't make someone skilled in the other.

Mr. Saatchi cautioned for assault by police

Then Mr. Saatchi - no doubt by now with a full-court press of advisors - showed up at a London police station to accept a caution for assault. That apparently unique British legal maneuver gave him the opportunity to cooperate with the police in their investigation and he was right to get himself to the police station in order to be cited with it. One can only empathize with Nigella Lawson and the pain and humiliation she is enduring. Several years ago, Laura and I had the opportunity to chat with her father, Sir Nigel Lawson, former British Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher, when he spoke in Ottawa. He expressed to us such pride and delight about her success as a chef, author and television host in her own right. One has the feeling that she will rise to the challenge of dealing with it - certainly better than her husband.

There's always 'common sense'

All of these issues - from politics to diplomacy to society - are 'cautions' that no matter how much money or political success, one can never replace common sense  which, after all, isn't so common. 

Until next time.....