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.

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.....

Prime Minister Trudeau? Possibly.

Welcome back;
After a lengthy focus on the American Presidential race, it's time to turn one's attention to what's happening in the Great White North®. The federal Liberal leadership race is well underway with something like 8 candidates seeking the golden, silver bronze prize. Let's take a look at the likely scenario of front-runner Justin Trudeau taking the mantle on April 6th, 2013 - the 45th anniversary of his father Pierre becoming Liberal leader - and automatically - the next Prime Minister of Canada.
Much has been made about Justin's lack of policy depth - and much of it is true. However, as can be seen from this latest op-ed, he is staking out a policy framework for himself, and thus the Liberal party in the future.
Five Factors Favouring Trudeau as PM
1. The 'time for a change' syndrome will favour him. A general election won't be held until 2015. By that time the Harper government will have been in power for almost a decade. In politics, friends  come and go, but enemies accumulate. By then, there will inevitably be a stronger 'wind of change' blowing through the landscape. It's hard to imagine a majority government, but a minority Parliament may well emerge.
2. He is from Quebec. A Liberal party must always have a strong base in Quebec if it hopes to emerge victorious. It will mostly be the Liberals vs. the NDP in Quebec - barring a miraculous recovery of the already-dead-but-not-quite-buried Bloc Quebecois (who are in a position to benefit from their kissin' cousins, the Parti Quebecois, who can manipulate masterfully every slight and 'humiliation' that will come its way.) A Trudeau-led Liberal party, however, has to find its footing on a very slippery mountain, and his late father's federalist brand had become almost toxic in many parts of the province in the intervening decades. So the jury is really out on this indicator.
3. A Generational Shift of voters is underway. As we saw in the Presidential election, Justin Trudeau will present a younger profile, a charismatic personality and a sophistication with new media that could attract a younger generation, who have under-voted for decades. So far he has staked out the marijuana de-criminalization plank in his platform, but he needs to develop a platform that can appeal to the 18-35 year old crowd. Even if he does so, he would need to motivate them to vote - which has been notoriously unsuccessful in the past.
4. Communications skills. Although he has enormous energy and a camera-friendly face, his communications skills need work. He has been known to blurt out comments, adopt an angry hectoring tone - in which he refers to himself in the third person - and is not always comfortable in handling tough questions. However, most of those skills are learned, but now that he is in the fishbowl every mistake will be Tweeted and Face-booked, so he will have to watch everything he says.

As with his father, he also has a gift for pulling off stunts - the most memorable being his successful boxing match with Sen. Patrick Brazeau. In that one, he demonstrated the strategic ability of under-performing and over-delivering (always useful in political life) as he beat the much tougher and stronger Brazeau.
5. Avoid getting boxed in. Picking up the boxing metaphor, trying to carve out a middle ground between the NDP's very capable, left-centre Tom Mulcair and the strongly confident, centre-right ground held by Stephen Harper is a narrow channel to navigate.

He has to hope that he can carve a path that will distinguish itself from the other two parties - all while avoiding their punches and hay-makers aimed at the Liberal party's mixed legacy which will still be remembered by many voters.
So, what does the 2015 election look like? It's such a long way away that it's impossible to predict. However, Mr. Trudeau is not to be written off by either the NDP or the Conservatives as he seems to be comfortable in the under-dog position. The key will be the state of the economy and the ability of the Conservative government to communicate its messages effectively, and if the NDP can sustain its current support level. Who knows?
Where were you 49 years ago?

Nov. 22, 1963 Dallas Texas. As those of us old enough to remember know, it was the day that John F. Kennedy was assassinated while driving in a motorcade. This video clip gives an excellent sense of what it was like to be watching television...going from the inane daytime show to the truly insane. The man the reporter interviewed within minutes of the assassination turned out to be one of the most famous amateur film-makers in history - the one and only Abraham Zapruder. Conspiracy buffs will always be convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. I have never been persuaded of that, but our world has never been the same since. Even though JFK was a terribly flawed individual in his personal life, his public legacy has survived these nearly five decades.

By the way, for those who want to see a great film of the first assassinated President, I would highly recommend 'Lincoln'. Spielberg did an excellent job of painting an all-too-human picture of an ordinary man who became a truly heroic President.
To all of our American friends, have a Happy Thanksgiving and travel safely. Until next time...