The search for narrative: Part Two

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

Elly Alboim

Among media, week three began with a sense of pregnant expectation. This was the week that the campaign would really begin, when things might start to shift and the campaign take off. By week’s end we would know a lot more and the narrative of the election would become clearer – and hopefully more dramatic.

Well, by week’s end, we did know a lot more. Things were pretty much where they’d been. The polls moved a bit but only within their margins of error. The Conservatives were still a bit shy of majority and there was no perceived Liberal momentum. News developments – the AG report, the misleading quote, the Afghan detainee file –had bubbled up and dissipated. You could almost hear the air come out of a number of narrative balloons.

The quest for compelling campaign narrative is a powerful media instinct – the search for the Holy Grail of politics. There are still two weeks left and few yet want to write the outcome most synchronous with current evidence – a virtual rerun of 2008 with minor seat swings. The more powerful story of a dogged prime minister finally winning his majority is not in the cards (at least not yet) under the current numbers. The fall from grace story line of an utter collapse (Circa 1984) of the Harvard dream isn’t either.

Read more…

A counter-intuitive thought

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

Christopher Waddell

This is the week, according to the way campaigns are usually covered, media attention should focus on post-debate public opinion polls. The search is on for any movement in the polls and every move is accentuated as the media looks for evidence to build a narrative of a closing race heading into second half of the campaign.

The problem this time is that so far the polls really aren’t moving. There are differences between the results reported by individual polling companies but within each poll there has been little change since the campaign started, a trend the debate didn’t change.

So the search for news means the media campaign spotlight turns to other issues – Helena Guergis, G20 spending, Afghan detainee documents – reprises of stories from the last parliament that opposition parties played hard today.  That was done despite the fact that there’s no evidence that there was a significant public response that hurt the Conservative government the first time these issues came around.

Read more…

Political image and the English-language debate

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

Josh Greenberg

Although we are now fully into the third week of the federal election campaign, a majority of Canadians will not have begun to take full notice until last night’s English-language leaders’ debate. Sparring on a set that looked like a throwback to a 1970s game show, the leaders of Canada’s three federalist parties, plus separatist leader Gilles Duceppe, exchanged barbs on a range of issues: crime control, multiculturalism, the economy and tax cuts, health care and governance.

Following the debate, each party’s war room went into full spin mode in an effort to declare their leader the winner and to set the post-debate news agenda; news networks provided nonstop analysis and reporting; and the social mediascape was abuzz, with voters, pundits and journalists offering up their favourite quotes, commentary and predictions about the next day’s headlines.

Despite the range of issues which animated the event, voters who tuned in looking for a thoughtful debate about policy will have come away disappointed. Although each party’s general position on the aforementioned issues were on display, these were mostly reduced to well-rehearsed sound-bytes designed to influence the post-debate news cycle. What’s more, several major issues were virtually ignored: climate change, telecommunications reform and Canada’s digital strategy, the aging workforce, and crumbling public infrastructure, to name just a few.

Read more…

So what now?

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

Elly Alboim

Last night’s English language debate clarified some campaign variables while others remain uncertain and speculative.

Let’s start with media, the first and influential intermediary for those who didn’t watch and for many who did.

It seems clear that no matter how you assess individual performance, there is no immediate momentum or “buzz” around Mr. Ignatieff. There is a clear media consensus about that. Post debate commentary displayed an almost tangible wistfulness for what many of them see as the end of the possible Cinderella story of a strongly competitive campaign outcome. The first polls of the morning will underscore that. They show, at least initially, no significant change and where asked, a sense that Mr. Harper did very well.

Barring some reversal in the polling data, emphasis will now switch remorselessly to the prospects of a majority government for Mr. Harper and whether strategic voting will coalesce to stop it.

Read more…

Right format, wrong participants

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

Christopher Waddell

The mixture of one-on-one and group engagement in last night’s debate highlighted why the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are so happy that the broadcast consortium did their dirty work for them in being the bad guys who excluded Elizabeth May and the Green Party from the debates.

Mr Duceppe’s presence provides tangible benefits to each of the other three parties while Ms May poses a threat none of them need or want on display.  As a result,  the format worked for the parties but not for voters.

The one-on-one sessions between Mr Duceppe and each of the others leaders were largely irrelevant. Each was debating someone who can’t cost them any votes or threaten the $2 subsidy that goes with every vote each party receives.

The low point came in the exchange between Mr Duceppe and Mr Layton where it appeared at a couple of moments that they had simply run out of things to say and were hoping moderator Steve Paikin would put them out of their misery by ending their session early.

Replace Mr Duceppe with Ms May and the dynamic changes completely.

Read more…

So if you had any doubts….

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

Elly Alboim

Yesterday, with its dueling leaks of AG drafts, was probably the most bizarre and most newsworthy pre-debate day in Canadian electoral history. It also provided a coda to a remarkable two weeks of cavalier political behaviour.

Adding it up.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives produced platforms that were outdated before they were published. They manufactured proposals on the fly or matched proposals by others. Chief among them was the extension of the 6% escalator on health transfers.

Both parties trumpeted fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets as their core guiding principles and proceeded to break the fiscal frameworks they had set for themselves. And neither could produce a plan to accommodate the new spending that even a first year policy studies student would accept as real.

And yesterday, both parties trafficked in confidential AG drafts. The first leak was identified by the reporter as coming from a supporter of the Opposition. The second leak was identified by the reporter as coming from the Conservatives directly — not that there was much doubt as both the Conservative spokesperson and designated Minister clearly acknowledged they had copies of a subsequent draft – copies they were not supposed to have. The fact that the AG’s office utterly depends on confidentiality and iterative transactions with government departments did not seem to matter to either. The willingness to risk undermining the institution was palpable in the face of what the parties saw as a potential game changing political event. And despite stern warnings from the AG for people to suspend judgment until reading the final report, the political characterizations and battle roiled on. Shortly afterwards, it was revealed that government members saw fit to misuse a six year old quote from the AG in a minority report. The government was forced to apologize to a furious AG.

And tonight the leaders will be live to the nation arguing about accountability and fitness to govern and suggesting that only they can be entrusted with safeguarding our institutions.

Good thing we didn’t have another week of campaigning before the debate to further test that proposition.

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

Five Myths about the Leaders’ Debates

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

1. MYTH It is a pivotal moment in the campaign.

REALITY. There are no pivotal moments in most campaigns.

2.  MYTH It is the time in the campaign when people start paying attention.

REALITY   People who watch the debates are more likely to be people who are interested in politics in the first place.

3.    MYTH  Leaders in the debates are vulnerable to making a big mistake.

REALITY  All the leaders usually do pretty well in the debates, because they are so well prepared, and the questions are so predictable.

4,  MYTH  Leaders in the debates are trying to get voters to switch over to them.

REALITY  The debates are all about reinforcement, where the idea is not to deter people from voting for their party or candidate if they are otherwise inclined to do so.

5. MYTH  Debates have a big impact on the election result.

REALITY  The debates have very little impact on the election result.

Wedge politics and base rebuilding

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

Christopher Waddell

The flurry over the Auditor General’s report about spending on last year’s G8/G20 summit provided a moment of excitement for those who think tonight’s leaders debates should be all about issues like this. Those would be the same people who think the last Parliament was a roaring success.

The risk in making the G8/G20 a major debate point is that it will be for the general public, yet another example of inward mudslinging to which there is no connection made to the lives of Canadians or their hopes and fears for the future.

An election that is supposed to be a chance for Canadians to determine collectively where they want to go as a country and how it will affect their lives as individuals instead becomes yet more parliamentary irrelevance. It’s not that how government spends is unimportant but in the public eyes it is difficult to differentiate between parties, when in power they all behave the same.

What it does reveal though is a more substantial issue. The political parties have abandoned two groups who collectively have traditionally been a major chunk of the support for both the Liberals and Conservatives – people who combine fiscal and social conservatism and those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Read more…

The potential impact of the debates

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

André Turcotte

As I was driving my kids to school this morning, I heard radio talk show hosts musing that the upcoming Leaders’ Debates “may be the most important ones we have witnessed in a long time.” For an election campaign largely devoid of excitement so far, the prospect of oratorical fireworks is both needed and appealing. But what do we know about the impact of Leaders’ Debates on electoral outcome?

In general, scholarship on the topic suggests that the impact of debates is minimal. While some leaders have experienced a surge in support after a good performance – Mulroney in 1984, Turner in 1988, Charest in 1997 – it is generally suggested that the positive impact is short-lived and dissipates by the time voters head to the polls. This is the main reason Leaders’ Debates are scheduled well-ahead of Election Day. However, we can identify some interesting dynamics when we evaluate this event through the prism of partisanship.

Read more…

Over the Line

Posted by ealboim under All

Elly Alboim

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

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

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

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

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