The Wildrose Alliance and being new
It seems strange to me to congratulate someone who is effectively spewing venom. But I feel proud of Rob Anderson for switching allegiance from the Alberta PCs to the Wildrose Alliance. No sooner had he made the announcement and he began immediately exposing the dark corners of the Government he had supported and loved so dearly not so long ago.
To do this takes gumption and honesty. It could not have been an easy decision, but assuming he is telling the truth, it is clearly one based on morality and I applaud him for this. We need more politicians who are willing to be open and honest with the public and who are willing to stake their career on correcting their mistakes.
Yet, that is where my applause for his and Heather Forsyth’s defection ends.
If you don’t read many Alberta political blogs then you probably haven’t seen an interesting phenomenon happening coming out of the Reboot Alberta conference. Average citizens who attended – and many who didn’t – have been taking the time to put into writing what they believe the definition of “progressive” is. “Progressive” being what Rebooters have branded themselves as. (My own thoughts on the subject will come in the near future in the form of a series of posts.)
In my mind, I find myself amazed at the number of Albertan’s taking the time, through this difficult exercise, to try and spell out what they want their province to look like – and how Alberta might get from where it is now, to that point.
I’m not seeing this kind of open idealogical and policy development happening with the Wildrose Alliance and that concerns me. Hardly anyone is talking about what it means to be a Wildrose supporter. Especially before choosing to become one.
Up until this point the majority of what the general public has seen is a party which is defining itself via negative statements: i.e. “We are not the Tories.” This was perhaps most clearly stated during the Calgary-Glenmore by-election when the slogan the Wildrose Alliance staked their claim with was “Send Ed a Message”. There was nothing in there about how their position would be any different, but that’s okay because it tapped into a societal urge to do just that: send Ed a message. (Remember the Liberals did come in second in the race, also beating out the PC candidate. Meaning many voters chose to send a message too, just via a different channel.)
The problem with defining yourself in such a way is you’ve left the power to define you in the hands of your opposition. It would be very easy for Ed Stelmach to simply illustrate ‘the message was received’ and suddenly you’re brand has dried up. To be truly effective, the Wildrose Alliance are going to have to illustrate what they are and just what they are not.
So who is the Wildrose Alliance? What do they stand for?
From the policy documents on their website and what their leader Danielle Smith has said in the media, I think they can be summed up as offering ‘change’ or ’something different’. While this doesn’t help solve my previous point it’s not a bad horse to hitch your wagon to. After all, it worked for Barack Obama.
But the point with Obama was, he really did represent a different way of doing things. (Arguments can be made that his results so far have been the same, but his methods have been near polar opposites of his predecessor.) I’m not convinced yet that the Wildrose Alliance really does offer a different way of doing things.
Case in point the addition of Anderson and Forsyth. If you’ve staked your entire brand on the fact you are different than the PC Party, how can you accept two of their MLAs as your own? This appears to be a quick – albeit short-term helpful – abandonment of the central pillar of the brand.
Yet, I think it goes deeper than just this. From what I’ve been told, the Wildrose Alliance party was founded by former PC supporters who feel the party has lost its way over the past however many years. Anderson and Forsyth and the framing of the by-election victory illustrate this disillusion as well.
Here’s my point: if voters are looking for something new – how does the Wildrose Alliance represent anything other than simply the PC Party of the past? That’s not new, that’s simply slapping a new coat of paint on the same thing we’ve already had before. Change for the sake of change, if you will.
I’m not deluded however. This alone may be enough to hand them a majority in the next election. The Liberals – despite David Swann’s best efforts – are looking to do nothing more than change their logo, while the Alberta NDP plod along contemplating no change of any kind. When these are the options you are up against, the Wildrose’s fresh face with the same tired out plan might be more than enough.
I may be wrong, but it strikes me the public don’t just want new people doing the same thing we’ve done before. If given the option, they want Alberta politics to be done in completely different – and better – way.
So far as I can see right now, those bloggers typing out their thoughts on what the province could be are the only ones offering anything “new”. And that’s too bad they’re the only ones.
How to fix Ed’s communications problems
In case you missed it, a week and a half ago I wrote about the latest of Ed Stelmach’s communication’s gaffes. I almost felt a little sad in writing the post because social media was sort of Premier Ed’s last frontier of communication tools. He had tried speeches, scrums, Question Period, interviews, television specials – and I’m sure there was a long suffering carrier pigeon or two involved – all to very little success. So he turned his attention to the latest trend: social media. His last great hope. And I lambasted him for his hollow effort that missed the mark almost entirely. It felt like I was kicking a puppy. The man and his team are trying their best, but failure to effectively communicate their message has met them regardless of what medium they’ve tried.
And while I am 100% confident this is entirely coincidence, the day after I wrote my condemnation of their last ditch chance, the Premier’s director of communications decided enough was enough and it was time for him to step aside.
I can’t really blame him. Paul Stanway is a long-time journalist who, I imagine, understands two things really well: the newspaper business and the way public relations have been conducted for the past forty or fifty years. Sadly, neither of those two things are very relevant anymore. Newspapers are dying and public relations is a completely different game than it used to be. (Case in point, my entire AskEd argument.)
But talk is cheap. So I figured, why not give some free advice to Stanway’s replacement?
Lord knows they’re not going to ask me to fill the job, so I might as well give away the farm here for free. Besides, I’m just some punk anyway, right? Well, I suppose it’s true that my actual real world job is marketing and communications and I am a member of IABC, which does make me more qualified on paper than Stanway or Tom Olsen were before they started with the Premier’s office. But let’s put that aside. Despite the fact the Alberta PC party is the only party I’ve ever joined, I haven’t held continuous Tory membership for the last thirty years so I’m confident the job is NOT coming my way.
None-the-less, Mr. Premier, I want Alberta to be as great as possible. Right now you are our leader and I would be remiss if I didn’t don’t everything to help you succeed. (I’m post-partisan and don’t care who leads Alberta so long as they lead it with wisdom and to somewhere great.) I don’t profess to have all the answers or to be better than anyone else, but if I was your director of communications, here’s what I would do to get things back on track and restore the premiership to its former – and rightful – place of respect.
1. Ditch the suit – You’re a farmer for crying out loud. Surely you don’t feel comfortable in that tie and matching jacket/pant combo. I’m guessing you don’t because you don’t look comfortable. (And that’s kind of the problem.) We need to get back to what you know best – what you feel most confident in. We need to get your wife dressing you again; as she no doubt has for the last however many decades of your political career. Put some jeans on. Sure you can still wear a nice button-down shirt and sport coat but let’s go shopping for some new boots!
No doubt there will be a time when you will have to wear a suit. People will understand that. But guess what? The guys working in the downtown Calgary skyscrapers only wear suits when they meet with you because you’re wearing a suit. You are the trendsetter in this situation. I know that’s crazy, but it’s true. Besides, many of them don’t wear suits on regular days anyway. Most of them don’t like them either.
2. Start talking with people – I know you’ll protest “but I do talk to the people!”, but please hear me out. I know YOU know the difference between talking with people and talk to people. But a public relations person who can differentiate is a rarity. You’re staff has been having you do the latter, when what you need to do – nay, what you’re best at doing – is talking with people. Communications is a two way street. It’s time to open you up to the public more and start emphasizing the two way part.
Another benefit this creates? It allows you to stop the double-speak. People ask questions because they want answers. Reporters ask questions because they need info to fill pages or minutes of video. You can get away with dodgey answers with reporters if you run them in circles enough. The public on the other hand get seriously pissed if you do that. Personally, I think this is a much better benchmark to hold yourself against; because having the public leave a conversation satisfied means you’ve connected. Having the media leaving satisfied means you’ve either said something dumb they can nail you on, you’ve just spent a couple million dollars, or you’ve simply filled up a tape recorder. Which would you rather accomplish as leader of all Albertans? I vote for connection.
3. Don’t put your head in the mouth of a hungry lion – It may hurt to hear, but it goes like this: you are terrible in front of a camera. Sorry, but you come across as a babbling fool who is out of his depth every time he’s asked a question that requires an answer. (And yes, that would be every question.) So why keep go in front of cameras like that? You’re just punishing yourself. I know this might be hard to hear, but it’s not the media’s fault their method of operating is so different than yours. So why keep playing their game? I hear from people all the time that you are GREAT to have a conversation with. I’ve had more than one person tell me you are a completely different man in person than how you come across on television. So let’s get you out of that Legislature office and start meeting people face-to-face. As a matter of fact I’ll even go as far to say, what you are planning on doing with all those AskEd questions, is EXACTLY the kind of thing you should be doing every single week.
I don’t mean you should stop doing interviews. What I really mean is stop talking the language you think we want to hear and start talking your language. If you’re awesome in one to one conversations, do the majority of your work like that. Let’s get out there in town halls. Let’s invite people to the Leg to have lunch with you every single day. Make AskEd and ongoing thing for crying out loud!
Another added benefit? Because people will have connected with you one-on-one, when you do stumble over your words in front of a camera they will be WAY more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
4. Talk for yourself - Please forgive my language but I think it is important to underscore the importance of this point: No one gives a flying fuck what Tom Olsen thinks. People don’t want quotes from him, they want quotes from you. I’d bet 90% of Albertans don’t even know who Tom Olsen is. So why have him talking to the media? At the same time 90% of what Olsen says in the paper would sound WAY more convincing if it was coming from someone with actual power. Namely you.
You are the Premier. You’re the guy in charge, so get out there and show them that not only are you in charge, but you’re attentive and present on all matters. You can’t defer both the “listening” and “talking” parts of your job. Even if you don’t think this is what you’ve done, I’m telling you it’s what’s happening when a communications director speaks for you. It creates a barrier between you and the voting public. Why would you possibly want to purposefully create barriers like that?
5. Ignore your communications people – Yeah, yeah, I’m basically saying ignore everything I’m telling you too. But I hope you can see a theme in the previous four points: be true to yourself, be open and transparent. If that sounds familiar it’s because it’s what you promised Albertans after you became the Premier. And we feel like we’re still waiting for that. You’ve let us down and that’s surprising. You’re Honest Ed! You’re the guy everybody likes! You’re the guy who can tell us the truth and expect us to handle it. That’s what you used to be known for, so don’t run away from it. It’s not a weakness, it’s your advantage!
Besides, we already know honesty works in Alberta. Just ask your predecessor’s polling numbers after any time he was, perhaps, a little too honest. Trust your gut. You know what the right thing is to do. So do it and stop letting PR people synthesize everything into an over-thought puddle of communications goo.
So there you have it; five points to think about off the top of my head. I know there are many others, but I have my own boss to make sound good. You are welcome to take the advice for what it’s worth and what you’ve paid for it. Or you’re welcome to start implementing it and see where it gets you.
If it works, ‘where it gets you’ will probably be the opposite of where you are now. And judging by how things are going with your communications tactics up until this point, I’m guessing the opposite of what you have now would be a weight off your shoulders.
How not to administer a vaccine program
Markham Hislop has a great op-ed piece on his South East Calgary News site right now. He presents his case for why the Alberta Government does not deserve the criticism they are being shellacked with right now over their handling of the H1N1 vaccination program.
If there is one thing I hate it is people being blamed for things they do not deserve blame for. If there is a second thing I hate it is unwarranted hysteria. But in this case I’m going to have to disagree with Markham. The reason Albertans feel like they are embroiled in a Ron Leipert created mess is because we are.
Here’s why:
The reason the Alberta Government is taking so much flak right now isn’t because lineups were long or because we are running out of vaccine or because the public is in a state of hysteria. It is because the Government had a plan to begin with (vaccinate only high-risk cases) and then didn’t stick to the plan (vaccinate everyone). That’s on them and no one else.
Not following their own plan ended up creating confusion. First, beginning in the Legislature. The premier was saying one thing (that their vaccinating everyone) and the health minister was saying another thing (vaccinating only high risk). Then the health minister said the opposite of what he first said. Then he went back to his original story. The only place to determine what is going on is too look at what is actually going on. This everyone agrees on: everyone who was showing up to a clinic was getting a shot. No one was being turned away.
In order to only be vaccinating the high-risk cases, you can’t be vaccinating everyone. That should be obvious.
Around this point it became clear the media has no idea what is going on either and slowly – or quickly if you think a couple days is quick – the public began to feel like the clinics were a free-for-all. This feeling was then compounded by announcements of shortages and it really did become an ‘every man, woman and child for themselves’ rush of humanity to the clinics to ‘get while the getting was good’.
Alberta Health Services continued to oblige by giving everyone who showed up a shot – whether they were high-risk or not.
Then there is the added layer of the long lines created by only having a handful of clinics. Please remember, a handful of clinics was all that was needed to only vaccinate high-risk cases. This was part the plan. When they started accepting anyone and everyone the lineups became long and AHS did not have the capacity to manage those lineups, thereby exacerbating the free-for-all hysteria.
In both these cases the underlying reason for the problem was the Government’s inability to stick to the plan.
This helps put the Calgary Flames vaccination in a different light. Think about it from the Flames perspective. You’re a team doctor, you see everyone being accepted at the clinics and you don’t want to send your players to wait in 8 hour lineups, for time management and public safety reasons. So you call AHS and explain your rationale. They look at the lineups and agree: it is not a good idea to have Flames players waiting in line too. They see everyone is getting the shot so there is no reason to exclude these ‘everyones’ from getting the shot and schedule a separate session for the players and their families.
Now we see the Alberta Government actually having the gall to be criticizing citizens, saying it was their fault the line-ups were long, that things devolved into irrational hysteria, and that we’re running out of vaccine so quickly. This infuriates me. The only thing the public did was show up to get a vaccine shot they were told everyone eventually should get. If you didn’t want them to get it now and you wanted those folks to wait to get the shot THEN WHY DID YOU GIVE IT TO THEM?!
Any parent will tell you that is just reinforcing bad behaviour. And of course the next person will expect to be treated the same.
You’ll notice no one is criticizing the Alberta Government for this week’s clinics. It’s because they had a well thought out plan and are sticking to it. People who are not children under 5 and pregnant woman are being turned away. I applaud the Government and AHS for this. That’s the way it should have been on day one.
The question does have to be asked though: if our Government is incapable of following it’s own instructions on such a straight-forward program how can we trust them to manage more complicated things?
There is one thing that would fix all this – not the minister’s resignation, that won’t do anything – but an apology from the Health Minister for he and his employees not following their own plan and creating a mess of things. The provinces’ chief medical officer has already done this for his part. And again I applaud for the honesty and wherewithal he’s showing now.
But if Ron Leipert won’t offer a heart felt apology and admit his department made a mistake by screwing up on something so fundamental, he should be fired.
PS – Speaking of being fired… even though I can see where things went array as clear as day, MLA Art Johnson offers this gem of a quote: “The government had a plan and stuck with it, but people stood in line who shouldn’t have.” Umm, no you didn’t. And how dare you.
Why Stelmach looks disingenuous today
Let me be clear: I have nothing against Ed Stelmach. Generally speaking I think the PC government of Alberta is doing a pretty decent job. I’m not happy with them all the time, but a lot of the stuff they get slack crap for would come the government’s way regardless of what party was in charge. It’s a recession. It’s tough to keep the public confident in you during a recession. I get that.
I only mention this to highlight how disappointed I am with Premier Stelmach this morning. Ed specifically, not his party or the government. After all, he was the only one on TV last night.
First there was the televised “commercial” from last night that ironically spent a bunch of cash to tell us how he was going to save us a bunch more cash in the next couple of years. As near as I can tell there was nothing in the commercial – and what a fancy commercial it was – that could not have been announced via a press conference. (Please outline in the comments which announcement could not have been if you disagree.) So that confuses me and does anything but instill my confidence in the man. And, I assume, that’s the opposite of what he was trying to do by hitting the airwaves.
Generally speaking, it looks to me like the commercial was meant to calm Albertan’s fears about the future. Meaning it might have been useful a few months or a year ago, but serves little purpose now that the vast majority adapted to the current realities. (And in many cases, appear as thought the worst may be over and a recovery may be beginning.) Assuming this is true and was the actual point, this puts the Premier out of step with average Albertans.
But this morning I have to really shake my head again as the Premier announces he is taking a 15% pay cut and the ministers will be taking a 10% hit. When I first read this I thought it seemed like a good idea. But asking just a couple basic questions puts things in perspective:
- Why was this not mentioned in the TV ad when he announced they were freezing the salaries of 6,500 Alberta employees? To do it now looks like a PR intervention. Like a communications person watched the ad and said, “Do you think those 6,500 people will be mad they are the only ones taking one for the team? Maybe we should have the Premier do something too?” And so they came up with this over-night solution so the Premier can look like a good guy too. Ta-da!
- Too bad the cut is only for ministers.
- Remember six and half months ago? In March after the last election the government voted themselves a 30% raise plus extra for committee work. (I’m not going to get into whether those were justified at the time, that’s not part of my point here.) So, everyone got a 30% raise six and a half months ago, when we were in the thick of the recession, but now 20 or so folks are taking a 10% cut? And we’re supposed to think this is a sacrifice being made by our Government that will help solve the deficit they created? Why not just roll-back the whole thing? THAT would be a sacrifice.
In all, it simply seems disingenuous to me.
Doug Elniski: how to do it right
My blog post from yesterday about MLA Doug Elniski’s comments about women and equality made on his blog, and about participants at the Pride Parade made via Twitter quickly became the most viewed post in this blogs history. (Practically doubling from the previous high!)
That post was particularly popular with Government of Alberta officials – at least that’s what the stats tell me. Or at least it was popular enough that I was invited to be a guest on both CBC Radio One’s Calgary Eyeopener and Edmonton AM to talk about my thoughts around Doug’s use of social media and what he said. Once the interviews are posted (if they’re posted) you’ll probably be able to listen to them online at those links.
The interviews were both quick and and I didn’t necessarily get to say everything I wanted, so I thought I’d share those thoughts here.
- While I don’t agree with Doug’s comments I fully support him. He said something dumb and he knows it. He’s human, we all say dumb things from time to time. I’m impressed with his handling of the situation however; he did an excellent job apologizing with the openness and honesty that made his Tweets and blog so refreshing in the first place. It wasn’t simply the standard empty apology one has come to expect from a politician. I wish I had an audio link to it so you could here it. It’s worth a listen.
This is the main reason why I don’t think he should have deleted his blog. His honesty and engagement provided through the blog and Twitter – up until this point at least – I think should have allowed him a fair bit of patience from the public in this situation. If he would have apologized online and allowed us to see the process he was going through to make amends, I would not have been surprised to see come out on the other side with more supporters than before.
I really do think we want politicians who represent us and are willing to communicate and engage in what concerns us. We don’t need another “walled off politician”. I hope Doug won’t become that because of this error in judgement.
- I also hope this won’t discourage other politicians from communicating with constituents via these newer tools. As you can here in the Calgary interview, host Jim Brown mentions the Alberta PC party may be coming out with guidelines to monitor their party members online communications more closely. This concerns me a little.You can make as many guidelines or memos as you like to control a party’s members on the internet, but when it all comes down to it the only point guidelines will really set out is “don’t say dumb things”.
I would argue that is the same advice you would give to them if they are talking giving a speech, writing a newsletter, or talking casually to friends.
The point here isn’t that an MLA said these kinds of things online. The point is that he said them period. Social media is not the culprit in this situation. I hope the PC party doesn’t make the mistake of not seeing it the same way.
The only other option is to not allow your party members to converse with consituents at all. And I think that is a terrible choice.
- I did get to touch on this in Calgary interview, but for me when it comes down to it I want my elected officials to be engaged. I want them to hear what I and others are saying, and then make the decision they feel is in the best interests of their constituents. Social media provides direct access that no town hall or newsletter in a mailbox could ever give.In the future this kind of engagement will be expected of our political leaders. Currently about 40% of the population of Alberta is under the age of 30. These are the people learning to expect to know what their friends are doing on a regular basis. This is happening via text messages and status updates. There is no stopping it as it has become rooted in our culture. In 10 years about one third of the voting public will fall into this category and expect to know what politicians are doing on our behalf on a regular basis. To get elected you will NEED to master these tools. Our elected officials may as well lead the way and start on this course now. After all we elect them to be leaders.
PS – Please don’t just have a staffer update your accounts. We can tell the difference and will ridicule you and penalize you for your lack of transparency. Social media is about dialogue. If you are not responding you obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. And at the end of the day, remember this: who wants to elect a person who is non-responsive?
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
