Thoughts on messaging, from Rob Ford to fighter jets

I've been doing some thinking lately on messaging. How you need to have a simple message for it to resonate. How the complex issues governments at every level have to deal with can’t be distilled into sound bites. How so many of us don’t have time for the details. And what that means for political discourse.

Two recent developments triggered these thoughts for me: the election of Rob Ford as Mayor of Toronto, and the evolving Liberal messaging on the F-35 and fighter jets.

Say what you will about Rob Ford – certainly, many have. Personally, I think he’s a lot smarter than he’s given credit for, although I disagree with him on just about everything. I can, though, admire his message discipline. He had a simple, clear, and compelling message – cut waste, end the gravy train – and he repeated it ad nauseum, never veering. It’s a message that resonates. After all, who favours waste?

Now, if you look past the soundbites to Ford’s platforms, there are serious issues. For example, the amount of spending he has in his sites is a fraction of the city budget. Big financial holes remain in his budget. The deeper, systemic issues facing the city go largely unaddressed.

We do need to address those deeper issues, but by and large the average voter doesn’t have the time or attention span for those debates. So a simple, compelling message, even if it’s hollow, still rings true.

Take the F-35 fighter jet purchase at the federal level. The government has shown no interest in having an honest debate on the issue. What is the military role we expect fighters to fill for the next 50 years, what are the threats, why is this the best jet? These questions go unanswered. Instead we get support the military rhetoric, and distortions and/or outright lies about the process and decisions taken by the previous government.

The Conservatives have opted to distill it to a simple message: this is the best jet, we support the troops, anything else will cost jobs. The first is unproven, the second debatable and the third untrue, but it’s a simple, clear message.

The Liberals initially tried for a more nuanced message: instead of an untendered F-35 purchase we should have an open, public competitive tender process to determine the best jet to meet our needs and ensure guarantees of work for Canadian business, and a debate over just what those needs should be. I think that’s the right policy, but it’s a 10 minute conversation that people just don’t have time for.

Now, instead, the Liberals have opted for a simple, clear message: we will cancel the F-35 purchase. Now that’s a simple, clear, understandable message. They’re setting it up as a black and white choice that everyone can understand, and that they believe will resonate: fighter jets and prisons or schools and health care.

Of course, it’s not really that simple. There’s actually no F-35 purchase to cancel, because no purchase contract has signed. And a Liberal government would still purchase fighters, and possibly even the F-35. They’d just do it through a competitive tender process. And the feds don't build schools anyways.

But again, by and large people don’t have time to have that wider discussion, particularly if the government has no intent in engaging in it. So it seems the Liberals have decided, rather than cede the field to the government, it’s better to meet their simple but flawed message with our simple but flawed message.

There are hardly unique examples. Our political discourse is increasingly dominated by simplistic arguments and messaging that aren’t afraid of ignoring the facts to send a message. Look at the Green Shift. The right policy, but it was sold poorly – you needed a 10-minute conversation to understand why. The arguments against it – it’s a permanent tax on everything – fell apart under scrutiny, but in the absence of time for that scrutiny a simple, compelling argument wins.

What we’re seeing is a dumbing-down of our political discourse by all involved. Rather than treat us like adults by having rational, reasoned, well-argued debates of issues on the merits, we get focus-grouped sound bites.

Frankly, I’m not sure I blame them too much. They’re only trying to get their message heard, and appeal to us on our own terms. You want to do the right thing, but you need to get elected before you can do it.

The responsibility lies with the voter, the citizen, to get engaged, to look beyond the sound bites and simple messaging by researching the issues and the positions. We’ll only get better if we demand it. But as long as we reward the simplistic, that’s what we get.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All of a sudden we all need the same jet?

There are so many ridiculous talking points coming from the Conservative government and from the defence analysts and pundits trying to justify the $16 billion F-35 fighter purchase, it's hard to know where to start when it comes to knocking them down.

I'd like to start with one of the oft-repeated ones though: all our NATO friends are buying F-35s, so it's vitally important that we buy the same jet as them so we can play together and be "inter-operable" because, if we have a different jet, we won't be able to work together and madness will ensue.

Really, since when? This strident necessity for everyone having the same jet and not being able to work together otherwise must have suddenly popped up recently, because it has never been the case in the past.

As an Air Force brat I lived on Canadian fighter base in Germany in the late 1980s, and the dizzying array of different NATO ally aircraft that would pass through was impressive. Canadian CF-18s. American F-15s, F-16s and F-111s. German F-4s and Tornados. British Tornados and Jaguars. And the odd French Mirage and Swedish Viggen on the non-NATO front.

All these many different fighter types (we're not even including Navy aircraft here) and yet, still, they all managed to work together and conduct regular successful joint exercises. Canada deployed CF-18s to the first Gulf War and to Bosnia, operating jointly with different allied aircraft.

Look at all the types of aircraft operated concurrently by just the United States Air Force over the years -- somehow, they managed to work with themselves and be all interoperable and what not.

Would there be some benefits from operating the same type as the Americans and the British? When it comes to joint deployments, sure. We could borrow spare parts and share munitions. But such joint deployments would be rare. The more important element of interoperability is around internal systems to let pilots cooperate on the battlefield, which IS independent of fighter type.

The fact is, interoperability has never been dependent on having the same fighter type. And, more importantly, it should be a lesser consideration to what should be the primary mission for our next-generation fighter: domestic interception and sovereignty patrol. With that mission in mind, there are a number of possible cheaper alternatives to the F-35 that we could consider. Alternatives, in fact, that will also be operated by some of our allies.

This whole "we need the same aircraft" argument really has nothing to do with interoperability. And interoperability wasn't the primary reason the F-35 consortium came together. The argument of putting everyone on the same type was really economic: the U.S. and British each want to replace several types with one multi-purpose craft. Operating one type saves on training and maintenance, and buy buying in bulk they can get a better deal.

There are other arguments to be made for the F-35, but the interoperability talking point is a weak one, and it's not worth paying a cost premium for.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Interesting reading: Canadian travel advisory

I'm off to Las Vegas Monday morning for a work-related conference, and a travel advisory popped into my e-mail yesterday from the vendor organizing the conference. It's probably standard procedure for their employees travelling overseas, but it seems a little out of place for Canada. And it's kind of odd, as I'm going to the U.S. from Canada. Still, it has some amusing observations about Canada I thought I'd share.

For example, you'll be relieved to know our security and medical risk ratings are currently low:

Risks to travellers remain LOW. Stringent security measures at airports and land-border crossings into the US may cause occasional travel disruption. Most locally based Islamist militants are believed to confine their activities to fund-raising and logistical support, though there is evidence that both home-grown and foreign terrorists are willing to stage attacks in Canada. Other targets include official US or Israeli interests, as well as locations associated with the Jewish communities in Toronto and Montréal or infrastructure points such as major road bridges connecting Canada and the US. The crime risk is low, though petty street crime can be a problem, especially in low-income neighbourhoods of the major cities.

More on the terror front:

Canada’s military engagement in Afghanistan and its support for the US-led war on terrorism have made it a potential target for Islamist extremist attacks. The government has earmarked considerable funds to bolster its law-enforcement capacity to counter possible terrorist attacks. The additional financing allowed for the enhancement of policing activities at municipal and provincial levels and helped to increase the effectiveness of federal law enforcement and intelligence-gathering activities.

Domestic terrorism is not a major security threat. However, radical extremist groups such as animal rights and anti-abortion activists sometimes carry out small-scale terrorist acts.

Meanwhile, you'll be glad to know we're not at risk of contracting malaria in Canada, and that bribery in our police and judicial system is rare. There is a slight risk, however, of diarrhea.

Speaking of which, their perspective on our health care system is interesting:

Standard of Health Care

Canada's public healthcare system (Medicare) is available to all Canadians and offers an international standard of care; there are virtually no private facilities. Since healthcare is a free service for all Canadians, many smaller hospitals and providers are not set up to manage non-Canadians, who must be charged for medical services. Also, because the healthcare system is under significant strain from a resource perspective, appointments for specialists are on a first-come-first-serve basis. Thus waiting times for specialist appointments can be extremely long. Initial non-urgent medical care is provided by a primary care practitioner--see the "Outpatient Care" section. Most larger cities have a referral hospital where all specialties are available; many cities also have university teaching hospitals, with resident staff and sub-specialty consultation. Health care professionals in the province of Québec may only speak French. However, English-speaking physicians practice at the McGill University Teaching Hospitals in Montreal. All physicians are licensed by the Canadian provincial medical boards; many also have U.S. certification. Some helpful terminology used in Canada: "chemists" are referred to as "pharmacies", "casualty departments" are called "emergency rooms" and "surgery hours" are often called "office hours."

But I most enjoyed the general cultural tips:

*Canadians may feel uncomfortable if you stand too close to them during conversation. Stand approximately two feet away from people.
* If invited to a Canadian home, bring a gift of flowers, candy or a bottle of wine. Note that French Canadians may expect you to stay out of 'private' rooms - including the kitchen - unless they invite you to enter them.
* Some households consider it rude to wear shoes indoors. Observe your host's behavior and follow their lead.
* Pointing with your index finger at another person is considered impolite.
* Smoking has been banned in most public areas.
* People form lines pay for items in stores, buy theatre tickets, enter buildings and board public transportation. Even if the line is informal, or if no line is made, people rely on a "first come, first served" mindset. Do not jump or push ahead in line.
* To show approval, there are two common gestures: the "O.K." sign, formed by making a circle of the thumb and index finger, and the "thumbs up" sign, formed by making a fist and pointing the thumb upward.

No idea where they're coming from on the hand gestures thing, but I'm with them on the line-cutting thing. Line cutters piss me off.

Finally, I'll leave you with some business culltural tips:

*Canadian men and women shake hands during business introductions. A firm handshake is expected.
*When meeting for the first time, address the person by their professional title, followed by their surname. Many Canadians will immediately invite you to call them by their first names.
*Punctuality is important, as business appointments are expected to start at the time specified.
*Business meetings over lunch are more common than dinner meetings. When having dinner, it may be advisable to wait for your counterpart to initiate a business discussion.
*Business gifts should be modest and given after closing a deal. Canadians will open their gifts immediately upon receipt.
*Business dress is generally conservative. Suits are appropriate for both women and men. Women may also wear a dress or a skirt and blouse.
*Negotiations and business in general is usually done quickly, relative to the pace of most other cultures.
*Direct eye contact and a friendly manner are expected.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Muzzle Watch 2010: PMO trying to shield Julian Fantino from media?

Stephen Harper was in Vaughan on Friday to help launch former top OPP and Toronto cop Julian Fantino's campaign as the Conservative candidate in the yet to be scheduled by-election.

A few interesting things emerged from the coverage, such as the revelation that apparently Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak didn't show him the love, or perhaps he might have run provincially.

This brief line in the Toronto Star story caught my eye though:

“I think this is the place that best fits my desires to make, hopefully, a significant difference on the things that threaten Canada, of which Vaughan is very much a part,” he told reporters after a Harper handler initially barred the media from speaking to him.

Could it be that the infamous Harper muzzle is back? After all, Conservative candidates have a long history of dodging the media, all candidates meetings, and other unscripted public interaction.

It appears Fantino has fought off the attempted muzzling, at least for now. He's certainly not the sort to calmly consent to keeping his mouth shut. We'll have to see if they try to slip the muzzle back on as the campaign gets underway.

I, for one, look forward to hearing what Fantino has to say on the issues of the day. Particularly on all the things he thinks threaten Canada, of which he assures us Vaughan is very much a part. Certainly, his past comments on a variety of issues have proved noteworthy.

Also, this site would seem worth watching: Conservatives Against Fantino.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Who needs fighters when we can buy Bomarc missiles?

Bringing the Avro Arrow into a debate on defense issues is like bringing Neville Chamberlain into a debate on appeasement (but without the Nazi reference). Both are too often used references in such debates.

I’m going to bring the Arrow into this F-35-related post however, but only tangentially. Back when production costs were soaring on the Arrow and the government was under pressure to cancel the program in the late 1950s, there was a group of expert opinion that maintained the era of the manned fighter-interceptor was over. That investing millions in jets was silly when they were already obsolete. And besides, the over the pole bomber threat would disappear with the development of the ICBM

The replacement, in their view? Long-range, often nuclear-tipped, surface-to-air missiles. In Canada’s case specifically, the Bomarc. The Eisenhower government pressured John Diefenbaker to scrap the Arrow and buy Bomarcs instead. And if we still needed some interim fighters, he’d be happy to sell us some US-made Voodoos.

In the end, we cancelled the Arrow and bought the Bomarcs, which had all kinds of performance issues and never lived up to their billing. (And, of course, the nuclear warheads for the Bomarc (and later for our fighter air craft) would be a political issue for many years to come.) We eventually scrapped them about 10 years later.

And, of course, we still bought fighter aircraft. Voodoos, Starfighters, Freedom Fighters, Hornets, and now, possibly, the Lightning. Some 50 years later, the fighter-interceptor isn’t any more obsolete in 2010 than it was supposed to be in 1959.

I bring this all up because I had a sense of déjà vu reading this article today about how, once again, the manned interceptor is about to be obsolete. This time instead of the Bomarc, it’s drones:

The government should cancel plans to spend $9 billion on a new fleet of F-35 fighter jets because they are not necessary, defence policy analyst Steven Staples says in a paper published Thursday.

Staples says the government should extend the life of its current fleet of newly refurbished CF-18 fighters by confining them to domestic surveillance and interception roles and consider replacing many of them in the long run with much cheaper pilotless drones.

This argument doesn’t make any more sense now than it did 50 years ago, and there is actually remarkable similarity in the arguments why relying on missiles was wrong then and why relying on drones is wrong now.

Drones do offer some improvements over missiles. You can’t call a missile back, but you can recall a drone. You can probe and identify with a drone; a missile is purely offensive. But the fact is there’s no substitute for having a highly trained pilot in the cockpit, making split-second decisions based on their in the spot observations. You just can’t replicate that over a drone video connection to a controller with a joystick thousands of miles away.

Drones definitely have their uses. Reconnaissance for sure, and even ground attack in high-risk areas. But I have a hard time picturing air-to-air combat with drones. And when it comes to intercepting, identifying and interrogating unknown threats on our borders, I’d feel more comfortable with a person on the spot, in the seat, evaluating the situation.

There is ample debate to be had on whether the F-35 is the right jet for our needs, or whether a more affordable alternative – the Superhornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Silent Eagle, or others – might be a better fit. That’s one reason we need to have an open competitive process.

But as far as I’m concerned, reports of the death of the manned fighter are as premature today as they were 50 years ago.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Michael Ignatieff on his vision for Canada

When I have a chance I'll be back with some thoughts on last night's Open mike event in North York with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. I also have some F-35 related thoughts to share. But for now, I wanted to share this video that just went live on the Liberal Web site. In it, Ignatieff gets a little more personal than he has in the past about why he's in politics, what's driving him and what he wants to accomplish. I think it's pretty good.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Say no to UAE blackmail

Every once and awhile I’ll agree with Stephen Harper on something, and this is one of those times: when the United Arab Emirates decided to link Canadian military use of the not-really secret Camp Mirage (used to support our forces in Afghanistan) with landing rights for their state-owned and subsidized airlines, my answer would also have been to tell the UAE to stick it.

“For the UAE to hold Camp Mirage up for ransom was the last straw for [the Prime Minister],” a source close to the issue told The Globe.

And when they stopped a plane with the defence minister and chief of defence staff from entering their airspace enroute to Afghanistan, I would call them up and remind them, once again, where they can stick it. Such linkage is bush league thuggery, not diplomacy, and we’re right not to play ball on this. I’m disappointed that my Liberals, instead of calling a spade a spade here, decided they couldn’t resist a chance to disagree with Harper on something:

The Liberals are blaming Tory "incompetence" for an embarrassing landing-rights dispute between Canada and the United Arab Emirates.

The two countries were in talks to allow UAE airlines more flights to Canadian airports, but the deal was called off.

As a result, Canada has lost access to a major staging ground for troops headed in and out of Afghanistan.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said that resulted in the "absurd spectacle" of Canada's top soldier and two cabinet ministers barred from landing in the UAE on their way out of Kandahar.

He called it a "simple story of incompetence" and said it's another sign the Harper government is out of touch on the world stage.

Michael, I will agree that Stephen is out of touch on the world stage. But this isn’t another example of it. The UAE is out of line on this, and we should be saying so. There’s plenty to attack them on with the UN thing already.

Now, what about the larger issue of greater landing rights for Emirates Airlines in Canada? I seem to be with the government on this one as well: they’re not warranted at this time.

The fact is, there isn’t near enough direct Canada to UAE direct traffic to warrant an increase in capacity. And Emirates knows that. They’ve been pouring billions of government dollars into making their airline and their brand new $32 billion airport a transit hub: funnel traffic through Dubai and on to Asia and other destinations. They don’t come out and say it, but their goal is to siphon off transit passengers that now transit through Europe with other airlines. That’s their entire business model. It has nothing to do with UAE-Canada direct traffic.

Negotiations over landing rights are about reciprocal access, and opening up markets to the benefit of each country. But the fact is Canadian airlines have little interest in flying to the UAE (even if UAE were willing to offer equal access) because there is little market for direct traffic. Like the big hotels and indoor ski hills built on a mountain of debt, it’s a mirage. The UAE simply wants to siphon off business from Canadian airlines, with little to no benefit to Canadian airlines or consumers. Why should we agree to that?

Now, there are those that argue we should have open skies, fair competition, let the market win and consumers benefit from lower prices. Let foreign airlines fly point to point within Canada (it’s called cabotage in airline lingo). Is that the answer? I say, not really. Proponents of this argument like to point to Europe, land of super-low fare airlines such as Ryan Air and Air Berlin. But they miss a few key points.

Key among them is that Europe is a highly and densely populated compact region. You have a lot of people travelling within a smaller space. Canada is more sparsely populated, with significantly fewer people. If we threw open the doors tomorrow, I don’t doubt I could get home to Vancouver from Toronto for a heckuva lot less than I could today on Air Canada or WestJet. That’s a high-traffic route with lots of high-value business traffic: new entrants would be quick to jump on that.

But unless you live in Vancouver or Toronto, and maybe Montreal, you won’t see any benefit. You think Lufthansa will be servicing Fredericton? Will JAL be flying to Saskatoon? Not a chance. They’ll pick off the high-value, high-traffic domestic routes that feed into their international routes. And it’s on those international routes that the airlines make what money they do make.

The domestic routes are actually subsidized by the international traffic, and are more important as a feeder into the international network. So what happens when you allow Emirates to siphon off high-value international business, and let international airlines fly domestically within Canada on the few high-traffic routes? You siphon revenue from Canadian airlines with no reciprocal business opportunity, and force them to drop low-profit domestic routes in a futile attempt to compete on price. So, yes, your flight from Toronto to Sydney via Dubai will be cheaper. But you’ll need to drive from Winnipeg to Toronto to catch the flight. Or see your savings evaporate because of an astronomical Winnipeg to Toronto flight.

And, of course, the “open, fair competition” argument presupposes a level playing field. With the debt-ridden UAE government pouring billions into both its state-owned airlines and its airport infrastructure, the playing field is anything but open, fair and level.

The Harper government hasn’t gotten much right on foreign policy lately. But they’ve made the right call here: say no to UAE blackmail.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we need Michael Chong to reform the At Issue panel?

On Thursday evening I was on a United flight somewhere over south-western Ontario, so I couldn't watch the week's At Issue panel on CBC's The National. I could read the transcript though, which is often more amusing than the live video anyways.

It seems on Thursday Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne really went at it over the Maclean's Quebec corruption issue. And understandably so, given where each of them is coming from.

As I read the transcript though, I was reminded of a bit they used to do on the Daily Show: great moments in punditry as read by children. They would take a particularly ridiculous segment from Crossfire or one of those shows, give the transcripts to children, and have them read it out. It really seemed to add a certain perspective.

I think this exchange between Coyne and Hebert would be a really good fit for a punditry as read by children segment:

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

... But to suggest this is some sort of beyond the pale and an assault on Quebecers' dignity or that it has no foundation, as Chantal said, I just think does not itself have any foundation.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

Well, you… then I guess the onus…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

Hang on, let me finish, please. Let me finish, please. Let me finish, please.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, but the onus is…

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm sorry, I'm going to finish.

PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST):

One at a time, one at a time.

CHANTAL HÉBERT ("TORONTO STAR"):

No, no, no, no. You've had the stage all week.

ANDREW COYNE ("MACLEAN'S"):

I'm going to finish. I'm going to finish, Chantal, I'm going to finish...

Somehow I think reading this exchange in transcript-form really underlines the absurdity. And where's Michael Chong when you need him? Clearly we need comprehensive reforms to bringing civility back to the at issue panel!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers