Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Sex line not enough to win over fishermen

While much fun has been had with the Conservatives putting up a phone-sex line for lobster fishermen to get information on the government's new assistance program for the beleaguered industry, more interesting to me is the reaction of the fishermen to the aid package itself.

Fisheries minister Gail Shea made the announcement recently on a maritime wharf, with a backdrop of lobster fishermen behind her to frame the photo-op for the cameras. As they listened to the minister announce the details of the program, however, the backdrops came to life and turned on their master:

Shea told the crowd that the help would only be available to fishermen who collected under $50,000 in revenue in 2009, and who also recorded a 25 per cent drop in revenue compared to last year.

That prompted some fishermen to bellow comments that painted the aid package as a joke, an insult, and asked how they would feed their kids.

A few men stated loudly and plainly that none of the fishermen standing on that wharf would qualify for the help.

Later, and in a calmer tone, they would explain to Shea and reporters that they aren't eligible because the criteria measures gross rather than net revenues and doesn't account for the expenses that eat into those earnings.
Quite embarrassing. Did they not consult lobster fishermen before putting together a package that many of them would have serious issues with? If they did, why use them as a backdrop when you're giving them bad news? This is a foul-up all around for Shea and the Conservatives, from both a policy and a communications perspective.

And all the phone-sex lines in the world can't change that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


ricky said...

The tories are completely out of touch with reality. Ad aid package that doesn't help lobster fishers is about as good as Harper skipping UN meetings on climate change.

cls said...

One is left with the impression that the Tories want to give the appearance of doing something that can be neatly inserted into the news or a campaign brochure, but don't actually want it to benefit many people. It's politics as simulacrum: simulations upon simulations.

Barcs said...

That mistake in the phone number was really funny. :)

I thought tho that the approach of only funding the people who need it most (the most vulnerable) was a central tenant of liberal policy??? It seems like something you would support? Or is it not giving away enough of peoples money??

"appearance of doing something.... but don't actually want it to benefit many people."

I don't think it matters which politician you are talking about that statement is way out in space. The more people it benefits the more people vote for you. And if you can't get votes from it, why not spend it on something else. Basic self preservation and all.