Campaign Trail 2011: How to Vote for YOU

Politics for Joe 24

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

We will absolutely be completing the series on the party platforms. The feedback I've had has been both positive and angrily negative from all sides so therefore we're doing something right. But for now, I want to share with you some thoughts on how to vote.

No, I don't mean that in a candidate or party-specific way. That I think is the trap that Big Media springs on the average voter. The concentration on large, macro patterns such as national or provincial polling; along with large, macro topics such as the relative popularity of the party leaders takes the great national argument away from what its rightful subject. You.

The model voter

Some rather toxic combination of schools, churches and correct parenting drive into us the notion that it is always wrong to be selfish. Have you ever seen the last piece of pie get tossed into the bin because no one in the family wanted to appear so selfish as to take and eat that last wedge of fruit-filled pastry? I swear we as a nation waste tonnes of food per year because we don't want to be appear like greedy little piggies.

Politics and elections are the absolute perfect times to stand up and loudly say, 'What's in it pour moi?' Quebec mastered the art decades ago in the Duplessis era. Everyone from Hull to the Gaspé knew that Le Chiffre was calling a provincial election because the streets and highways smelled of hot, fresh asphalt as the roads were literally paved for another victory. To this day, the Rest of Canada (ROC) tends to get huffy and annoyed with Quebec's quote/enquote 'whining' to get rewards like aerospace contracts, new bridges, hockey rinks, etc. etc. etc. Personally I think it's brilliant on Quebec's part and the ROC should learn from the Bloc.

Here's the theory in a nutshell. If each and every one of us precisely voted our own narrow and selfish interests we should end up with a balanced Parliament that follows the priorities laid out by the electorate. Emphasis on should. I will point out and comment on the flaw in the theory later.

I ask you to take a look at yourself, and/or your own family if you have been so lucky as to have one in your home. What is the one thing that government could possibly do for you that would make your life a little better, a little happier? I urge you not to just reply, 'More money!' as money is a means to an end, not an end to itself regardless of what monetarist Tories will tell you.

(Well you didn't expect me to start getting objective, now did you?)

But if it's more money, it's more money. This is your Letter to Santa, not mine. My priority is Home Care. I have an 85 year old mother living upstairs for whom I get absolutely no help in terms of subsidy or placement in a safer setting. If we ever have a fire - and we did have a house fire four years ago - she will die. Simple as that. Equally, I have a 45 year old beautiful common law wife who is not living in our house because she suffered a brain aneurysm. There are no Neuro-psychologists in Northwestern Ontario (think Oliver Saks) and this is inhibiting her recovery so that she still requires 24 hour supervision. I cannot give that because I have to work, so she must live with her parents in Atikokan, two hours' drive away.

I tell you this personal story because it directly impacts my vote. Which party, which platform, addresses my needs? Both the NDP and Liberals have strong Health Care and Home Care platform planks. So my choice narrows to those two.

Then, what is second on my Santa List? I work at a hotel, therefore it is in my selfish interest to see lots of tourists come to Thunder Bay. Lots of tourists means filled hotel rooms, means profits means a wage increase and more pension money when our next contract comes up. Which platform will do the most for tourism? The Liberals are committed to high-speed rail. Yes, it will first be in the Windsor-Montreal corridor, but at least that's a start and it will likely mean more work for friends who work at teh Bombardier plant here. So, I guess Ken Boshcoff gets my vote.

Are you grasping how this works now? Another example: Let's say you are the parent of a Canadian soldier fighting in Afghanistan. If you want him or her brought home immediately - that's your top priority - you should vote for the NDP candidate in your riding. If you want him or her armed to the teeth, you should vote Tory. The Conservatives are the party most committed to spending at the Department of National Defence.

Essentially then, I am suggesting a three-part process:

1) Assess your priorities

2) Discover who addresses your priorities

3) Vote accordingly

This is why I am plowing through the platforms on your behalf because you have too much life going on to do it for yourself. If all 30,000 or so people who will actually vote in an average riding did just that, the pattern will reflect the riding's majority interests and that riding will elect a man or woman with a mandate to press for those interests.

The flaw - and there is one - is what of minority interests? In some ways all interests are minority interests. Somewhere between 3-7% of the population live with a disability. (The range is because of differing definitions.) There are lots of people who require Home Care, but never a majority. It is for this reason that the economic number that most affects voting is not unemployment, but inflation. Unemployment affects the unemployed. paying more for gas, chicken and toilet paper affects everyone.

This is the big shiny argument for proportional representation (PR). Narrow, minority interests would be represented by narrow, minority interest parties who would in turn build Parliamentary coalitions and work for one another when and where their policy interests matched.

What I've never liked about PR is that I know how the Big Parties will abuse it. They too will receive a certain number of PR seats, so there will actually be Liberal and NDP members in Alberta and so forth. These PR seats are where the Big Parties will place their Star Candidates, so they don't have to get all mucky and actually campaign and get your Uncle Lou his passport on time. And they will wind up leading the party, being the Cabinet members and future leaders; which in turn makes the riding-elected Member of Parliament even less important than s/he is now.

Thanks for reading. More platform columns this week. Please share, tweet and comment. Be seeing you.

Actress (Part One)

Inside Television 549

Publication Date: 4-15-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Lisa Marie DiGiacinto

Actress. I've never understood why the all-encompassing term Actor ever came into use for both men and women. It has to make life awkward for anglophone women named Jean auditioning in Quebec and francophone men finding similar work in Alberta. I find nothing discriminatory about the word actress; therefore I continue to use it.

This and the following two weeks' columns are about one actress. You see, we tend to concentrate on those that have made it, or lost it, or are in the position as producers of media products of making it for others. Life looks easy for them when viewed from a distance: pools and pool parties, more champagne darling, and isn't the beach lovely this time of year?

Yet acting is the hardest work, the hardest career you can pick because talent doesn't necessarily rise like cream or champagne bubbles. Actors and actresses work and scrimp and haul tired bodies into empty theatres lit by one bulb so that they can look fresh and sparkly and just what some shadowy face sat at a table is looking for. Except they aren't looking for someone 5'7 with chestnut hair - no, we really want 5'8 and auburn thank you for coming leave your pictures at the desk.

I'd like to introduce you to a friend of mine that I haven't seen in more than ten years who is right there, right at that moment when the hundredth key has been placed in the lock and turned and - lo and behold - it clicked. She is about to become one of the exalted ones. May we have a round of applause for Lisa DiGiacinto.

Lisa has just secured her first major role, the female lead in Quiver; a feature film that begins shooting in Thunder Bay next month. Lisa is from Thunder Bay originally and it is a splendid irony that she moved first to Calgary and then Vancouver to receive her break in Thunder Bay. But that's acting for you. If you don't have a sense of irony going in, don't worry, it will seek you out.

I want to take you on the path Lisa followed to where she is today. I first met her in 1999. For a very brief time, there was a theatre production group at Lakehead University, where Lisa was a student. I know that theatre group well because I headed it. Dr. Fred Gilbert, the President of LU was kind enough to give me a desk in the basement of the Agora and we put on one show, Anton Chekhov's The Seagull. There was no funding, so it all drifted apart like the mists of a Russian dawn, but for a few minutes it was brilliant.

Lisa played Nina, the female lead. She was twenty then, very pretty and equally unpolished but you could see that she really - really - wanted to act. I remember during rehearsal she broke into tears behind the curtain on the stage right side of the Bora Laskin Auditorium, next to a giant clanking lighting board that looked like a set piece from Wolfgang Petersen's film Das Boot. I don't remember now what I said, but it must have worked.

On opening night she gave a performance that is - yes - my favourite of 105 opening nights I have attended as actor or director or writer. Lisa electrified. In the closing mad scene she was consumed and consumed and fed the audience with all the shock and perfect horror of her character. She became an Actress in that moment.

I wondered over the intervening decade what had become of her, knowing in my heart that if she pursued it, she might breathe the rare air of stardom. Thanks to Facebook, we re-connected.

Next week: Packing, Pubs and Parts - the story continues.

Campaign 2011: The Leader's Debate LIVE!

The 2011 Leader's Debate


Live blog starts at 6:45 PM EDT
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
Email them to: hlohearn@gmail.com


6:30 PM - Welcome. Tonight is pretty much the whole campaign. In a nutshell, can Harper survive the latest blast to the Trust issue? Does Michael Ignatieff have the Right Stuff? Will Jack Layton become relevant? And why is Gilles Duceppe there anyway?

6:35 PM The tough nut to crack Ignatieff and Layton need to attack Harper, yet not appear either a) shrill or b) a tag team. Politics is enough like wrestling that the fans tend to cheer for the underdog. The point needs to be made that Canada made it through the recession because of 80 years of banking regulation that avoided the debt crisis. If that can be stated clearly, then the agenda can shift to the future to that - you know - vision thingy.

6:40 - It is a very odd looking studio, like something out of a 1963 game show.

6:42 Watching our friend Marcia MacMillan on CTV News Channel The leaders are in the room. I remember interviewing Steve Paikin who moderated the 2006 debate. Steve said the eerie thing was that for the 10 minutes before the debate started, none of them said a word to each other. Massively tense.

6:45  Yes, we did start a bit early. I can't get over the look of the studio. Big organgey/brown rectangles and the podiums (podia? Podiatrists?) set very close. I'd pay dearly to see Layton start thumping his cane on the floor..on the podium...on Harper...

6:50 So it is Paikin again. Wonder if he's cracking a joke. I know he was highly tempted last time out...

6:52 The format is awkward: 4 in a room. You never really get a true one-on-one ... you know, debate like what you had in Mrs. Wigglesworth's Grade 5 class. Pity.

6:55 - right then, have to serve out dinner. Back for the start. Be sure to send any comments, particularly if you agree that Harper should be strapped naked to an ice floe and set loose in shark-filled waters. heh

6:58  So which one will be the first to unbutton his dark blue serge suit to show he's 'getting down to business'? My money's on Jack.

7:00 Showtime!

7:03 Oh good, there are one-on-ones. Harper plays Duceppe first. Duceppe of course is the one guy with nothing to lose.

7:04  Harper: economy good. taxes bad. Duceppe congratulates Harper for answering a question from a citizen for first time in teh campaign. Funny. And Duceppe goes right to the Auditor-General's report.

7:05 Duceppe makes the point that it was the Opposition that forced the Public Works spending in 2008-2009

7:06 Honestly, I love Duceppe. Great, animated face. He makes Harper's voice waver when catching him on a small point that there was no stimulus plan in Jim Flaherty's economic statement 2 1/2 years ago.

7:10 If it was boxing, you'd have to give the round to Duceppe 10-9

7:11 Ignatieff fires on corporate tax cuts, waste of public money etc. Too scattershot. And you can tell Harper HATES Ignatieff. If they can get Harper angry, that might do it, like the V aliens unzipping their human skins.

7:12 Layton comes on calm, clear and focused. "You've become what you used to oppose" Great line. "Something's happened to you" "What happened to you?"

Harper: "There are no corporate tax cuts right now" Huh?

Early grades: Duceppe B, Iggy C, Harper B (hard to play under attack) Layton A

7:15 Harper makes no eye contact with either the other leaders or the camera.  Bad move.

7:17 Iggy is awkward, no doubt about it. But Harper is in the position of defending fighter jet purchases. Layton handles the questioning much better.

7:18 Harper scores well by pointing out Canada has a 'balanced approach' in coming out of the recession. We don't, but it is an excellent calming point. He is sounding frustrated though.

7:20 I keep coming back to the eye thing. It's like Harper is talking to an invisible midget

QUESTION ONE OVER:
Harper: B
Layton B+
Ignatieff C+
Duceppe C (strong early then faded)

Question Two On foreign affairs aka Canada goes to the fridge


7:25 Layton makes the push on bring the troops home now from Afghanistan. Iggy attacks Jack - BIG STUPID MOVE! And why? Because Layton says to him, "Those are the same arguments Mr. Harper makes" Strange thing, but I always thought foreign policy would prove to be Ignatieff's weakness. then again, I've actually read his opinions. He is a hawk.

7:26 Layton is landing body blows all over Ignatieff over Liberal support of Tory policies. But Ignatieff opened himself up to it.

7:28  If the NDP don't get a 3-4% bounce out of tonight, then I don't know what they can do. This has been Jack Layton's finest hour.

7:32 Btw, housekeeping her. Hit F5 to refresh if you didn't know.

7:35 Iggy interjects - "then release it"! On the Auditor-General's Report. Makes for a nice camera swerve and gives a sense of energy to Ignatieff who is floundering. he has a terrible whine to his voice. that smothers his points.

7:37 There too, when Harper puts on that whispery 'calm' voice he does sound like he's talking down to people. Perhaps the invisible midget?

7:38 Layton hits out at the Senate blocking an Environmental bill twice.

End Question Two:


Layton: A-
Harper: B
Ignatieff: C
Duceppe: C

Question Three: Governance One-on-one between Harper and Ignatieff


Ignatieff's Super Bowl, right here, right now.


7:45 Ignatieff - and it pains me to say it - is an actor struggling to remember his lines. Harper's getting his majority.

7:46 Or...Iggy's best moment on kicking people out of Tory rallies. harper's eyes have finally found the camera. And WTF!!?!! Harper opposing 'personal attacks'!?

7:46 Ignatieff finally woke up. "You stiffed Parliament Mr. Harper."

7:50 Duceppe looking a bit bored, wondering when cocktail hour's over. Decides to bring up the famous 2004 meeting that woulod have made Harper Prime Minister.

7:52 Harper flustered from the Layton-Duceppe tag team. "Look what you wrote" Duceppe repeats.

7:53 Iggy's body language is loosened up. He's MUCH better now.

7:56 Duceppe definitely bloodied Harper. There is another little quirk to Harper - when he lies he puts on "the sincere calm voice" And his interpretation of the 2004 meeting clearly is a lie.

8:00


Running Grade


Layton: A
Harper: B-
Ignatieff: C+
Duceppe: B-


8:01 - A Layton cheap shot on Ignatieff's poor record of actually being in his seat. That is a cheap shot, you know.


Question Four: Immigration and Multiculturalism


 I wonder if Ignatieff will bring up the attacks the Tories have made on his personal story?

One-on-one between Duceppe and Layton aka The Bronze Medal Game. I'm getting coffee...brb

8:07 - This does give Harper a breather and I wonder how many viewers have clicked over to American Idol?

8:10 - Iggy leads with his Dad emigrating from Russia. Points out Harper has cut settlement funding for new immigrants.

8:12 - Iggy very good in making the immigration issue personal.

8:14 Harper standing up to Duceppe over Bill 101 scores some easy points in the ROC

8:16  This is a cheap thing to say...but from certain angles Layton's makeup EXACTLY MATCHES the backdrop

8:17 Ignatieff does make a good point in talking about Equality over ethnic groupings pitted against one another. That will play well (to the 3% of the population who deeply care about this particular issue)

Running Grade


No change


Question Five: Justice


This will be Harper's red meat, grrr, build prisons issue


8:20 -  Ignatieff leads with the gun registry! Nice. Gutsy. And saying 'don't learn from the Americans' always goes down nice and smooth.

8:22  - Iggy v. Duceppe again gives Harper a rest period. Not an issue where there is a real debate between the Liberals and Bloc though. Sense viewers switching off again. I guess that last question will be Health Care.

8:24 Duceppe mentions Freedom of Choice and the Tories removing it by a backdoor, private member's bill.

8:25 Ignatieff is right about the 'Politics of Fear'...it just isn't phrased in a way that has any great meaning.

8:26 Energy has left the room, as all four prepare for the final round.

8:30 Surprised no one brought up the Tory propsals on Internet surveillance, although in fairness I refilled my coffee so I may have missed something.

8:31 Jack gets audience response of OOOO-AHHHH "I don't know why we need more prisons when tyhe crooks are happy in the Senate" That was the first time I realized there was an audience.

8:35 Ignatieff goes for gun control. I think this is a vote-getter and a good move. The red meat good ol' boys won't be for the Liberals anyway. Harper says most gun owners are in favour of gun control - not in my experience.

Running Grade:


Harper: B
Ignatieff: B-
Layton: B
Duceppe: C+


End of Question Five


Question Six: Health care


Harper v. Layton


This is Canada's top priority according to the polls. Layton understandably waves the Tommy Douglas flag and boosts for more family doctors and home care

8:40 Harper again makes an odd promise for things to be done in 2014. Are they planning a 2 year vacation?

8:42 Jack Layton is re-energized, as he should be. This is the NDP home court.

8:43 Christ, I can't stand the Harper "soothing voice". Wonder...am I alone?

8:45 Harper dodges the privatization issue. Now the final, Final Four debate.

8:46 Ignatieff has the traditional Liberal position of, "if the provinces are going to take the cheque, Ottawa has a voice" He also makes an awkwardly phrased equation that money on G20, jets and prisons takes away from Health Care. There is something reminiscent of Trudeau in Iggy to the extent that PET was terrible when working from a script, but completely alive when he became spontaneous

8:50 Well, we're almost at the end. Harper had a very rough first half an hour but ultimately those who don't like him will have had their opinions vindicated and rinse and repeat for those who do like him. Layton landed the best shots and likely saved the NDP campaign. Duceppe can bank his 50 seats. And Ignatieff...well it would have been really, really interesting if a great debater like Bob Rae had been Liberal leader. I just don't find him to be a compelling figure. Can I 'envision' him as Prime Minister, yes. But can I see him raising the wave of mass energy needed to kick a government out of power? No.

Four more years.

Final post will be on the closing statements.

8:45  Gimlet-eyed. That's the metaphor I've looked for with Harper.

8:55 Layton's closing - Standard recitation of policies.

Duceppe's closing -  See above. We want a country.

Ignatieff's Closing - Respect for democracy. Standard recitation of policies.


Harper's closing: Economy good, taxes bad.

barring jail time or Cabinet Ministers caught with sheep, Harper majority. Merde.

Campaign Trail 2011: The Job Platforms

Politics for Joe 24

For: Lake Superior News

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For those who missed my previous column, I'm doing the heavy lifting that the national media has shirked. They care about chicken suits and poor seating at Harper rallies...I'm looking at the policy proposals at of the Big Three parties. My goal is to re-engage the electorate with the election before the only people bothering to turn out to the polls are the candidates, their friends and family, and some guy named Pete who had to use the washroom.

Last time we looked at the Parties' plans for your Family. Today: Jobs.

The Job Situation at Present:

Canada's unemployment rate is a lumpy and mediocre 7.7%. Economists have knife fights over what constitutes 'full employment' - there will always be a certain percentage of employable adults who step back for various family reasons, are between engagements, or have just told the Boss to take the paycheque, fold it five ways and put it where the moon don't shine. Basically, any number under 6% is Good. An unemployment rate over 8% is bad. So Canada currently is in transition, but it remains to be seen (the favourite phrase of the bet-hedging journalist) which way the needle will move next.

But, there is a deeper problem and it is one you have heard at the coffee shop, at the bar, or at your dining room table. We are leaking industrial wage jobs, those that pay +$18 per hour, and replacing them with jobs that require name tags, paper hats or both. 9.4% of Canadians are defined as living in low-income situations i.e. earning less than $20,000 per year. And if you've never tried living on $1500 per month ... don't.

So what are the Parties proposing to preserve what we've got, and expand the number of jobs that will provide economic security?

The Parties Speak!

Sunday afternoon, the NDP finally released their platform, replacing the 158 words re-printed in the previous column. That required some late revisions to this column. I'm starting to think Jack Layton has it in for me.

Nonetheless, the NDP platform has 10 direct references to Jobs. As you will see, that is the least of the Three Big Parties, but our interest is in the quality rather than the quantity. So, what are their proposals?

A specific recommendation is reducing the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% as an offset to the corporate tax rise that the New Democrats also propose (albeit they do promise to keep Canada's corporate tax rate below that of the U.S.). That, plus a year-long exemption from EI and CPP premiums paid for new hires, along with a $1,000 non-refundable tax credit for new hires who last a full year at their job add up to a maximum $4,500 incentive. On a $25,000 entry level job, that works out to an 18% Federal subsidy in one form or another.

The NDP project that the above proposal would add 200,00 jobs to the economy. Instinct tells me that the number sounds high, and there is no guarantee that these would be other than name tag & paper hat jobs (is the NDP subsidizing Wal-Mart and MacDonald's?), but it would go a long way towards off-setting the 113,000 jobs lost between October 2008 and October 2010.

For Northern Ontario, the NDP would double the funding for FedNor. Foreign Investment would be examined at a $100 million or higher threshold and such investment would have to meet a 'net benefit for Canada' test.

That really is about it in terms of direct job creation, although the NDP commitment to retro-fitting homes to be more energy efficient will (they say brightly) 'create local jobs'!

To be brutally honest with you, the program feels rushed and slapped together. But judged purely on its merits...

O'Hearn's Grade: C

As to the Liberals, their Red Book platform when searched has 41 references to Jobs. They frame the debate with statistics. In 2006, when Paul Martin's last Liberal government was defeated, unemployment was at 6.4%. Five years later, despite a 43% increase in Federal Government spending, Canada is at the aforementioned 7.7%. Meanwhile, Canadian's personal debt has risen from 123% of annual income in 2006 to 150% today. In other words, Canadians are borrowing and borrowing heavily to make ends meet, hoping for something better to come along.

So how do the Liberals define 'something better'? In a nutshell, there is a hard emphasis on training and hiring of youth. Why? Because of all we baby boomers who will be appearing soon at a nursing home near you, today's whippersnappers are going to have to earn big bucks in order to pay for our bedpans. That may be crude, but accurate.

The Liberals propose a revitalization of the Investment Canada Act in order to preserve our innovative companies (Nortel, we hardly knew ye) and encourage foreign investment where it will provide solid, secure jobs. If you hear the Trudeau years calling, I think you're right. And I think that policy is right.

Regarding Youth hiring, the Liberals propose an EI holiday for small businesses hiring new employees. At a current 1.73% of the paid wage, that is a reasonable incentive for business. Not a great incentive, but better than a kick in the head with a steel boot.

Finally, the Liberals express a desire to increase productivity. There is a caveat that needs to be injected here. Increases in productivity do not equal increases in jobs. For that reason, Pierre Trudeau never paid much more than lip service to direct investment in productivity. That said, I do heartily agree with the targets of the Ignatieff Liberal investments: municipal rail and high-speed rail. I have always thought it slightly insane that we live in a country whose major cities essentially line up in a row coast-to-coast and yet we do not have high speed rail service. Imagine if a shopper in Thunder Bay could hop a train to Winnipeg in the morning and be home in time for dinner? Better yet, imagine the opposite.

I have some concerns about this Jobs agenda, but overall...

O'Hearn's Grade: B

The Conservative platform has 92 references to Jobs. The quick summary is that the Tories are adopting the classic Laffer Curve/monetarist/Reaganomics approach to jobs. Keep taxes low and business will invest the savings in jobs. Now to me, laissez-faire government is lazy-unfair government, but as I've been clear from the start, I bring my own opinions and prejudices with me. And I'm always right. So there.

What is remarkable is how even within the platform, the Harper Conservatives take every opportunity to scare-monger and name-call. The ogre of "high-tax" Liberals is waved about more than any real agenda. And I am honestly trying to be fair to the government here.

In terms of the concrete, the Tories offer almost the same EI benefit as the Liberals, except that the former offer it as a tax credit. Personally, I prefer the simpler approach of 'don't pay EI' rather than 'collect it back at the year end provided you made money and you haven't already maxed out whatever credits can be applied against income and...'

Accountants must love the Tories.

As I said, this is a monetarist policy. Harper's team is bound and determined to have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G7. (Say, what happened to the G8? Did someone retire?) But do lower corporate tax rates actually result in re-investment and jobs?

Since 2001, when Paul Martin as Finance Minister began cutting tax rates, business investment has actually fallen in Canada. (link here) Now, we have also had a minor national recession and a near-worldwide financial collapse in that 10 year period, so that may have had a mitigating influence.

There is one other telling contrast between the Conservatives and Liberals. While the Grits are doin' it for the Kids, the Tories are goin' for the Grey. Harper's team proposes incentives for hiring older workers, to keep them in the workforce longer.

Hmmm...and Hmmm again.

While I count as an Older Worker and as such am part of the target group, damn I really don't want to be hauling my ever-wearying butt out the door when I'm 68. Plus, there is that baby boom problem which the Liberals are addressing while the Tories are not.

Tough call on a Grade. If you're a fan of the late Milton Friedman, you'll love it. Me, I'm a John Kenneth Galbraith man through and through.

O'Hearn's Grade: C+

Next time: Health.

Go Rory McIlroy!

Be seeing you.

Campaign Trail 2011: The Platforms Graded

Politics for Joe 23

By: Hubert O'Hearn

for: Lake Superior News

It was a sobering thought - and this being the weekend, the fewer of those the better - when the early morning bus driver mentioned that he had been reading this column on-line and sincerely appreciated my take on the election. This in turn amplified a little voice that I have been doing my best to ignore, which is that I can't just write things like ...

Ottawa (wire) - Prime Minister Harper today denied wearing the uniform of an SS Major to the 2010 Conservative Party Hallowe'en Party. "Don't be ridiculous," snarled PMO spokesman Ron Ziegler III, "The Prime Minister would never be seen as any rank beneath Field Marshal."

That sort of nastiness is fun for me and fun for you, providing 'you' aren't Stephen Harper; and I think we both know you aren't. As much villainous pleasure as I get out of that kind of thing, I do actually owe you some dinner before the dessert.

Furthermore, my email in-box and Facebook messages have been filled with growing numbers of good, hard-working people feeling turned off by the over-all election coverage. If they're feeling turned off now, just wait for what happens when the polls start to turn (current averages: CPC: 39 LPC: 30 NDP: 16) and the Tories start to not just throw mud, but mud with ground glass inside.

That is the hidden 'advantage' of negative campaigning. Make the rational people go away and hide, leaving just the yahoos and knuckle-draggers to whoop their way to the polls.

My duty is to stop the madness.

So, let's look at what the Big Three parties would actually do if elected. I'm going to break the issues down into general categories of Family, Jobs, Environment, Health Care and Defence. A) those are the big ticket budget items. B) the polls tell us that those are your chief interests.

I'm going to go straight to the Party websites and condense for you exactly what they themselves say on these topics. And yes, I'm going to grade the responses, because in all candor, if I can affect your vote, I will. But I will not spin what the Parties say.

A platform you can use...

Last note, I'm ignoring for the most part any 'costing' of the various promises. The numbers are meaningless right now. I don't believe them, you don't believe them...hell, the backroom staff who write them don't believe them. What is important is the actual proposed legislation. S'right? S'right.

Your Family

Okay, right off the top I'm annoyed. http://www.conservative.ca/ and http://www.ndp.ca/#enter have no internal search engine. Thanks Stephen Harper. Thanks Jack Layton. Thanks a lot. http://www.liberal.ca/ does have a Search button, in the top right corner where you'd look for it.

So I'm going to have to do some digging here. Damn it.

Anyway, for your Family, the people you immediately care about, the Conservatives say:

Supporting families through our Family Tax Cut and more support for seniors and caregivers.

Ummm...that's not much. So I open up the pdf of the Tory platform and search by Control + F 'family'. 17 references. What do they reveal?

Well, there is the Family Tax Credit coming in 2014...if the budget is balanced by then. There is immediate help for those who are Family Caregivers - assisting elderly parents, or disabled family members. That will be in the form of a $2,000 tax credit. Now that Tax Credit will only help the wealthy. If you are the principal caregiver for i.e. a disabled parent (as I am) you already receive and have received for years a write-off roughly equivalent to half that parent's Personal Tax Exemption, or $6,000. So that $2,000 will only be assisting those earning somewhere north of $60,000 per year. Not the sort of direct grant that caregivers actually need.

O'Hearn Grade: C-

The NDP have only three references to 'Family' in their platform. This shocked me. This is the NDP for God's sake! Here is their message:

 And we’ll ensure that every family takes home more of every paycheque.

And...

Wait.

You know what, let's just print the entire NDP platform!

It’s time for a leader who will get things done for you and your family. Jack Layton’s New Democrats will work with others, stop the scandals and get results. Together, we can start fixing Ottawa – right now.

Making life more affordable

New Democrats will reduce the cost of everyday essentials like home heating. And we’ll ensure that every family takes home more of every paycheque.

Rewarding job creators

Under Stephen Harper, your tax dollars went to companies shipping Canadian jobs overseas. New Democrats will target investment to small businesses and companies actually creating jobs right here at home.

Improving front-line health services

New Democrats will take concrete steps to train more family doctors. We’ll improve homecare. And we’ll make your prescription medicines a little more affordable.

Putting families first

New Democrats will strengthen pensions. We’ll make childcare and education more accessible. And we’ll improve EI to make it easier for families to care for ageing loved ones.

That's it. A party of policy wonks has a Platform of... 158 words!

This is saving time for me and reading for you.

O'Hearn Grade on the NDP Platform: F

Shameful.

So what have the Liberals got? Holy sh!t. 3170 references. Let's summarize.

The Liberals offer a 6-month EI benefit to caregivers of gravely ill parents, along with $1,350 a year for caregivers with an annual Household Income of under $106,000. This I like. That $1,350 would effectively pay most of the $30 a week it costs me out of pocket to hire a caregiver to shower and dress my mother on Tuesdays and Fridays.

O'Hearn Grade: B+

We'll look at the other categories over the coming days.

But right now The Masters is on...

Be seeing you!

Campaign Trail 2011: Shoot the Messenger

Inside Television 548

Publication Date: 4-8-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

The television news cycle has a broken wheel and I'm damned if I know how to fix it. Nothing quite like the feeling of conceding defeat just as the battle begins, but a lifetime spent as a Chicago Cubs fan does prepare one nicely for this sort of thing.

It would be much more fun to write about The Masters, whose second round is underway as you read this. (You're not feeling well are you? Bit icky sicky? Best to call the Boss and say you won't be in. Wouldn't be right to spread that infection. Might be ... beriberi! Probably not, but one never knows. Can't have the staff all hacking up beriberi if that indeed is what beriberi makes you do. Meet you in front of the TV, Amber Restorative Liquid at the ready.)

Andrew Coyne - Not likely to be wearing a green jacket on Sunday

Well, I'm just going to blame Andrew Coyne, the long-jawed 'Maclean's' editor and CBC perpetual pundit panelist. Coyne and I follow each other on Twitter and the other day he had an extended grump on (you knew I was getting to it) the news cycle. 'Why are you winning? Why are you a winner? Why are you losing? Why are you such a loser?' Day in, day out, on and on until election night when the journos stop asking the leaders a selection of those four questions and instead break exciting new ground by asking each other those same four questions. Not quite true - they ask why Jack Harperieff is such a winner/loser, not each other. I'd pay good money though to watch Rex Murphy turn to Peter Mansbridge and say, 'Peter, why are you such a loser?' Whereupon Mansbridge would rip off his sunglasses, raise the People's Eyebrow and say, 'Rex, I'll see you next year in Miami at Wrestlemania!' That would hype the ratings, you have to admit.

But such wanderings aside, that is the cycle. Lead with the Prime Minister, follow with Ignatieff, drop in on Jack Layton, quick cut to a disappointed Elizabeth May trudging down courtroom steps and finally a shot of Gilles Duceppe looking silly. Gilles Duceppe, by the way, is the most successful politician in Canada. Of the five leaders, he's the only one I'd bet still has that job a year from now. One of the others - okay, Harper or Ignatieff - will be Prime Minister. the others will be delivering a heartfelt valedictory at a Leadership Convention.

Meanwhile, on Facebook, I was chatting with a friend from northern Manitoba who was hurt and angry that the citizens of St. Theresa Point First Nations have no running water and that sad state of affairs is not an election issue. True. Instead, when Big Media covers 'the rural vote' the concentration is purely on the Long Gun Registry, as though everyone who lives within ten minutes drive of deep woods only cares ripping the guts out of God's creatures with bullets. Then, the journos yawn, it's back to the bar and what's the leader up to?

And we wonder why people are less than engaged in this election. Sometimes shooting the messenger is an option. Be seeing you.

(Thanks for reading, and if you enjoyed, there are Share buttons and gadgets all over this blog. Hint. Cheers! - H)

How to Win an Election

How to Win An Election

Politics for Joe 22

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

Not likely to entice voters to your side...unless you're a released criminal

I've just been reading some tweets from @acoyne - Andrew Coyne of Maclean's and CBC. His complaint is that elections are always covered in the same way: Why are you ahead? Why are you behind? Why are you such a loser?

He has a point. We do get so fascinated by the horse race that we never get around to wondering why the horses are racing in the first place. Worse yet, coverage becomes absolutely presidential in nature. Everything becomes all about the leader, what he (or rarely she) says/does/wears. The daily gleanings are aligned into constellations and a political horoscope is drawn.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone. The first reason for covering the horse race is that ... it's easier. The groundwork is done for the earnest columnist by the National Press Gallery asking questions and filing daily to television, the big papers and associated internet versions of both.

The second reason is that if the earnest columnist is going to spend two or three hours typing out delightful metaphors and grave analysis it would be nice if all this deathless prose was actually read by someone. And while the usual cliche is that familiarity breeds contempt, familiarity also breeds interest. You know (or think you know) Steve, Mike, Jack, Gilles and plucky Liz. Actually what you know is an image created of them, but that's a topic for another time. The bottom line is that you want to know how they're doing, as individuals and as party leaders and as potential Prime Ministers.

The third and final reason (as this introduction finally creaks towards a conclusion) is that you don't feel a need to know what you don't know. What is the situation on the ground in North Battleford, Chicoutimi or Moncton? If you live there, you care. If you don't live there ... the Canucks have a helluva chance at the Cup eh?

And yet that is the battleground. 308 seats and one has to win 100+ of them in order to set the agenda for the nation, with or without coalition partners on either a permanent or piecemeal basis.

My promise when I began this column was to reveal the actual working structure of electoral politics. So - how are individual ridings actually won or lost?

First - and this will seem obscenely obvious - you must know your riding. In specific, what are its fears? People vote to eliminate fear, not to achieve dreams. That is why negative advertising regrettably works. "Here's the scary sh!t. Vote for Me and that scary sh!t won't happen." And yes, voting patterns do emerge from that raw, gutshot level.

Now, when you have identified the fear, what are you going to do about it? Is the fear unemployment, high energy prices, not enough doctors, the highway is lousy ... ? Whatever It - the big fear - whatever It is you must address it. You're the tailor with the fly swatter who killed twelve with one stroke. Prove it.

This is the point where failed campaigns ... er, fail. One of two things happen in a failed campaign: either the National campaign is repeated chapter and verse, and/or the wrong issues are addressed.

Example: Not long after I got out of the speechwriting business (I still do some, but only for candidates I absolutely trust) , there was a provincial election. I was still tangentially involved in party politics so I was literally in the room when a big box of election material arrived from the Liberal Party of Ontario. They were flyers talking about rent control with pictures of highrises in full colour. Nice looking, literally slick to both the eye and touch. My advice: burn them. Why? There are no highrises in the riding.

Therefore, the local candidate must sift through the broader campaign themes to find the ones that will address the identified riding fears. You will get little or no help from the Party's head office, because a) the head office is usually staffed by idiots, and b) they are idiots because they don't know your riding. You do.

Secondly, if you happen to be the incumbent, know and obey the first rule of salesmanship. Under-promise and over-deliver. Example: You need to get your car fixed. If the mechanic tells you it will be ready Tuesday and it's ready Wednesday, he's a shiftless layabout. If he tells you Thursday and it's ready Wednesday, he's your guy, he's the man, his name is going to be mentioned favourably to all your friends.

The worst example of that I ever saw was an incumbent who, at his campaign launch, wrote down all the promises he'd made in the previous election. Now, he hadn't delivered on any of them, "But this time will be different!" I knew he was doomed.

We'll be looking closer at the ridings in Northwestern Ontario in coming weeks, but for now, watch the local campaigns as they develop. Which touch a chord in your heart? Which don't? Make your wagers accordingly. I will be.

Be seeing you.