The Horwath NDP Remind Us Why They Lost

"The people of this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear or to vote out of fear as opposed to choose positive change," she said.

I really want to be sure I understand this. 

Using language that sounds a lot like a disgruntled pollster, Horwath came out today to remind voters that she's sticking around as NDP Leader.  Given that it was a day we were learning about new cabinet positions (well, kinda, given yesterday's leaks), I don't think this was a burning reveal many people were yearning for.
 

As far as Ontarians (or those of who pay attention to politics at any rate) are concerned, the election is done - and we're glad for it.  After a tense minority and a painfully long campaign, we're now settling in for the next four years and trying to determine the tone and focus of government. 

For stakeholders, this time frame is about getting the lay of the land, figuring out issues of concern that could crop up and best ways to get your issues before government for action.

Christine Elliot's leadership bid announcement was well timed - "hey Ontario, here are the new Cabinet players you need to be paying attention to, and at the same time here's the Opposition Leader who'll be engaging them."  It's a smart move for her and a considerate one for her Party - leadership stuff.

By demonstrating a continued embrace of her inner Howard Hampton, Horwath is essentially telling stakeholders that she's going to be of precious little value to them in getting their issues dealt with.  If there were many stakeholders still paying attention to her, that is.  Truth be told, she doesn't have the influence she once did.

It's probably a good thing Horwath's presser didn't get much traction.

This is really sad - while I was confident we'd be seeing a new leader and a new tone for the PCs, I had hopes the NDP would return to its broker role with a focus on solutions.  If there were three women leaders willing to focus on solutions rather than blame - and they found some pivotal common-ground issues to collaborate on - I pictured a potential for culture-change within the Legislature that could finally support the same in the Public Service, then Unions and the Private Sector. 

Systems, not silos; shared solutions, not pick fights and wins.

So, to summarize:

- after having lost and being reminded how she lost, Horwath holds a presser to rub salt in the eye of her supporters and generally blame her results on Ontarians at large.  It largely comes across as a "but don't forget me" plea for attention to the media.

- it's a presser that happens when nobody cares, and provides the wrong kind of contrast; Liberals, winners; Christine Elliot, likely leader of the Opposition; then Horwath, trying to remind people she matters.  While implicitly stating she doesn't, because she couldn't inspire voters to reject fear or whatnot.

It's a strategy that, frankly, makes no sense.  In a way, though, it feels like a continuation of the NDP's plan of attack that's been in place since before they triggered the election.

 

Traditional political wisdom suggests you stick to your plan come rain or shine; like an athlete mid-race, it's doubt that can take you out of the competition.  Stick to your plan if you want to win; deviate at your peril.

Only the electoral race is over and actual Parliamentary business isn't supposed to be race

-like in nature.  And the plan the NDP are sticking to demonstrably a bad one.

It started when the NDP attacked Ontario News Watch for a story which essentially stated the 3rd Party would be triggering an election.  "Lies!" they brought out Gilles Bisson to say - only, they proved accurate.  Attacking a reporter when she's right, at the beginning of an election, ain't good planning.

It was the same sort of mentality that carried throughout the campaign, though, which is why they gained no traction.

Is this the role Horwath wants to carve out or herself for four years?  She's essentially branding herself as the Return of Hudak; obstinate, blameless and bitter.  If she thinks four years of obstructionism will work out for her in the long-run, Horwath might want to rethink that.

 

Think Before You Speak: ONW and the #onpoli NDP

The article published by Ontario News Watch is grossly inaccurate speculation.  It is a disservice to readers and is a poor reflection on Ontario News Watch.  It pretends knowledge it does not have.

Wow.  Just wow.

The article in question is a piece by Susanna Kelley that suggests the Ontario NDP have come to the conclusion it is no longer in their strategic partisan interests to prop up the governing Liberal Party.  It mentions specific rationale and references an email sent by the NDP to their local riding associations.  

It's pretty specific stuff that isn't too hard to fact-check.  Fact-checking, of course, is one of those things that journalists do.  Their integrity and relationship with their readers kinda depends on them being right.

So when Gilles Bisson suggests that the substance of Susanna's article is a complete fabrication, it's kind of a big deal.  

He is questioning her integrity and reliability - essentially, telling her audience that she has no competence to do the job she is paid to do.

And has done, for years.  Successfully.  Since before the NDP team bought their first copy of The War Room.

Full disclosure - I know Sue and consider her a friend.  I, like many in and around Ontario politics respect her a great deal.  She's been in this business for a lot longer than the NDP's current communication staff and has earned her reputation as an honest, dedicated journalist.

I have no doubt that the truth will out on this; emails will surface, other journalists will corroborate Sue's story and in a worst-case scenario for the NDP, someone in their camp is going to have to backtrack on Bisson's comments.

That's all a given.  What's more interesting to me is why on earth the NDP would have issued such a blistering response so quickly without having talked to Susanna herself first.

This hints at a trend in politics that communications folk should be paying attention to.

Whether it's Rob Ford lying about his crack use or any number of denials at the federal and provincial levels about who ordered who to do what, the truth keeps coming out.  

Invariably, someone in authority ends up with egg on their face and the public's disenfranchisement with politics as a whole grows.

Yet it doesn't matter how many other people get rolled over by their own spin - the communications whizzes in the backrooms of politics keep figuring they're too smart to get caught or everyone else is to dumb to catch them in the act.

I think this in no small part has to do with the fact that politics as a whole has morphed into an industry that's almost strictly about sales (instead of debate).  Whether it's talking points in Legislatures, fundraising letters to Party members or attack ads online, political messaging goes one way only, from the inside out.

The trend has increasingly been to hit fast, hit hard, never waver in your message and never give your opponent time to breathe.

We know what the problem with this model is; it's been widely recognized as one of the structural failings hobbling our society and economy, resulting in poorly-conceived policy decisions.

When your only tool is a hammer, you tend to view every problem as a nail.  War Room politics has essentially turned every critic, even friendly ones, into enemies to be hammered.  

It may be effective for countering foes in the short-term, but in the long-term the result is lost relationships, lost respect and as such, less opportunity to gain the meaningful insight that only comes through a healthy debate of the issues.

So here's a bit of age-old wisdom for partisan communicators - think before you speak.  Listen and consider before you react.  

And for God's sake, don't be afraid to talk with (not just at) the person challenging you.  They may have a point you haven't considered, and you might have one they overlooked.  Either way, you'll learn valuable lessons that could help you avoid such conflicts in the future.  You don't get that when you operate strictly in a vacuum chamber.

Oh - and you might just save yourself some embarrassment down the road.  After all, if you find yourself in the position of having to deny something that's true, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Kool, Topp & Guy Public Affairs: Teaching Clients to Fish?

The three partners won’t act as lobbyists themselves – making them part of an increasing number of firms that offer strategic advice on whom to talk to and what to say rather than approaching government decision-makers for their clients.

Smart people of different opinions pooling their resources and perspectives together, collectively providing advice to clients on how to fish for partners and support?

This is notable.  And quite possibly encouraging.  We'll see where this trend leads next...

FURTHER: As this piece is suddenly quite popular, here's where I think we're going wrong with selling public services in a quasi-capitalist model and an idea or two, conversation starters really, on how to capitalize on expanded knowledge of how people behave and new technology to nurture a more empowered, sustainable system.  A healthy society, as it were.


UPDATED:  This piece seems to be getting a lot of attention of late, which I will take as a positive thing.  So, for those interested in learning more about the "teach to fish" model of doing business, be sure to check out Swerhun Facilitation as well.  They make more than enough money doing what they do (amazing facilitation) to allow for them to dedicate staff time to their core objective of putting themselves out of business.

Yup, you read that right.  The Swerhun folk (special props to Bianca and Yulia) want everyone - politicians, community groups, residents - to have the capacity to facilitate as well as they do.

They know it won't happen in their lifetime and even if it did, they're smart enough to find something else to get paid doing.

Empowering others - is there a future business model in this?  Flies in the face of traditional capitalism, so we'll see.  I remain hopeful.

Communication Skills: Top 10 Tips for Tough Conversations With Your Boss, Business Partner, Or Best Bud (by Dianna Booher)

I wish had the proverbial nickel for every participant in one of my sessions who has approached me after the program with a comment that began, “Have you got a minute for a question? My boss and I just don’t get along. We need to have a conversation, but he/she…” From there, the story and details diverge.

 

But here’s the commonality: The conflict has been ongoing, stress has clearly altered productivity and results, and both parties have crashed against a communication barrier that seems insurmountable.

 

If you find yourself in that same predicament, consider these tips for a straightforward conversation that helps you break through that wall of hard feelings and misunderstandings.

 

1. Realize that two sides can be right. Conflict is not a competitive sport. The other person does not have to lose for you to win.

 

2. Communicate what happened, what you have concluded about what happened, and how you feel about what happened. Then listen for the same information from the other person. You will uncover hidden invalid assumptions, wrong interpretations, and inaccurate information.

 

3. Make a conscious choice about whether you will accommodate, compromise, overpower, or collaborate to come to resolution. Backing people into a corner rarely serves good purpose. But you yourself may decide to accommodate the other person’s wishes to “bank a favor” when something is not all that important to you. Remembering that you have a choice in the matter helps.

 

4. Define areas or issues that you agree on and move forward from there. Refocus on your goal rather than the obstacle.

 

5. Work to create alternatives. When locked in a stalemate, try brainstorming to generate new ideas to meet your goals.

 

6. State the real reasons for your feelings or objections—not just logical ones. Otherwise, the other person may remove the obstacle you’ve mentioned, and the problem will remain unsolved.

7. Prefer statements to questions during conflict. Instead of “Why didn’t you tell me about car?” State, “I wish you had told me about car.” A question typically generates an argument. A statement typically elicits a response—either agreement or disagreement.

 

8. Discuss a problem sitting down. You’ll be less likely to use intimidating body language or make a dramatic exit from the conversation in a huff.

 

9. Describe; don’t label. People can respond to statements like, “Your reports are missing key information.” They can confirm or deny that “fact.” Descriptions of what you see or what happened most often generate explanations. On the other hand, people can’t respond to a statement like, “You’re evasive.” Labels and value judgments generate arguments.

 

10. Avoid “hot words.” Just like radioactive material, they trigger an explosion: anger, defensiveness, denial, or blame.

 

Granted, you and your boss may never become BFFs. But tactful, yet direct conversation goes a long way toward understanding. And a stress-free life.

 

 

Dianna Booher, an expert in executive communications, is the author of 46 books. Her work has been translated into 23 languages. Her latest books include Creating Personal Presence: Look, Talk, Think, and Act Like a Leader and Communicate with Confidence, Revised and Expanded Edition. National media such as Good Morning America, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Bloomberg, Forbes.com, CNN International, NPR,Success, and Entrepreneur have interviewed her for opinions on critical workplace communication issues. As CEO of Booher Consultants and as a high-caliber keynote speaker, Dianna and her staff travel worldwide to deliver focused speeches and training to address specific communication challenges and increase effectiveness in writing skills, presentation skills, interpersonal communication, and organizational communication. Clients include 22 of the top Fortune 50 companies. www.booher.com 1-800-342-6621