Could Brownell Night Go Federal? (What JT could learn from JB)

Trudeau graciously thanked Harper, and promised to work with the Conservative Party in the future.

"Conservatives are not our enemies, they are our neighbours," he said.

Lots of talk lately about Trudeau's commitment to make half of his reduced Cabinet women.  Why that's a good thing is clear to many and, over the coming years, will make sense to most: the things that define us shape our world view, our priorities, our challenges and our opportunities.

The more policy-makers can reflect the general population, the closer we will get to policies that work towards everyone's best interests.

Diversity is strength.  The task of leadership is empowering all these different people, perspectives, sectors and systems to be more than the sum of their parts.  A big piece of that is knowing how to listen, make connections, nurture relationships - the stuff of community building.

This the challenge Justin Trudeau has taken on.

It's a challenge my old boss Jim Brownell and I are familiar with, though on a much smaller scale.

Anyone who worked for the Ontario Liberal Party or its MPPs during Jim's time at Queen's Park will remember him fondly.  Jim was a dedicated constituency guy, a strong advocate for rural Ontario and all things history and heritage.  He was also a great mentor and the kind of boss most people dream of having; a retired teacher, Jim had mastered the art of balancing direction, guidance and space to help his staff become the best public servants they could be.

Jim's legacy is written all over Ontario (some examples can be found here) but what political staff remember him for the most is the community incubator he started - Brownell Night.

On the surface, Brownell Night was a simple concept - once a month, Jim would host a gathering at the Duke of York, a pub not far from the Legislature.  Political staff and friends would come together, have a few drinks, tell a few stories, meet some new faces.

Of course what Brownell Night did was something much more profound.  

There aren't a lot of opportunities for political staff - especially staff for a governing party - to connect beyond the transactional level.  You may attend some meetings, you may attending some briefings, regional caucus roundups and maybe even a training or two, but on the whole there's no real opportunity (or incentive) to build relationships.

Without relationships, you don't have community.  Community is a breeding ground for opportunity, for idea sharing, problem identification and solution-building.

Community is what creates a whole that is more than a sum of its parts - that turns diversity into strength.  Put plainly, community-animating is the number one function of leadership, and is what Justin Trudeau has set out to do.

I didn't realize it at the time, but what we did - what Jim nurtured - was community animation.  

Now that I'm literally writing the book on community animation for CSI Regent Park, I find myself reflecting on the genius of Brownell Night and Jim's unique gift for bringing diverse groups of folk - people from his community, staff at Queen's Park, sector stakeholders, even public servants - together in celebration of the things we have in common.  

As Jim liked to say, no deals were ever struck at Brownell Night - that wasn't the point.  Instead, friendships were formed, ideas were explored and new opportunities emerged.  It still tickles me pink that an introduction I made at Brownell Night led to a marriage (the couple just celebrated eight years together - man, how time flies!)

One thing I always hoped to do with Brownell Night but never quite achieved was to make it more multi-partisan.  I felt then as I do now - that if political staff who were often nudged into viewing their counterparts from other parties as foes could hang out over drinks, chat issues and really get to know each other, we could change the "blood sport" nature of politics into something more collegial.

We never got to the point where Brownell Night was as open as I wanted it to be; if Jim had stayed for one more term or if another MPP had taken up the mantle (believe me, we tried really hard to make that happen), I know we could have gotten there.  

As it stood, I did get to know a couple of amazing folk from the other side of the political spectrum, in particular Megan Boyle and Beth Corbett).  It's no surprise that we disagreed on a lot of issues. 

What shouldn't have been surprising but was - the underlying intent of our positions often turned out to be the same.

Not only did I get to meet and know some amazing people, those two Conservative operatives challenged me and opened me to new perspectives.  I would never have had that opportunity if I'd only looked at them as foes.

To quote another Trudeau: "We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence."

Without community, diversity is opposition.  Community is the pot in which different ingredients become a stew of possibility.  Leadership, of course, is what brings it all together.

That's what politics should be and can be - committed public servants, elected representatives and political staff hacking issues and finding the best solutions.

It's totally doable, too.  Jim Brownell proved that.

As the Conservatives and NDP seek to find their footing in our new political reality, there's some consideration being given to Trudeau's sunny ways and what lessons can be learned from his approach.

Trudeau and his team have a long-standing commitment to do politics differently, too, with a clear emphasis on looking at the other parties as neighbours rather than opponents.

There are many ways Team Trudeau can build the bridges of community with their peers, if that's something they mean to follow through on.  

A monthly gathering of political staff from all parties would be a great one.

I bet if he were asked nicely, Jim Brownell would even help out.  He's just that kind of guy.

A community builder.  A leader.  A teacher.

Remind you of anyone?

Trudeau, Mental Health and the Public Service

Good for Trudeau (text from his letter below).

Sad reality is that a growing number of Canada's public servants don't have job stability or benefits (renewed contracts replacing permanent positions) and for those who do, the culture, accommodations and design of government work is sorely lacking.  The stress, uncertainty, low morale, unclear direction, conflict of what they're supposed to do and what partisan staff pressure them to do is taking a toll.  Presenteeism is rampant, as are prescriptions (and claims) for depression and anxiety medication.  

Mental health issues in the civil service is a big thing.

It's a problem the private sector is twigging on to and, in fits and spurts, taking steps to address. They have realized that saying "get over it" and punishing people with the cognitive equivalent of carpal tunnel syndrome doesn't solve the problem, it only exacerbates it.  If the bottom line dictates better employee support, so be it.

Does it not make sense for government to do the same?  Should government not be leading by example?

Were I team Trudeau, I would talk about this a lot more in the coming weeks (and to a certain Trudeau advisor: I told you this was coming!); it's an issue that impacts Canadians at all levels deeply, ties into the values Trudeau speaks to and highlights the cognitive dissonance in Harper's stance on mental health vs. occupational mental health.

Sad part is, this could and should have been a win for Harper.  That's what happens when you're functionally fixed and unable to adapt though.

Mental Health

Canada is facing a growing mental health crisis; during their lifetimes, one in five Canadians will experience a mental health issue. It is crucial that we foster a welcoming environment for free and frank discussion, and the federal government has a vital leadership role to play in improving mental health support for Canadians. As the country’s largest employer, it must begin by tackling the challenges of mental illness, which account for almost half of its disability claims.

 I was encouraged earlier this year when a Joint Task Force on Mental Health was created by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the federal Treasury Board. I fully support this type of collaborative process and commit to implementing the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace. Supporting this standard is good for the employee, the workplace, and the employer.

Why Trudeau's Closer to Right and Alexander's Falling Behind

In London, Ontario Thursday, Trudeau said Canada should not have "two-tiered" citizenship.

Alexander thinks it's incomprehensible that a national party leader would say that the law, which passed in June and allows the government to revoke citizenship, should be reversed or weakened.

"International terrorism is a serious threat and for him to say this is strange and irresponsible," Alexander said.  "We want to deter Canadians from having anything to do with terrorist groups."

First things first - there are no bad guys here.  Both sides are interested in the same thing - stability, economic prosperity, so on and so forth.

The differences lie in the general framework the two sides see the landscape in and their understanding of motivation.

Alexander is coming from a nationalist frame; there is Canada, wrapped in the flag, strong to the external world.  This Canada is ruled by the PM Harper.  It's kinda unloyal to not be supportive of the PM.  It's kinda unloyal to stray from traditional Canadian values, as defined by that PM.

For Alexander, it's our nation against the world, both for strategic interest and domestic safety.  The idea that a Canadian would be involved in terrorism essentially means that they've given up the right to be Canadian and must therefore be ostracized.  

It's a very 20th Century view of nationhood which doesn't line up with modern realities in the global village (and global marketplace).

For most Canadians, being Canadian doesn't mean belonging to a tribe; it's more like an ethnicity, a physical characteristic.  You have black hair or blond hair; you're tall or short; you're Canadian or your not.

Being Canadian isn't the frame of your ideology, your political leanings, etc - it's just one facet that contributes to who you are.  

People aren't always proud of their heritage, for various reasons; sometimes, they feel like it's a burden, or a source of shame.

Telling Canadians who are getting mixed up in terrorism that they're either with us or against us is like kicking your kids out of the house because you think they're mixing with the wrong crowd.  

We see lots of that happen in Canada where it comes to gangs and recruitment, which is essentially a softer version of what's happening with groups like ISIL.  

What about Trudeau?

Trudeau isn't focusing on the concept of Canadian as a tribal identity, but as the embracing of an idea - the idea that people from anywhere can find ways to build something stronger than the sum of its parts.  Call it airy-fairy if you want, but there's a growing recognition in corporate culture that diversity is a strength, when accomodated and harnessed properly.  Look at RBC for a best practice story.

Trudeau lives comfortably in the 21st Century where the nation state is a concept of the past and national identity is more a brand than it is a loyalty.  It's as true of multi-national corporations that bases their operations to reflect opportunity rather than national pride as it is of kids who like foreign music, films or styles more than what's grown at home.

Ideology is a bit like this, too.  Being Canadian doesn't mean you must be a Protestant anymore than it means you must like Tim Hortons.  If you don't like the way Canada frames its identity, maybe you'd want to push back as a form of rebellion.  Which is sometimes why youth end up connecting with bad crowds and negative ideologies in the first place.

Trudeau feels - and I agree with him on this - that cutting people off isn't a way to force more people at home to stay within the confines of the Canadian tribe, but will raise greater questions about what it means to be Canadian and whether Canada allows for individuals to be multi-faceted in their own identity.

What happens when you have family in a foreign country who is on one side or another of a political divide - is it un-Canadian to support them?  What if it's a situation like the Ukraine, and a Canadian-Ukranian agrees with the pro-Russian arguments?  Does it make them less Canadian to say so?

By putting qualified on being Canadian, Alexander is trying to put walls around our national identity and force people to choose which side they stand on.  In a country increasingly populated by people born beyond our borders, doing so is tantamount to asking them to choose between being a Canadian, as defined by a specific ideology, or being whatever the national/cultural identify of their birth is.

This is not a concept I'm comfortable with and one that has the potential to cause a open great ruptures in our social fabric.

The answer here is not to give people with-us-or-against-us ultimatums, but to present compelling arguments for being Canadian.  

It's the same challenge being embraced in the corporate world - how do we make our workplace and our company so attractive, so engaging, that you can't not want to be part of our world and culture?  How do we help you grow as an individual and contribute to both the firm and your community in positive, brand-building ways?

Yes, it comes back to the committing sociology thing.  Smart businesses are exploring behavioural economics, employee engagement, and maximizing social media and Corporate Social Responsibility for both recruitment and customer-loyalty/user generated content.  This isn't bleeding-heart weakness; it's proving to be good business.

I don't know whether Trudeau gets this in its entirety, nor is looking to the corporate world for inspiration.  

I am, however, fairly confident that Alexander doesn't care about any of this.  If I'm not onside with his perspective, my Canadian-ness is probably in question.  This is the frame his government has taken and maintained since day one.  It's no cooincidence that as a result, we've seen an increase in ideological positioning and a decrease in data collection and publication, public/partner consultation and evidence-based decision making.

There has, however, been an increase in with-us-or-against-us rhetoric and positions that focus on punishment for those who don't fall in line.

Thank goodness that I don't see Canada as a tribe, but an aspiration.  This frame helps inoculate me from all partisan, tribal pressure.  My world is bigger than that.

Which is why my focus is less on picking sides, but figuring out how we can move forward together.

Contrasting Harper and Trudeau: Immovable Object vs Unstoppable Force

It sounded very much like the 2015 election was already underway outside Whitehorse on Thursday evening, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper took aim at opposition parties and boasted of the Conservatives' accomplishments in a speech to party faithful.

Stephen Harper - the man above.  Like a mountain peak covered in clouds, Harper is narratively above the scandals that have rocked his party - but also out of reach for the average Canadian.  

Harper is intransigent in his positions (though it's not fair to call him immovable, I supposed, given how many times he's climbed down from positions).  He has weathered countless storms, emerging as the last man standing after many had counted him out.

People have learned it's not so easy to topple the Harper juggernaut.

He knows he's a political celebrity so he poses for the selfies.  Many times, when people nervously fumble to take the picture with their own camera, he takes it from their hands and takes the picture of the two of them together.

Justin Trudeau is a man among the people.  Like running water, he's a stream that people willingly jump into so as to be carried on his journey.  Everyone can picture themselves getting a picture with JT, because they know and feel that he's accessible.

Trudeau is a force of nature - at times unpredictable, but always impactful.  It's been tried, but no opponent has been able to tame him; instead, he leaves them in his wake.

There will be many issues that come up over the course of the campaign which, of course, has indeed really begun.  Harper will talk about the economy, and domestic security and, surprisingly, foreign affairs, which for his team must be seen as an extension of domestic security - Canada has played a paltry role from the sidelines of most of our current crop of international crises.

Trudeau, like a defense lawyer, is playing more to the hearts of the people; he has vision, energy, a promise that is best embodied by us, the people, not the man at the top of the mountain.

The difference between these two men is more than scripted, more than carefully-chosen political planks designed to woo specific coalitions of voters.  While all of that comes into play, at the core of this dichotomy are two very different world views.

Harper believes in survival of the fittest, when it comes to economic matters; get rid of regulatory shackles social service restraints and let people duke it out in competitive fashion.  Those who succeed will carry this country up the ladder; those who don't, he hasn't much time for.

For Harper, there are three kinds of people - the ones he caters to, the economic engines; the ones he feels families should be responsible for, those unable to work, and the inhumans - the criminals, the street people, the sloths.  The first group should be supported so that they can empower the country and dedicate whatever resources they want to the second; the third group has no place in our country.

In his world, people are what they are from birth - fixed, unchanging, immovable.  A crime is a crime; criminals are bad people who should be locked away.  

For Trudeau, there are people and there is context.  He disagrees with the simplistic notion that it's the bullet, not the hand that pulls the trigger or the circumstances that led to intent that matter.  Trudeau commits sociology; like a scientist, he's not content to accept that apples fall from the tree just because that's what they do - he wants to know why.  He believes that kind of knowledge allows us to change circumstances for the better.

These two men - Trudeau and Harper - communicate in completely different ways and look at the world through two completely different lenses.  Harper's world is fixed, as fixed as he has been in the PMO. Trudeau believes the times are a changin' and sees himself as a conduit, a prism for the people.

It'll be a fascinating contest, so far as sociology-committing goes; the immovable Harper and the unstopable Trudeau.

  

The Responsible Society

"Responsible journalism," as the Lords called their new defence, posited that if a journalist has taken reasonable steps to verify that a story is true, and has given the subject an opportunity to respond, he or she cannot be found liable for defamation, even if the story contains untruths.

I read this fascinating article on the parallel journeys of journalistic rights and responsibilities via the social catalyst that is Rob Ford.

The terms referenced in here - responsible journalism and responsible government really stood out, for obvious reasons.

As I find myself increasingly speaking on behalf of the Open Government movement and exploring how it is we've come to this particular crossroads of political/democratic accountability, I've peeled back the layers of history to really understand the foundations of our present.

Two plot points in particular seem to hold our particular narrative together - Magna Carta, which led to the first iteration of Parliament, and the introduction of the responsible government.

A responsible government is one where the Crown's Ministers are responsible to Parliament, rather than Parliament being accountable to the Crown.

As part of a presentation I do on the Open Government/Open Data movement I reference The Peaceable Revolution - the movement that started in Nova Scotia and served to bring responsible government to Canadian shores for the firs time.

This, I say with all the gravity I can muster, is our Magna Carta moment - our Peaceable Revolution starts now.

It's a good, dramatic line, but it's also one I believe.  Not as a punch line, but as a concise way of capturing our current reality - in Canadian politics, convention has trumped law and neither government nor Parliament are, in practice, responsible to Canadians.  

At the same time, I've been trying to put the emerging Canadian narrative (or more accurately next chapter in our tale) into a framework that makes sense.  This frame I've called the Conscious Society - I've also called it the Just Society Redux, because I see what's happening now as the socio-cultural child of Pierre Trudeau's Just Society.

Essentially, it's about agency, ownership and a shift in focus from the competition-oriented, isolationist and obstructionist model represented by Stephen Harper towards one that is solution-oriented, collaborative and progressive.  Put more simply, moving forward together leaving no one behind.

And yeah, not gonna lie - I smiled when I heard Justin Trudeau seemed to be picking up that torch, all on his own.

I've also called it the Healthy Society, because society is like an organism - a networked intelligence, if you will, that needs proper circulation to survive.  Economics, mental health crisis, democratic deficit - and all the solutions to these things - fit together into a neat narrative.  

Personally, I don't care what the branding is, but I understand communications enough to know why one is important; people need symbols, emotionally-connective tissue to turn abstract policy frameworks and social zeitgeists into, well movements - things they can be part of instead of told about.

As the picture comes into greater clarity, though, it's that word responsible and it's orbiting terms accountability and values that keeps popping up.

Responsible government - one that's accountable to Parliament for its choices, implying the need to make responsible ones.

Responsible journalism - less fettered rules, more personal responsibility for right intent and action.

Responsible communication - which, in fact, is just communication, instead of what we tend to do now (message and sell)

Consciousness is key (you can't be responsible if you don't know how your choices are being made) but there's a step that comes before that - ownership, which also implies a certain amount of trust.

Both are about being responsible.

Call it the Conscious Society, the Just Society Redux, the Responsible Society or any other variation you choose, the two emerging truths are this - the pendulum is swinging back to "we" and sustainability is about empowerment.

It begins now.

Election 2015: Godzilla vs. The Zombie Apocalypse (UPDATED-IER)

He also wants Ottawa to fund infrastructure aimed at countering the effects of climate change.  It's not clear what he means by the latter.

It should be.  This could be a subtle stroke of genius by Team Trudeau - one all the lobbyists out there should be paying attention to.

Watershed management and floods.  Ice storm-ready buildings and the tools necessary for rapid response.  Emergency Preparedness plans that extend beyond the 72 hour cycle to what we've been witnessing, which is week-long or longer crisis impacts.

Oh - and individual training, community preparedness and better resource-allocation mechanisms between jurisdictions.  Not to mention the social-emotional learning, self-regulation and other things that go along with it.  Throw in some Open Government/citizen engagement for good measure.

Stephen Harper has done a great job over the years of positioning the greatest threats Canada faces as human (or not-quite-human) - terrorists lapping at our shores, separatists trying to tear us apart, special interest groups undermining everything that real Canadians hold dear.

It's man vs. man.

It has been in Harper's interest to get us angry, paranoid and functionally fixed on getting what we want right now, to hell with everyone else.

It's also how he's governed; fear the Zombie Apocalypse and build up the fire walls.

If Trudeau's team are being as clever as we should hope they are, they've landed on the perfect narrative to counter the Harpernian Progressive Apocalypse:

The Sustained Severe Weather Event.

It doesn't matter what kind of coffee you drink, whether you're a social elitist, a Bay Street power broker, a rural farmer or a middle-income worker anywhere.  When nature strikes, all of that gets stripped away.  If anything, in crises like these heroism tends to come from the ground up, not the top down.

Why?  Because it's in times of shared crisis that real leaders emerge, the kind that rally people to common purpose.  This doesn't tend to be a profitable enterprise, as leaders suck at putting themselves first.  It takes periods of darkness for their lights to shine fully.

In a people vs. nature conflict, it's in everyone's interest to work together.  We're still afraid - fear is a powerful motivator and politics is all about motivation - but what we fear isn't someone out there right now who wants to hurt us.

It's something that could happen to all of us that, collaboratively, we can prepare for.  It feels good to get ready.

Just(in) for fun, there are a growing number of man-vs.-nature movies coming out over the next year or so that will reinforce this concern into our social conscience.

Weather the storm together, or trust one leader to keep the zombies at bay.

The functionally fixed oak of a leader that is Harper, or the dynamic, empathetic force of nature that is Trudeau.  This can be portrayed as the immovable object vs. the unstoppable force.

It can also be framed as reaction vs. preparedness.

Now that would make for an interesting ballot question.

UPDATE:  Hard hit municipalities across southern Ontario had said the recovery efforts could cost more than $250 million, including $106 million just for Toronto.

I swear to god, I don't plan these sorts of narrative-builds out in advance.

Ontario is tapped out - you can reactively blame whoever you want, but the fact remains the province does not have enough cash to support municipalities in their ice-storm damage repairs.  And that doesn't even touch what damage might occur if we have a particularly torrential spring.  

Think flooded streets, flooded basements, mold, damaged cars and roadways - the potential costs are a nightmare.  When the storm hits, people (whether voters or not) aren't going to be focused on who to blame, but who can help.  

You know who does have some coin to spare, though?  Ottawa.  The federal government, if it was feeling civic-minded, could assist the provinces and municipalities directly in a coordinated effort to mitigate existing storm-damage costs and better prepare to avoid or minimize future damage.

To change course like that, though, you need to be more like a reed than an oak.

Winter's coming to an end, it's time to get ready for Spring...

UPDATED 27/2/14 - He noted, however, that more extreme weather - like Toronto's December ice storm - may be more likely in the future due to a warming planet.

Indeed...

UPDATED 8/21/14

"And frankly, this terrorist caliphate in our judgment represents an increasing long-term threat to the security of our own country.  It is that serious."

Terrorist caliphate, like a mindless hoard.  Increasing threat, security of our country. 

Not to minimize the horrific beheading of James Foley or to absolve the murderers of the heinousness of their act, but what exactly is the risk they pose to our own country?  Are we worried they're going to bomb us?  Are they coming here next to behead Canadians on our own soil?

The answer is no.  They are a threat to Canadians overseas; they present a threat in terms of recruitment, probably, but that's got as much to do with internal conditions that make terrorism seem like an appealing choice to some.

Maybe Harper believes in what he says; maybe he's being a political opportunist.  Both have happened over his tenure, though I'd say we've seen more of the latter than the former.

Either way, you can see why "only we can keep the zombies beyond the wall" is a compelling narrative for Team Harper.

Winter is coming, however, and they may find that trying to keep threats at bay simply isn't enough.

Time will tell...

 

Roots and Umbrellas: Weathering the Canadian Spring

Noticeably absent will be former Liberal prime ministers, Senators will have no special status, and delegates - about 3,000 are expected - will vote on a resolution banning them from national caucus, confirming Mr. Trudeau's recent decision to make senators who were appointed as Liberals sit as independents.

Justin Trudeau has positioned himself as the voice of change in Canadian politics.  His team has come to the conclusion that a coalition of middle class, youth, and a few other key demographics can buy this message and vault him to the PMO.

To distinguish himself as different from what came before, he has strategically distanced himself from some established political staples.  In times of old, it was common wisdom to surround yourself at big conventions with the winningest faces in your Party's history, hoping some of their shine will rub off on you.  

Not ironically, there are more than a few would-be Liberal candidates out there who spent more time selling their tenuous links to Trudeau than trying to define their own vision and brand.

There's no question that something has to change in Canadian politics; our system has gone off the rails, with partisan convention trumping the actual constitutional functioning of Parliament and government.  

The system as-is offers little shelter to every-day Canadians.  Even MPs don't know what they're supposed to stand for or who they're answerable to these days; on paper it's their constituents, but everyone knows the balance of power lies in the hands of the Party, not the People.

What good is a strong hand at the till if not everyone is allowed on the boat?

Which is why I think disbanding the Liberal caucus was a good thing, in principle (which isn't the same thing as smart politics, but I digress).  There have been disparaging words thrown his way for dismissing loyal Party stalwarts and "kicking them to the curb."  While I can understand the sentiment behind that feeling, I think it's really a symptom of the culture of entitlement that pervades our politics.

The once-Liberal Senators haven't been kicked out of the Liberal house so much as they've been set free to follow their conscience instead of partisanship interests.  And that's what the Senate is supposed to do.  In fact, partisanship on the whole is more convention than the law of the land - it has its value but often becomes a thick lens that obscures our politicians' ability to see and hear Canadians.

But I don't think it's smart to completely distance oneself from the past, good or bad.  

Here's why.

1) Canada is a temporal creature that must be understood in the context of where we've come from to properly determine the right course forward.  Engaging with leaders of old is about more than just borrowing their brand; it's about receiving their counsel.  What's been tried before, what didn't work?  What meta-trends have they seen form over time that younger people might be able to read about, but not feel and understand in their bones?

2) Today's seniors were yesterday's youth.  If you turn your back on the past, you are choosing not to represent those who shaped today's present.  It's bad for policy, bad for image and equally as important, it sets a precedent you might not like.  History shows us how this works.

3) Those who fail to understand history...  I have been involved in a few leadership campaigns where relative Party "outsiders" decided they were going to change the system that they felt was flawed and exclusionary.  They were determined to "do politics differently."  

Once they won, that is.  When it came down to the brass tacks of political logistics, I saw nothing different between their operation and the operation of the establishment.  Top-down hierarchies, closed-door meetings of insiders, divide-and-conquer strategies, so on and so forth became the fire in which this opportunity to do things differently would be forged.  

You cannot do politics differently by simply switching the paradigm and leaving those in the ivory towers and skyscrapers to rot.

4) Canada's future must be built on common ground.  

We cannot talk about big tents or moving forward together if we are consciously leaving people behind.  It's as simple as that.  This isn't cheap rhetoric or an idealistic fantasy - it's fact.  The greater the collaborative diversity, the stronger our chance of successful adaptation.  

From severe weather to increased political unrest in places that have been stable for generations, things are changing out there.  We need all hands on deck to weather the coming storms.

So yes to sunny ways, to the essence of good leadership - which is persuasion, not force, and setting the example, not micro-managing from afar.

But a tree without roots cannot hope to grow far and it never hurts to carry an umbrella.  That's the sort of experienced wisdom our elders have to share.

Envisioning Canada's Future: Strong Individuals for a Strong Society

 

 

 

With growing volatility in the workplace forcing people to undertake multiple careers over the course of their working lives, Morneau says: "We need to enable people to be successful but I think that's possible but only if we invest in education and training and the kind of infrastructure that enables people to be successful."

 

 

In Canadian politics, we've gotten used to looking for strong leaders to maintain stable societies through a stern-father approach.  You'd think that, given his personal brand and name recognition, Trudeau would be leaning more heavily on his super-star appeal.

 

But governing isn't about being a superstar - it's about leading and more specifically, leading from the front.  This isn't what Harper does; he micro-manages from the back.  Mulcair is front-and-centre, but he likes being there enough that his team isn't sharing his spotlight - and Canadians aren't getting to know them.  Leaders don't demand that their front lines cow town to middle managers - they empower everyone from top to bottom to own and be part of realizing their vision.

 

We've also gotten away from the notion of "teach a person to fish" and seeing infrastructure as more than a make-work project.  In fact, we've gotten away from the notion of community; Canada is now seen as a nation full of independent consumers and special interest groups instead of a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

 

Team Trudeau has a long way to in terms of earning trust, properly identifying our collective problems and co-designing shared solutions to carry us forward.  They've also got some internal cultural challenges that are inevitable when you have people weaned on the old system trying to envision a new one.

 

But they're getting there.

 

 

Having said that, if I hear anyone in their ranks say "strong individuals for a strong society," I'm sending KT an invoice.

 

 

The Senate: Political Hoarding

Under this system, especially, how can a political party resist the temptation to use its sitting senators - many of whom do have a bit of time on their hands, despite their backbreaking schedule - as human cash collectors?  Unless, that is, such obvious overlapping interests are banned?

Politics is about winning.  Winning is about numbers - number of dollars in the bank, number of memberships signed, numbers of votes cast. 

So everything done in the political arena is about increasing these numbers; countless fundraisers and fund-raising emails, attack ads to reduce competition numbers and photo-ops and phone calls to make people feel "touched" by a golden leader and relentless GOTV (which, oddly enough, is becoming increasingly narrow in its focus as the number of people voting, especially youth, declines).

Policy is equally about driving those three numbers - dollars, memberships and votes - and therefore are designed to create controversy, piss off opponents (resulting in attacks) and motivate one's base or potential coalitions to spend, sign and vote for you.

Somewhere in this mix is the democratic principle of constructive debate resulting in the best, furthest reaching policy decisions and yes, accountability of those in power.  But true accountability is about helping to keep government in check and encourage them to do better, which goes counter to politics - a healthy, adaptive government is bad news for Opposition Parties wanting to form government themselves.

So back to the core principles of attack, mobilize and mine.

This, more than anything, is why Senate Reform has been so problematic.  The Senate has become a great pantry for power; properly stacked they can block or ram through legislation, help raise funds and host countless partisan events designed to build brand and diminish the Opposition.

Yes, there are good people in the Senate and yes, the concept of a Chamber of Sober Second Thought does have its practical uses, but politics isn't practical, it's power-oriented.

Trudeau can and has come under all kinds of criticism for his disbanding of the Liberal Senate Caucus (or Senate Liberal Caucus); it's cruel and callous, it's bad politics, it's weakening his future hand should he become Prime Minister.

At the core, though - and whether intended or not - Trudeau's move is to divest the Liberal Party of excess holdings, untether Senators from partisan interests and get away, at least theoretically, from the deeply entrenched partisan divide that is increasingly crippling our country.

Could it have been handled better, or thought through with greater clarity?  Of course it could have.  All good things come in iteration; at least he's started.

I remain sceptical about how successful this initiative will be, as it has failed to take into account a whole host of behavioural economic principles.  Besides, we've just found out that our winter's going to drag on a bit longer and as we all know, winter is when hoarding is at its worst.

But at least he's trying.  That, at least, is refreshing.

The Truths We Cling To

 

Six: it was cruel and callous.  In the "Senate Liberal" caucus, there are many hard-working and decent people. 

 

Politics has famously been described as a blood sport where loathing is considered a purifying force and stepping on opponents' necks is just the way the game is played.

 

But there must be honour among thieves, as it were - a shared chivalric code which all players of at least the same team hold to (or failing that, a code of silence).  Without such common ground there can be no loyalty and, as a consequence, neither accomplishment nor sustainability.

 

The implication of Kinsella's statement is that those Senators of the Liberal persuasion have earned better treatment from their Party than to be laid off from Caucus (which is what this is - nobody has been fired, the Liberals' Senate Caucus has just been disbanded). 

 

This is one of those matters-of-opinion things; a colluding Senate team and a House team has always led to tricky games being played and, if Trudeau is sincere about working to foster a less partisan Parliament, this isn't so bad.  Whether a less-partisan Hill can work these days is a completely different question with other fun considerations to consider.

 

Even with the cruel and callous Trudeau Plan, Senators still have far more income, clout and opportunity than most Canadians do - we don't have assistants, fancy offices or comfortable taxpayer-funded salaries. 

 

We also have never had anything resembling inside access to the backroom planning that informs Leaders' decisions; most people honestly believe that's what things like policy conventions and door-knocking are for. 

Some of us even believe that there should never have been partisan camps within the Chamber of Sober Second Thought.  If Independent Senators will bitterly work against former caucus colleagues instead of embracing the ethical clarity a post-partisan reality provides them, then they're not thinking soberly, are they?

 

It's a matter of debate if these Senators have been treated in cruel and callous fashion.  Legitimate arguments can be made for both sides with people, as they tend to do, finding every possible argument in favour of their own position and against that of someone else's. 

 

From Kinsella's point of view, it was cruel and callous to "let go of" hard-working team members who had been hard working team members for a while.

I don't remember hearing him raise similar concerns during the Great Staff Cull of 2011.

 

In 2011, he came within one seat - one seat! - of another majority government.  ... Instead, McGuinty seemed energized by the result, and looking forward to what lay ahead.

 

What immediately laid ahead, as it was clear that a minority status would require a significant truncation of staff, was to figure out what to do about all those existing staff who'd in some cases been with the McGuinty Liberal Team since the first term.  Not all of them could be brought back.

 

This was understood; many staff remained uncertain but hopeful.  By and large there were concerns among the ranks, who often felt like functionaries for the team rather than part of the team, of a Wilkinsonian approach. 

 

Suggestions were made that an appropriate staff-transition strategy could serve as a counter-weight to dismissals - a strategy that recognized the work of staff, practiced a bit of what Liberals tend to preach and also maintain positive relations with a host of loyal folk who might end up working in influential capacities, as often happens with former political staffers.

 

Such was not to be.  All staff were let go of and told to wait by the phone for the call back to work.  Dutifully, many hopeful people waited.  And waited.  And eventually their severance wore out and they realized no call would come, was never going to come.  They'd been left at the alter of unemployment and were now on their own.

 

To me, that was cruel and callous treatment (and no, I was not on either side of the decision process).  More than that, it was cowardly.

 

That's just me, though.  There are many leaders and organizers who see The Leader as infallible, the inner circle as Alpha Dominant and staff as hired help, rewarded through wages and clout who should recognize they are dispensable from the outset.  Loyalty is meant to flow up, never down.

 

Are paid Senators who retain everything except the ego-stroke of being in backroom conversations and who are forced to offer their policy or partisan ideas like any other Member of a Party (assuming, of course, they all have paid LPC memberships) being treated cruelly and callously?  Was it wrong to tell them of the inner team's decision after the fact?

 

Was it cruel and callous to lay off staff, give them the impression they'd be getting a phone call and then never following up, period?

 

I have long since learned not to expect consistency in the thought processes of political people.  You can't get ahead in a survival-of-the-fittest game without rationalizing cognitive dissonance at least some of the time.

 

As Obi Wan Kenobi stated a long time ago, "the truths we depend greatly on our own point of view."  If political people tend to be even more slavish to points of view than, say, evidence or best practice, that says as much about us as it does about them.

 

Key to this equation, naturally, is how we view people in relation to our own standing.

 

To know the world, take yourself out of the equation. 

By putting their teams after their mission and themselves always last, true leaders do this all the time.  Which is why they don't need to demand loyalty; it just comes naturally.

Time Will Tell

Warren Kinsella disagrees with Trudeau's disbanding of the Senate side of the Liberal Caucus.  

Every point he makes in his disagreement is absolutely accurate, except one; former Liberal Senators aren't exactly being kicked to the curb, which in my mind (and I'm sure that of many Canadians) would imply a loss of employment, income and office (hence the curb).  Senators are Senators and these folk are still pulling in far more than the vast majority of us.

Beyond that, though, the Tory Senators would work to block legislation, allowing the Conservative Party (and the NDP) to portray Trudeau as a weak leader, etc.  Party loyalists probably do feel let down; they may not be on the street, but their clout and status have certainly been curbed.  Plus, there are countless logistical bugs that could cause problems down the road and that, guaranteed, Conservative operators are working out for future use.

If Trudeau wants to strengthen his political brand, ensure his agenda gets rammed through and entrench the Liberal Party, this was a poorly conceived play from the outset.

There is a chance, however, that those aren't Trudeau's goals.  I don't know him any more than  anyone else so can't claim an insider's perspective on his thought process, but he could feel his personal brand and the scope of his vision are enough to carry weight with Canadians beyond traditional politics.  

Delusional?  Maybe, but so is thinking that you should be Prime Minister.  Politics is all about delusions.  That and/or paranoia.

What's at issue, in my mind, is less whether Trudeau is playing skillfully within the traditional frame of the political game; the question is whether the people of Canada are so fed up with the failures of the system as it stands to attribute any partisan plays in favour of the status quo as transparently crass and contemptible.

In this sense, Trudeau's popularity may work against him - if he wins and everyone gets an oxytocin high, they may soften on their disdain for the political status quo and willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I remain convinced that the War Room politics that has dominated Canada for decades is drawing to a close, brought as it has been by Team Harper (and worse, Rob Ford) to a point beyond which it can't go much further and still mask itself as democratic.  

Of course, Team Trudeau has been schooled in politics-as-usual by folk like Kinsella himself; whether they've got the bandwidth to veer so far into new territory in a structurally sound way is anyone's guess.

If we're at that tipping point quite yet, though, who knows.  As the US Declaration of Independence so wisely observes, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."  

It's basic behavioural economics of the burning platform; change is uncertain, better the devil you know than the one you don't, until it's too late.

Are we there yet?  We'll know soon enough.

Justin Trudeau: Leadership is Lonely

Conservatives dismissed the proposal as a stunt that would do nothing to make the Senate more accountable to voters.  New Democrats accused Mr. Trudeau of trying to distance himself from the fallout of a looming audit into senators' expenses.  And senators, who began the day as Grits and ended it as outcasts, responded with a roller-coaster mix of confusion, disappointment and unflinching support.

First, the politics.  It would be impossible for either the Harper Cons or the Mulcair NDP to do anything other than criticize Trudeau's proposal.  In the charged climate of today's politics, that's just how the game is played.  You attack your opponents and everything they do and then try to make yourself look as different as possible.

What else can you do, right?  If you don't play the game, the game plays you.

Mulcair's position is the easier one - he (and a faction of his Party) have a long tradition of looking for conspiracies.  It's Team Harper that has the harder confabulatory knot to tie; they're supposed to be the Party in favour of less control and more independence in society, although their internal practices with the Senate, their Caucus, the bureaucracy, even foreign players has been anything but.

However there's more to this decision than just the politics of positioning.  By "cutting loose" his Senate Caucus, Trudeau has shrunk the size of the team that is directly accountable to him.  Unlike Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy, Trudeau and his team no longer have the ability to call Senators onto the carpet and give them hell for going off-message or acting inappropriately.  They can no longer leverage those Senators for fundraising, TV spots or as a second-tier of legislative manipulation.

It's possible Team Trudeau has made a calculated move to distance themselves from future revelations on the spending scandals, but honestly, who cares about that?  Politics is about winning big and consolidating control.  The theory is that with absolute power comes the ability to spin away any potential challenges.  

This is what Harper's been building towards since he became Leader of the Conservatives.  It's also why Harper keeps walking into political rakes; his control has come at the expense of constructive criticism, innovative solutions and flexibility.

Although he's earned grudging respect from some and absolute admiration from others for his functional fixedness, ability to weather scandals and iron-fisted control of his Caucus, Harper has always done so at the expense of his principles (transparency, openness, accountability, independence) and his people (staff, Caucus members, Senators, bureaucrats, veterans, etc).

Stephen Harper is the epitome of that peculiar breed that dominates our national landscape - the political survivor.  He always comes out on top.  

What he isn't, though - and never has been - is a leader.  

Leadership, like shame, is a concept that we've lost in Canadian politics.  True leadership isn't about coming out on top, about bending other people to your will through intimidation or encouraging small thought and in-fighting to protect one's own standing.

Colin Powell puts it best: command is lonely.

Partisan politics may be about numbers - number of memberships signed, dollars raised and doors knocked on.  When you put all that stuff first, it's easy to come to the conclusion that it's the team's responsibility to protect their boss through their labour, money and where necessary, by falling on their swords.  Again, that's how it's been done in Canadian politics for ages.

Leadership isn't about numbers; it's about vision, example and empowerment.  Where do you want to go?  What are you willing to do go get there?  Why should we follow you?

By dismissing a reliable source of bought loyalty, Trudeau has taken the burden to follow off of Liberal Senators and taken on the responsibility to lead.

We don't have much to go on with the Liberal Leader - but with moves like this, we're seeing hopeful indicators that just maybe he truly understands what leadership means.

Trudeau and the Just Society Redux

There's a debate going on among senior Liberals about how quickly Trudeau needs to translate his rhetoric into actual policy prescriptions, with the closest to him apparently preferring a slow strip tease to a quick reveal.  In part this is driven by a narrow tactical concern about not giving the other parties too much to shoot at too long before the 2015 election.

If you're pissed off at the number of fundraising emails being sent out by the Liberals, they largely don't care.  They are assuming, as political people tend to do, that any and every grievance gets washed away by victory.  

It's typical campaign logic - push people hard, almost as if they were soldiers.  They may get mad, some of them might even walk away, but when you win all those who were brow-beaten, guilt-tripped or pushed beyond all rational limits will rejoice at being part of something successful.  All will be forgiven.  

Better yet, you will know who the weak links (the people who walked off) are so as to avoid them in the future.  You'll have your core group of soldiers, those who endure and are willing to put the win before all else.  What else do you need, when winning is the goal?

Of course, this is the sort of system that develops cynical political operatives that suffer from an almost PTSD-like need for continual combat and become unable to work with those they identify as enemies. 

It also results in the "entitled-to-entitlements" attitude that the public is so fed up with.   

As time marches on and the pressures grow, you find more and more people falling into your "unsuitable" column and your list of tough, aggressive, battle-hardened soldiers starts to shrink.  This is why Stephen Harper's grip is starting to slip - too many people are on the outside, know they'll never be on the inside and have stopped caring.   

Herein lies the great irony of Team Trudeau, a group of young, smart, capable people with lots of ideas, but who have come of age and largely lived within the political culture that Trudeau, as a brand, has chosen to stand against.  They want to change the system, yet are using refined versions of the tools they're familiar with - tools and tricks that, by their very nature, reinforce the political status quo.

The debate about whether to hold off on policy to present as limited a target for opposition versus a more substantial reveal now to start hooking Canadians to more than just platitudes is the wrong one, in just the same way that a strict focus on numbers to the exclusion of morale is counter-productive to what Trudeau hopes to accomplish.

Justin Trudeau wants to change Canada's political culture.  He wants Canada to feel like a society again; he wants people to have confidence in their leaders not on narrow issue-bases like economics or national security, but as leaders.  Trudeau doesn't just want to form government - he wants to catalyze a movement.

This is possible; quite frankly, the timing has never been better.  Canadians don't trust government; we don't trust the people in government, but beyond that we don't have confidence in the institution itself.  There is nothing, no identity, no brand, no vision that currently binds us together.  People are worried about security, sustainability and about what we're leaving behind.

Trudeau has opted not to be tightly scripted, meaning he's got as many opportunities of unexpected moments of brilliance as he does gaffes; over time, making these choices will get easier.  The important thing is that he's created his brand and differentiated himself from his opponents through sincerity.

I think this is the approach his team should be taking to policy.

Instead of throwing a massive book of policies at the people and bracing for the inevitable attacks that will emerge from opponents and media alike, the Liberals need to articulate a clear vision of what they think Canadians want their future to look like.  

This is what Pierre Trudeau did with The Just Society - the path to get there took time to build, but people could see where they were headed.  The same was true of JFK; the goal of putting a man on the moon was considered far-fetched when it was suggested, but it gave the people something to strive towards.

While Tim Hudak has smartly put out a series of policy white papers as litmus tests/catalysts for the sorts of policy prescriptions he may bring forward, there's no vision in place.  Smaller government isn't a destination, nor is fighting unions.  His is a technocratic approach, the same most politicians take.  It doesn't leave the people with a sense of where we may go, only what our leaders feel we should stand against.

Instead of focusing on what to reveal and when, Team Trudeau needs to define what their/his vision is, where they want Canada to head.  With careful thought and consideration, it's not too hard to find a series of connecting issues, ranging from the silver surge to economic stagnation and a dearth of innovation and tie them together into one theme.  The same holds true for environmental health, infrastructure well-being and the whole open government/open data movement.

Canada, quite frankly, is sick.  It's a country increasingly at war with itself, atrophying and decaying in all the wrong places.  We're falling behind as other jurisdictions race ahead to embrace new industry, new ways of engaging citizens and a practical, rather than just rhetorical commitment to transparency.

One-off perceptions aren't the way forward; to foster a Healthy Society, we need a holistic regimen of initiatives.  Most importantly, we need flow - not top-down, nor left-right, but circulation, engaging all people and all ideas within the body politic.  

This is an evolving process, meaning ideas will be presented, tested on smaller scales and if they work, expanded.  It means thinking laterally; how do the pieces fit together?  Forget isolated coalitions - what do shared solutions look like?

The more people see this approach working, the more the vision of a healthy society becomes like a virus, infecting people with the belief, the hope that things can work.  Opposition Parties can attack the idea as silly, but with every criticism they throw forward, they provide an opportunity for growth and adaptation.  It's a war they cannot win, so long as the focus stays on the vision first.

After all, when we focus on money and numbers, that focus becomes about us and what we get in opposition to others.  That's not leadership, that's opposition.  It's great for a Party to do well and yes, it's true that people like being part of something winning.  But what of the Party itself? What is it part of, except for a system that people no longer believe in?

Team Trudeau needs to think better - in fact, I believe they want to think bigger.  What we, as citizens need is the same thing they, as political operatives need - to be part of some whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, the parts being each and every one of us.