Open Canada: Trudeau's Number

Liberal campaign chief Katie Telford has a thing for numbers.

Lots to cover, so let's dive right in - and, as Katie always suggests, I'll include a call to action at the end.

Justin Trudeau has made some bold commitments around Open Government and Open Data.  These particular promises were more than a way to define the Liberals as different than the Tories - changing the way government works is something his inner circle has been committed to for a long time.

One commitment that has a lot of people both outside and inside the public service excited:

– Involve Canadians in policy-making: The Liberals would use technology to engage more Canadians in the development and evaluation of public policy.

So, here's a question:

How can Canadians play a meaningful role in policy-making, impact-checking and avoiding unnecessary duplication, gaps and overlaps?  Government has a hard enough time doing this on its own, which is why silo-busting change management/culture development are popular pursuits right now.

Policy Hacks and Civic Engagement

Under Tony Clement, the federal Open Government team has done some amazing work around opening data and engaging Canadians with the goal of empowering citizens to turn public data into profitable enterprises.  The Canadian Open Data Experience was the largest hackathon in Canadian history.

At the same time, some Virtuous Schemers from that team have been exploring ways to strengthen engagement between the public service and every day political citizens with the intent of addressing structural concerns and wicked problems like poverty and climate change.

All of this should continue.  In addition, it would be amazing to see more engagement/hackathons between public servants and other players to hack policy issues and solutions that don't necessarily have to originate from government. (Think Civic Design Camp, Civic Tech, Community Solutions Lab)

MP Committees and touring consultations and whatnot are great - imagine they could tap into local/regional/national policy-making groups that were using open data to assess, prototype and refine policy, programs, co-design opportunities that could be citizen-led and private-sector/foundation funded?  Imagine government was a facilitator of civic leadership rather than CEO?

This is all happening in small-scale ways across the country.  What's needed to bring it all together is a stone in the soup, a source of inspiration (and, let's be honest, permission) - in short, someone like Justin Trudeau.

ACTION ITEM #1: Task the new President of Treasury Board/their Parliamentary Secretary to do a landscape assessment of groups, orgs and initiatives already in this space and start convening them in collaborative ways, offering them moral support, connections to funders/partners.

Open Data/Data Stories 

Opening up public data for public use is a monstrous task, not made any easier by the fact that different levels of government and even different departments of government aren't all in agreement with processes or platforms or even definitions.  There are even governments out there with significant caches of data still being kept on paper.

Worth remembering - what we're talking about here is a massive culture change.  If you've ever had a secretary who was insistent on keeping paper records because they didn't trust/feel comfortable with computers, picture that on a national scale.

As has emerged from Ontario's Open Data Directive process, it's not enough to make new demands of the public service - major culture change, support and a shift in agency to younger staff more comfortable with new ways of doing this is required to really make Open Government a reality.  More on this in the next point.

Beyond all this - who is Open Data for?  Is the goal to reach out to hackers or entrepreneurs, foundations focused on impact investment or not-for-profits?  If it's for everyone, what needs to be done to make it easier for Canadians in general to be aware of open data and comfortable navigating it?

This is a mighty challenge, but a doable one.  If Apple could transform computers from tools for the elite into necessities in daily life, there's no reason Canada can't do the same thing with data.

ACTION ITEM #2: Develop a national campaign geared towards increasing public awareness of Open Data and its value.  This campaign will also target governments, encouraging/enticing them to strengthen existing efforts to standardize data and data presentation.  (sales analogy: public = kids, government = parents, data = cereal)


That's Open Data - what about Data stories?

No offence to Katie; numbers may tell, but stories sell.  Stories also have the power to transform complex data sets into narratives people can wrap their heads around (instead of focusing on ingredients, talk about what those ingredients can make)

Here's where maps come in - GIS, data layering, money-tracking and all that fun stuff.

Picture sitting down at a computer and opening up a map-based portal that allows you to layer data in comprehensible ways to see how different sets interact.  Imagine this portal could even animate data presentation so you could see changes over time (and even predict them to a degree, like weather maps).

An example - I go to this portal with a particular interest in, say, Eastern Ontario.  I'm given the option to pick some data layers to add in:

- age demographics
- employment rates
- existing/planned healthcare infrastructure
- time frame of 2000-present

The portal would create a map that displays all these things in visual terms (a bit more sophisticated than what WellbeingTO does) and let's me see how they have evolved over time.  Down the road, the system might even add value by recommending related sets to add in for a more robust picture.

From another angle - imagine this portal could map demographics, quality-of-life-indicators, services offered locally, providers and funding.  Where is money being spent to achieve specific goals, but those goals aren't being reached?  What best practices exist on a small scale in one region that could be invested in and expanded?



A platform like this would address so many concerns funders, service-providers and end-users (citizens) have right now.  Entrepreneurs looking for new markets and new opportunities could use this platform to find gaps - as could governments themselves.  Government wouldn't need to be the owner of such a tool, just a supporter. There are brilliant young changemakers playing around with concepts like this right now like Oohee Lee (not even a Canadian citizen, worth noting, but none-the-less a person adding incredible value to the country).

Fun side-bar - when you create platforms like these, either in person or online, you end up with entire communities dedicating themselves to support solution-making in communities not even there own. Case in point: Pakathon. Can you think of anything more Canadian than that?

ACTION ITEM #3: In conjunction with the Open Data capacity building campaign, have a challenge/hack/competition that empowers the Canadian community to develop a digital data hub which allows individuals to access public data and use it to tell stories, identify challenges in user-friendly way.

Open Government/Responsible Society

There is a big challenge that comes with Open Data which hasn't been fully addressed.  As more and more data becomes open, we're going to see more and more examples of government getting things wrong.  Money has been spent without results.  Important problem areas have been missed or avoided.  Presenteeism is a big issue in our public services.

Imagine heeding the call and becoming a public servant, excited to make a difference for your country, only to find yourself in a culture where your expertise is dismissed, you're rarely allowed to see the big picture and you're regularly on eggshells, terrified of being the next Public Servant Zero.

That's a common story right now, and this is before open by default has become common practice.

Some big challenges to open:

- a culture of gotcha politics
- a public that has become used to reacting against negatives instead of contributing to solutions
- a culture class between traditional, top-down management structures and a more Millennial, flat-org approach to engagement
- stakeholders focused on what they want/what they aren't happy with rather than systems thinking

It's not enough to say "government, be open!"  There is a lot of supportive work that needs done to enable a culture of openness and engagement within the public service and, just as importantly, between governments, the private/not-for-profit sectors and civil society.

Where to begin?

Real change begins at home.

Government culture change, new forms of internal engagement/cross-pollination, even redesigning working spaces to facilitate the sorts of engagement and results we collectively want are all tough nuts to crack, but great strides have already been made.  There are some cool partners out there to work with, too.

A selfish example - the Centre for Social Innovation has pro-actively developed the kind of working environment and culture that government should be looking to emulate.  Heck, the CSI model is being studied and borrowed across the globe; even Kathleen Wynne has mulled the idea of a CSI Queen's Park.

What would a CSI Parliament Hill look like?

How could the right culture-change and space development empower engagement, resiliency, a can-do mentality and all the soft stuff necessary to help public service transition to Open By Default?

The key thing is that the answer isn't going to come in the form of one-off sessions on culture change; it has to be engaged into the every-day operations of government.

ACTION ITEM #4: Develop a culture change-management strategy for the Canadian Public Service (and Parliament) that emphasizes emotional resiliency, collaboration, systems-thinking, #HowMightWe vs #YouCantDoThat thinking, etc.  

ACTION ITEM #5: Pilot a CSI-style collaboraiton/community animation space on or near Parliament Hill to facilitate cross-pollinated engagement and solution-finding for public servants and beyond.

It's not enough to have a government that's open, however - you need a society that's comfortable and supportive of the bumpy transition it'll take to get there.  Make no mistake - change at this scale is messy.  There will be a lot of things that happen and even more discovered that could (and should) make communities and stakeholders angry.

This is a big reason why successive governments make promises about new ways of doing things, transparency, etc. and don't follow through.  It's not just about falling into behavioural traps; it's a big challenge to change when the public wants change to be painless.

If you want a government that is truly open, you need a society that is willing to work with government through the process that will get there.  You can't have an Open Government without a Responsible Society.

So how do you nurture that?

Anyone in politics has the answer to this question, even if they don't realize it.  What sells a person, product or process best is a third party validator.

Lucky for government, there is an entire movement of people and organizations already playing that role.  It's not just a national thing, either - it's international.  The world wants open.

And if Canadians can position themselves as global leaders of open and engagement, the catalysts for government/civil society engagement change everywhere, I think you'd find a steadily growing amount of Canadians would happily join that movement.

Especially youth and New Canadians.

Which brings us back to our first point about involving Canadians in the policy making process.  If the people see themselves as active, valued participants in a shared mission of transforming Canada into a world leader and catalyst for open, transparent, engaged - moving forward together/leaving no one behind - everything else will fall into place.

ACTION ITEM #6: As part of their landscape assessment, the new Treasury Board President/Parliamentary Secretary will actively nurture relationships with the Open Community (including support of Open events through attendance, social media promotion, etc).  

ACTION ITEM #7: The Open Outreach campaign will develop awareness, capacity and appetite for open gov/open data, but with an emphasis on why this matters and what we might collectively achieve.

Katie Telford likes numbers; numbers tell a story.

To pull a page from Justin Trudeau's book, here's my number - one.

One singular vision of the #countrywewant that can rally, inspire and engage Canadians in common purpose to be active participants in shaping a Canadian whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

It doesn't matter what this vision gets called, though it will definitely help to have a catchy brand.

What matters most is that the leader embodies it.  When that happens, others will follow.


There are 7 action items in this post - that's the number of ideas an organized mind can keep afloat in its working memory at one time.  The last two are really tag-ons to the first two, so you could even say there are just 5, which is a number most Canadians can hold on to.

Which leads to my call to action.

There is nothing on this list that isn't being tackled in one form or other already.

We have hackathons.  We have partnerships between public servants and community groups.

Open Data Days and related events are all trying to build community and empower people to be agents of change.

Speaking of agents of change - CSI is helping empower good ideas for social impact in a variety of ways.

And virtuous schemers are attempting the Herculaneum task of changing government culture from the inside out.  These are unspoken heroes whose efforts probably won't be felt for a generation and whose impact they'll never get credit - but they do it anyway.

You can be part of this change.  In fact, the change we seek can't happen without you.

Get informed, get engaged, make a difference.  It's great if there's a central leader who gives us the inspiration, but ultimately the power is ours - and always has been.

Here's one last number to help you get started - 200.

Canada's bicentennial will be celebrated in 2067 - far enough away that we can't predict what the world will be like at the time, but close enough that we could play a major role in actively shaping that future if we put our minds to it now.

There are countless Canadians doing just that, right now.

Are you with us?

Katie Telford

Trudeau once told journalist Susan Delacourt that he purposely chose Telford as his campaign chair to push back against those who counseled against her appointment.

“She constantly fights against people who don’t take her seriously, who belittle her, who say they can do a better job and not just men, not just older men, but everyone. And it’s been a great reminder to me of the challenges that we’re still facing in changing politics as a culture.”

Katie Telford is 36 years old.  In a political culture where it's common for powerful positions to be occupied by 20somethings with more confidence than experience, this hardly makes her a young doe - but she's not a grizzled veteran with decades of political warfare under her belt, either.  Add to this her size - Katie hovers somewhere slightly over the five foot mark - and it is not at all difficult to imagine political old boys dismissing her.

That would be their choice to make, but it would be an ill-advised one.

Katie is smart.  She's also confident, but leans more towards the smart side over the confident side than the average political player.  That means that she's willing to admit when she doesn't understand and likelier to err on the side of evidence over gut, or aggressive selling from a political peer.

She asks smart questions and listens carefully to responses, most often with the intent of understanding what's being revealed instead of preparing herself with a counter-attack.  This is incredibly rare in politics, unfortunately, but a trait that puts her in good stead.

Katie's worked in numerous political cultures, both inside government and without.  She is respected, even admired by the clients she has worked with from the private and not-for-profit sectors.  No doubt her inbox is regularly populated with job offers from major organizations and institutions.

Yet for all her professional success, Katie hasn't fallen into the trap many of her peers have, which is to assume they matter more than the causes they're involved in.  You'll never hear Katie say "I only think about things when I'm paid to" or "we are smart, they are dumb."  In fact, Katie has acted on her beliefs and passion in countless silent ways that speak to her commitment to the cause.

My favourite example: a political networking night for women, intended to build up a community of peer support.  There are a great many women who have suffered the slings and arrows of sexism in politics and not just survived, but excelled (Katie being one of them) - to develop a forum for those best practices to be shared speaks to her character.

Having said that, Katie's not afraid to play the game.  She knows how to frame and she's not afraid to bend the rules in favourable ways. 

As is the case with all people, Katie does have her flaws.  She is more strategic than she is empathic, though she is unquestionably more empathetic than the average political bear.  Her focus is perhaps more on political wins than it is on the best possible policy, though she is acutely aware of our democratic deficit and not one to dismiss such concerns out of hand.  Numbers matter, but a number every person in Canadian politics should be adding to their consideration is voter turnout.

There's been lots of crowing about the lack of detailed policy from Team Trudeau so far this campaign (when did it start again? feels like it's been always been with us).  It's an unfair statement, as there have been pieces of policy, but the truth is - and all political people know it - that a detailed platform doesn't win elections and can often sink a campaign in its complexity (messaging nightmare) or in offering a bigger target for opponents to shoot at.

This can't go on forever, of course, and the Liberals have already made tentative moves in the direction of crowd-sourcing policy.  I think this is a smart move, the kind that fits Katie's approach and passions perfectly.

As best explained in the must-read book on facilitation Discuss, Decide, Do, the most appropriate and agile policies are ones the people feel some ownership of.  While Team Trudeau has certainly created some appearance of crowd-sourcing policy and open-sourcing the conversation, they are by-and-large still playing the Strong Leader game, positioning their guy as the only one who can lead Canada forward.

It's a mixed message that sends confusing signals; are the Trudeau Liberals open to the hope and hard work of the people, or are the people supposed to invest in Trudeau and nothing more?  That's always been Harper's line.  It seems to have worked for him, but Trudeau's core brand is that he's not more of the same.

Katie Telford's greatest strength - perhaps her greatest source of strength - is that she's anything but the traditional personification of a political person.  She has both the capacity and willingness to peel back the layers of the game and take a look at the people and ideas that are readily dismissed by politics-as-usual.  After all, she is still seen as one of them by many.

If Team Trudeau live their core messaging, their goal isn't just to win by any means necessary, but to disrupt and adapt Canada's political culture to meet the needs of Canada's modern reality.

Trudeau empowered Telford because she's smart, competent and tested, but also because she fights against the status quo.

We should all be looking forward to Katie continuing that tradition.

Justin Time: If There Is To Be A Revolution...

"If we do not attend to this problem, we should not be surprised to see the middle class question the policies, and the very system, that values and encourages growth."

While Tories across the nation are circling the wagons and firing at each other, something is happening out there.  Partially due to general malaise about an economic slump that's disproportionately impacting some Canadians over others and largely fuelled by the networked intelligence capabilities of social media, the public beast is being wakened from its slumber.  The steady diet of sound-bite messaging and partisan attacks has left them hungry for substance; the constant bombardment of political cynicism has them desirous of something they can believe in.

There are no surprises in this - the trajectory has always been there for anyone to see.  Thanks in no small part to Team Harper, people are looking elsewhere to see their concerns represented.

A key element of this shift is a reversal of a trend that has dominated Canadian politics for decades; as scandals and behind-the-scenes shenanigans increasingly make headlines, we are once again looking beyond the leader at the teams that support them.  This is ironic in the extreme; while Stephen Harper (formerly a back-room policy wonk) tries to maintain the dissonance that he is firmly in command but has no idea what bad behaviour his team is getting up to, Canada's closest thing to a royal figure is slowly stepping back and letting his people into the spotlight. 

Recognizing that people are going to pay attention to his players anyway, Trudeau is picking them as much for their personal attributes/public affability as for their internal skills and competencies.  He's been doing this for at least a year, which suggests to me that he probably saw this trend emerging quite some time ago.

In terms of narrative what started off as traditional, motivational-speaker type messaging - "hope and hard work", etc. - has slowly been gaining depth and dimension.  As with his recent Foreign Policy Q+A (and introduction of his newest team member, retired Lt. General Andrew Leslie), Trudeau is demonstrating the same clear-eyed determination we've associated with him since he beat Patrick Brazeau; at the same time, he's making it clear that his management style will be the opposite of Stephen Harper's, featuring a comfort with delegation. 

While the Tories and NDP continue to attack Trudeau using refined versions of the same political tools that have been favoured for ages, Trudeau has boldly decided to change the rules of the game.

It's a risky gambit; new ways of doing things always are.  What is increasingly undeniable is that the way we're doing things now is unsustainable.  Much as the Industrial Revolution reshaped the world we live in and how we understand society, Trudeau has taken a look at the lay of the land and is positioning himself at the forefront of our next major transformation.

From Davos on down to main street everywhere, people are saying there has to be a revolution - not one of aggression, but of consciousness.

Trudeau is slowly laying the foundation for the sort of Canada he believes will emerge next.  There is still much to be done - government services, especially healthcare, are in need of a systematic overhaul.  We need to better position ourselves for success in the Knowledge Economy instead of leaving all of our eggs in the natural resource basket.  Big issues ranging from immigration to training to labour all need new direction.  Canada also needs a consistent foreign policy approach that holds true to what we have always represented; a friendly smile backed by one hell of a punch.

The other Parties can play traditional politics and lose, or they can try to crib from Trudeau's playbook and reinforce his message.  If Team Trudeau can maintain the trajectory they're already on, there's no reason he can't become Canada's next Prime Minister.

In over his head?  I think not.

UPDATE Sept 23, 2013:  Just thought this was interesting, is all:

Blame the new media or the current politics, but whatever the cause, it feels like all the parties are out of sync with public views on political behaviour.  Voters are sick of attacks and underhanded tactics.

The turn-off might keep some people from voting and suppressing the vote generally helps the governing party.  That's why the federal Conservatives work so hard at it.  But if that was the NDP's intention in Nova Scotia, it doesn't seem to be working.

CFN - Political Planks on a Burning Platform (Updated)

“That was when we really thought we were going to bring about the change required.  It didn’t happen so successfully and I think Justin and others are of the view that ‘renewal’ became a word that just started not to work anymore.”

 -          Katie Telford

Politics, like any good drama, is built on conflict.  At its best, from an audience perspective, politics delivers high-tension clashes at multiple levels simultaneously with nations facing threats upon their shores while provinces, Parties and partisan operatives battle each other for dominance.  It’s why shows like Game of Thrones are so popular; nothing makes for compelling viewing quite like actors fighting to the death on a burning platform. 

Canadian politics, alas, tends to be low on hyperbole and weak on dramatic content.  That’s why unless you’re a CanCon political junkie or a Conservative researcher, you probably missed the little piece of Liberal drama that played itself out last week.  Like the best dramas, this tale began on a hopeful note, spiraled into conflict and has now moved into intrigue.

It started off innocently enough, with Justin Trudeau giving an impassioned speech heralding his entry into the Liberal leadership race.  Rather boldly, he laid out a vision that reached beyond the scope of the Party and included our entire political system.  Canadians, he suggested, are hungry for a vision of Canada’s future “grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust.”  Trudeau’s stated goal is to bring values like honesty, integrity, respect and cooperation back into Canadian politics.  “When,” he asks us, “was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted?”

Voters are cynical about politicians, and rightly so.  Our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran on the promise of ushering in a new era of accountability and transparency.  On the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, that message appealed to the average Canadian.  Since gaining power, however, Harper has been neither accountable nor transparent.  He has moved to limit public access to committee debates, has stifled information flow to the media – his government has even denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position of their own design. 

If we’re wary of politicians, we’re downright suspicious of the people who work behind the scenes for them.  We know that Harper’s hired guns aren’t interested in strengthening democracy; they themselves tell us as much.  Nick Kouvalis happily states that he gets paid to end the careers of liberal politicians, while Tim Powers readily admits that the Conservatives are happy to misrepresent the facts if it allows them to keep the Opposition on the defensive.  At the end of the day, does it really matter what a Leader says, when it’s folk like this pulling the strings?

For this reason, engaged Canadians are increasingly paying attention to the people behind the curtain.  If we’re going to invest in a Party to drive our country forward, we want to know something about what’s under the hood.  Perhaps it was in recognition of this that Team Trudeau agreed to an interview with Michael den Tandt, skirting traditional political wisdom that suggests political staff be neither seen nor heard, and kicking off the next act in our little drama. 

If Trudeau’s speech was the teaser to the campaign, the den Tandt piece was like a making-of featurette.  It introduced us to a likeable production crew that clearly supports the vision laid out by their leader.  In addition to Katie Telford, a bright young mother with tons of both idealism and political experience (full disclosure, she’s a former colleague of mine), we have former Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale Omar Alghabra, Ben Chin (a former reporter of South Korean heritage) and the more mysterious of the Trudeau brothers, Sacha.  Named but not interviewed was Gerry Butts, a man who is not only gifted in his ability to craft political strategy but also someone who only dedicates his time to things he believes in.  Former political staff like me still look up to people like him.

Not a bad crew to have supporting you, really – and unlike a Kouvalis or a Powers, these folk have made it clear their goal isn’t to defeat the opposition at all cost.  “It’s about who’s willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they’ve been in before, or (whether they’ve) been involved in past battles,” as Telford says.  But why, some might ask, is she the one saying this at all?  There’s a reason why conventional wisdom suggests staff should stay in the backroom; when they draw attention to themselves, support teams draw the focus away from the person who will actually have his name on the ballot.  It’s not smart, politically.

One of the people pointing this out is Warren Kinsella, Bad Boy Liberal Strategist and a man with more hard-won election scars than most political staff ever has skin in the game.  When it comes to all this campaign strategy stuff, Kinsella knows of what he speaks – he wrote the book on it, literally (and if you haven’t read The War Room, I highly recommend it).  Kinsella compares political strategy to the process of making sausages (a bit ironic, given the unfolding tainted meat scandal); the less revealed to the public and your opponents, the better.

It’s a point worth raising.  As Kinsella notes, the folk supporting Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff all dabbled with media exposure, while the campaign teams for Stephen Harper did not.  As a strategy, this worked out pretty well for Team Harper; despite being implicated in a scheme to bribe a dying man for his vote, being found in contempt of Parliament and the ongoing robocall scandal, among others, the Conservatives have clawed their way to a majority government and are now free to do as they please.  By never going off message, allowing few of his Caucus to speak to the media and holding his operators to an omerta-like code of silence, Harper presents a thin target for his opponents.  As for the other guys, well – go look for them now.

This Harperian method makes for great politics, but is terrible for the long-term health of our Canadian democracy.  “The political system has failed many Canadians in clear and tangible ways,” suggests Alison Loat, Co-Founder and Executive Director of democracy watchdog the Samara Institute.  As Trudeau stated so eloquently in his launch-speech, we no longer trust politics, neither the leaders nor the people who support them.  Harper doesn’t shoulder all the weight for this problem – he’s merely taken an emerging trend and pushed it further, faster than anyone expected.  It’s because of this sort of cynical governance that Canadians, particularly younger ones, are proactively opting not to vote. 

Only 61.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters cast ballots in the last Federal election, and that was considered an improvement.  Youth turnout was even lower, with only 38.8 choosing to support a candidate or Party.  Feeling like their vote has no meaning and that all Parties are the same, these Canadians are choosing alternative methods of expressing themselves politically by participating in student protests or supporting movements like Occupy.

Kinsella himself has recognized this, time and again – the way politics works in Canada is changing.  As disenfranchised voters tune out, backroom operators are using increasingly aggressive tactics to win votes and eviscerate their opponents.  To avoid the consequences of scrutiny, these folk are extinguishing media and opposition access so that they can do what they have to do away from the spotlight.  What happens when people who don’t feel accountable to the public have growing amounts of influence on the political process?

According to the den Tandt article, Team Trudeau and Justin himself have collectively realized that it’s not just the Liberal Party, but the Canadian political process that is at risk of collapse.  That’s the burning platform; that’s the impetus for renewal.  Instead of engaging in old-school politics of Machiavellian manoeuvers planned and orchestrated by shadowy, unaccountable operators, Team Trudeau is trying to devise a new approach, one that is more transparent and accessible to the public while equally being more respectful to opponents.  In this, they’re following some wise words: “Never attack the individual.  We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

Which brings us to the last act of our little drama.  Warren Kinsella, a Liberal veteran who recognizes the need for some kind of renewal in politics offered some constructive criticism of the Team Trudeau approach.  Less discussion of process in the media, he suggests.  Staff should remain behind the curtain.  This is a valid position, one that has born political fruit for successive generations.  It doesn’t mean it’s the right one for today. 

According to Kinsella himself, his advice has been met with the kind of response that is typical of old-school politics; angry messages from Trudeau supporters, some of them delivered anonymously.  This is the sort of kindling from which new rivalries are made; it’s also the sort of personality conflict we’re sadly used to.  Sure, this kind of political theatre makes for great viewing, but it does nothing to address the burning platform and brings into question whether renewal is actually possible.  If politics is invariably a blood sport, you can hardly blame the Tories for being as ruthless as necessary to succeed – nor can you blame Canada’s youth for taking to the streets in protest.

For what it’s worth, I think that Trudeau is right.  I think it’s time for a political leader to embody the values they speak of and inspire the same from their team and the public at large.  I also think that Kinsella is right – political staff shouldn’t be using their position as a way to build their own brand.  Frankly, good leaders value their team personally and always make sure their contributions are properly recognized.  Having said that, we live in the days of Facebook and Twitter and IP addresses.  Whether we like it or not, everyone is in the spotlight.  Instead of trying to deny this, political people should always be thinking about how their comments, both verbal and posted, can reinforce and carry forward the vision they have chosen to support.  You never go wrong by standing up for what you believe in.

I would also suggest that political leaders need to spend less time attacking their opponents and micro-targeting voter blocks and instead start engaging all Canadians.  Democracy is a conversation and, like all conversations, it’s built on a foundation of shared values – including trust.  When we don’t trust others, we make them untrustworthy and become untrustworthy ourselves as a consequence.

Of course, all this suspicion and intrigue makes for great conflict.  Though Canadians do love their drama, I think there’s a growing recognition that if we don’t change something, we’re all going to get burned.  The Leader or Party that consciously sets the right example will find that while we enjoy the spectacle, what we truly respect is values-based leadership.

Will Trudeau be this leader?  Can his team renew Canadian democracy before the platform disintegrates?  I’ve got my feet by the fire and popcorn in hand, waiting to see how the next act unfolds.

UPDATE:  Case in point: My partner Lisa Kirbie goes on Sun News weekly to defend all things Liberal.  On the single occasion she voices concern - before and after Trudeau's "basic dictatorship" gaffe - she is derided by other Liberals.

Another Liberal warned Kirbie that she needed to get "on board" because "(Trudeau's) the leader." And so on.

Some people never learn, eh?

Team Trudeau and Post-Partisan Politics

Trudeau’s team is animated by a belief that the current political system has failed or is failing. “What we see is old-school rules,” says Chin. “Regional divides, regional mistrust … I don’t think Canadians are ideological. I don’t think Canadians are polarized. I think Canadians want pragmatic solutions that work, and policy based on facts as opposed to making up the facts to justify the policy. That’s what we need to get back to.”

 

 

This article has gotten flack in some circles because backroom operators are speaking to the media.  That's not the way things are done, say the old-school masters.  Staff are to be neither seen nor heard.

 

Little niggling problem with that - they are being seen and are being heard, whether that's intended or not.  Average Canadians know there are Mandarins in the shadows, pulling strings and working their Machiavellian stratagems.  That's a big reason people don't trust politics, because too much of it happens behind closed doors.  We don't trust politicians to some degree because we don't know what or who is informing their choices.

 

Now, I am admittedly biased - I have enormous respect for Katie Telford - but I'm also an absolute believer in the notion that people deserve to know what's going on and, when you hold yourself open to public scrutiny, the public helps keep you honest.  It's like going to the doctor's office; when the practitioner lets you know what they're doing, you have more comfort in the process.

 

I also believe in the notion of Post-Partisanship, which is essentially about overcoming tribal differences and seeking common ground.  There's a political cycle that happens with Left and Right tacks, with one wave constantly undoing the work of the last.  It's inefficient.  The wisest course of action is to collaborate and find solutions that will stand the test of time.  That goes for backroom folk, too.  Getting out and talking isn't about a moment in the sun, it's about engaging in a national, post-partisan dialogue that's open and transparent to all.

 

We can do this, if we do so consciously.