With more and more column inches spent discussing their party’s leadership race, Liberals need to remember what really matters: the party’s message going into the next election.
It’s tempting to get caught up in the drama of a leadership race: who’s in, who’s out, and who’s supporting who. But voters should look beyond the day-to-day theatrics and focus on the messaging that each candidate brings to the race. Whatever message that happens to be, it may not be the same message that the party will carry into a general election. But it’s important that the next Liberal leader is capable of delivering a simple message that will appeal to ordinary Canadians. This should be the first litmus test for those who ask for the reins to the party: can they encapsulate their candidacy in one or two sentences? Can they deliver a winning message?
This may seem like a low bar, but remember that the Liberal Party has had no clear message since Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift which, whatever its faults, has the unique virtue of being the only thing people can remember that Liberals have suggested since losing power.
So what should Liberals be looking for? What does a winning message look like?
It has to offer voters a clear benefit. President Obama’s message in 2008 offered voters a benefit: change from the policies of the Bush Administration. Mr. Harper’s message in 2011 offered voters a benefit: stable government in unstable economic times. Mr. Ignatieff attempted to offer voters a benefit, but his message was muddled by a focus on Parliamentary processes that most Canadians apparently neither understood nor cared about. The current crop of Liberal leadership candidates must deliver a message that offers voters a real benefit.
A good message has to be short. An oft-cited University of California study showed that the average length of a political soundbite on television was eight seconds, or about the time it took you to read this sentence. If a candidate can’t sum up his candidacy and the benefit he or she is offering voters in that time, then their words won’t matter because nobody will hear them.
Lastly, a good message should draw and highlight contrasts between candidates. In Ontario’s recent provincial election, Premier McGuinty focused on “moving forward together.” This drew a favourable contrast with the Progressive Conservatives whose approach was perceived as backwards and divisive. Nathan Cullen was able to punch above his weight in the NDP leadership race with a message that positioned him as the only candidate friendly to co-operation with the Liberals.
Until this point, Liberals have been reluctant to adopt this sort of messaging. Strategists and members deride contrasts and wedge issues as divisive and damaging, mock opponents who speak in soundbites, and seem to be endlessly arguing the merits of policy rather than selling the Liberal party’s own policy to voters.
For evidence of this, look no further than supply management, the lone issue yet to be discussed as a part of the Liberal leadership race. Prospective candidates are staking out murky positions on an issue that few understand by releasing policy white papers that few will read. Maybe supply management is a hot topic over canapés and cocktails at the Laurier Club, but it’s not what Canadians are talking about at the dinner table and it’s certainly not going to motivate people to return to the Party. These are early days, but the Liberal leadership is off to an inauspicious start.
More than any other factor, Liberals ought to evaluate leadership candidates on their willingness and ability to deliver a winning message. A divided right and impotent NDP afforded the Liberal Party the luxury of successfully running past campaigns on the basis of forgettable niceties and vague promises. Those days are over and the party is having the life squeezed out of it from both sides. The next leader has to push back by giving Canadians a reason to vote Liberal again.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Taylor Scollon
It’s tempting to get caught up in the drama of a leadership race: who’s in, who’s out, and who’s supporting who. But voters should look beyond the day-to-day theatrics and focus on the messaging that each candidate brings to the race. Whatever message that happens to be, it may not be the same message that the party will carry into a general election. But it’s important that the next Liberal leader is capable of delivering a simple message that will appeal to ordinary Canadians. This should be the first litmus test for those who ask for the reins to the party: can they encapsulate their candidacy in one or two sentences? Can they deliver a winning message?
This may seem like a low bar, but remember that the Liberal Party has had no clear message since Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift which, whatever its faults, has the unique virtue of being the only thing people can remember that Liberals have suggested since losing power.
So what should Liberals be looking for? What does a winning message look like?
It has to offer voters a clear benefit. President Obama’s message in 2008 offered voters a benefit: change from the policies of the Bush Administration. Mr. Harper’s message in 2011 offered voters a benefit: stable government in unstable economic times. Mr. Ignatieff attempted to offer voters a benefit, but his message was muddled by a focus on Parliamentary processes that most Canadians apparently neither understood nor cared about. The current crop of Liberal leadership candidates must deliver a message that offers voters a real benefit.
A good message has to be short. An oft-cited University of California study showed that the average length of a political soundbite on television was eight seconds, or about the time it took you to read this sentence. If a candidate can’t sum up his candidacy and the benefit he or she is offering voters in that time, then their words won’t matter because nobody will hear them.
Lastly, a good message should draw and highlight contrasts between candidates. In Ontario’s recent provincial election, Premier McGuinty focused on “moving forward together.” This drew a favourable contrast with the Progressive Conservatives whose approach was perceived as backwards and divisive. Nathan Cullen was able to punch above his weight in the NDP leadership race with a message that positioned him as the only candidate friendly to co-operation with the Liberals.
Until this point, Liberals have been reluctant to adopt this sort of messaging. Strategists and members deride contrasts and wedge issues as divisive and damaging, mock opponents who speak in soundbites, and seem to be endlessly arguing the merits of policy rather than selling the Liberal party’s own policy to voters.
For evidence of this, look no further than supply management, the lone issue yet to be discussed as a part of the Liberal leadership race. Prospective candidates are staking out murky positions on an issue that few understand by releasing policy white papers that few will read. Maybe supply management is a hot topic over canapés and cocktails at the Laurier Club, but it’s not what Canadians are talking about at the dinner table and it’s certainly not going to motivate people to return to the Party. These are early days, but the Liberal leadership is off to an inauspicious start.
More than any other factor, Liberals ought to evaluate leadership candidates on their willingness and ability to deliver a winning message. A divided right and impotent NDP afforded the Liberal Party the luxury of successfully running past campaigns on the basis of forgettable niceties and vague promises. Those days are over and the party is having the life squeezed out of it from both sides. The next leader has to push back by giving Canadians a reason to vote Liberal again.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Taylor Scollon
No comments:
Post a Comment