Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Giornolism 101

by Paul Wells on Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:50pm - 0 Comments

From the print edition, my 2700-word attempt to explain the turmoil at the PMO this summer:

Twice before, Stephen Harper overhauled the team around him as he prepared to meet a new challenge. In November 2001, as a candidate for the Canadian Alliance leadership, he fired the high-priced professional campaigners he had put on the payroll only three months earlier and turned the campaign over to his inexperienced but highly motivated friends. In July of 2005, as an Opposition leader who had failed to bring down Paul Martin’s minority government, he replaced his chief of staff and fired much of his organization. The first overhaul, according to the Harper camp’s household mythology, made him a party leader. The second made him prime minister.

And now he is doing it again.

The rest after the jump…

OK, here’s the rest. Made you jump!

Tags: Guy Giorno, Kory Teneycke, patrick muttart, pmo, Richard Nixon, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

Pingback: Test « TND Blogs - The National Dispatch
sf

Paul,
There is a lot of value to this piece. I agree that most writers have produced simplistic assumptions about him that are simply not worth the paper they are printed on.

I especially liked your comment that Harper’s coalition consists of “People who believe they pay more to Ottawa than they are used to getting from it, whether in money, programs or respect”, because I think it is true, yet I’ve never seen the slightest mention of this fact in most of Canada’s supposedly sophisticated political journalism. Most journalism seems to make the assumption that such people do not exist in Canada (maybe this is because most journalists are not conservative voters).
boudica

“I especially liked your comment that Harper’s coalition consists of “People who believe they pay more to Ottawa than they are used to getting from it, whether in money, programs or respect”, because I think it is true,”

Is that a coalition or is that Harper’s core base? Take, for example, the 10 Quebec ridings who voted for Harper in the last election. Do you really believe that they fit that description? Or do they belong to the group who were simply POed about the Sponsorship scandal?

In fact, isn’t the Sponsorship scandal the main reason why Harper obtain power or do we believe that this coalition is what made him Prime Minister?
colten

Blues,

You seem to assume that Dion tacking left will be …..ahem…..voter neutral.

There’s a reason why the Green Party has never won a seat: it’s a single issue fringe party. Most Canadians actually have other concerns as well, such as their ailing or aging parents, their children’s health and education, their own economic well being etc.

By all means if Dion wants to replace the Green party with the Liberal brand, he’s free to do so. But he’ll likely have to leave the voters in the middle (the ones in the meaty part of the bell curve) at the door as he enters his academic focused green centered paradise.
colten

A critical mistake in any form of marketing is believing you can bring the market to you,

rather than delivering a “product” that has attributes that satisfies as many people as possible.

Dion’s latest venture into Alberta was a good example of the former. Rather than addressing folk’s real concerns there, he lectured – professor like – on what Albertans SHOULD be really concerned about: not their economic well being, but on how they look to people like Dion.

I suspect the arrogant tut tutting to the populace will do wonders with the fringe base of his pet issue he longs to lead, but to the rest of Canadians who are now having to decide to tell the kids they can’t go on that summer vacation they’ve been planning, or are worried about the their mother with alzheimers – you know very real and immediate concerns,

they won’t take a lecture from the professor too kindly.
sf

boudica: “Or do they belong to the group who were simply POed about the Sponsorship scandal?”

The sponshorship scandal was a situation where taxpayer money was wasted and stolen. The type of voter most likely to switch parties because of such an event: a voter who believes he/she receives less from government than they pay into it, in terms of money, respect, or programs.
Blues Clair

colten,

One of the reasons the Greens havn’t won a seat is because they don’t have a strong organization. But those are real voters my friend. The all important Timmy’s crowd ain’t the only prized jewel for the kings paper crown.
Devin Baines

Paul’s one of the most well connected journos in Ottawa.

I left the Hill over 2 years ago, but spent 15 years in the trenches prior to that. Most outside the environment don’t realize what a small town it is and what even the lowliest of staffers knows. Paul chatting with me at a a reception or in line at the bank could wind up being quoted or being background just as easily as a call with Brodie or Muttart. There are hundreds of staffers, some plugged in more than others, but all with interesting stories to tell. Perhaps knows some of this, but I think it more likely that he only wishes he did.
Anon

Yes, but I don’t think Maclean’s would allow it to go to print without the sources being just a touch more reliable than a third or fourth level staffer’s gossip.

Besides, Paul’s book on the 2006 election quoted Brodie & Muttart extensively.

But as he says, they weren’t the sources and, frankly, it doesn’t matter. It’s a good article, Paul has an excellent writing style. I just thought the Muttart/Kenney fawning went just a bit too far. Also, the whole concept that Brodie is orchestrating this PMO reorganization is just plain risible.

Polievre’s mention in the article was curious. It almost makes you wonder if his Indian-partook-outburst on the day of Harper’s apology was not another one of Muttart and/or Kenney’s Oily-esque masterpieces.
Anon

P.S.: The article mentioning Muttart as the Chief Oily Man, I believe, is entitled “Conservatives fast-tracked attack ads, source says” by BRIAN LAGHI, published June 16 on p. A4 in the G&M.

It’s behind a pay-per-view wall, so I can’t (and won’t) retrieve it, but I believe it said something about how the Oily ads were rushed to fend-off a possible no-confidence vote and that Muttart was behind it.

But, I’m quoting from memory here, so –.
colten

Blues,

it appears we both wish for Dion to continue on his single issue quest. Let’s chat after the next election and talk about how that worked out for him.

Cheers.
john delacourt

Thinking about all this when I read this link:

http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/015_02/2456
Cam

“Poilievre is dismissed as a third-rater by most reporters in the gallery, and even among Tory staffers he is seen as a guy whose mouth gets ahead of his ambition. But he gets this distinction between the well-rounded and the Welkish mass in his bones. His website address is http://www.fightingforyou.ca, and here’s the odd thing about the residential-schools blunder: even if it was a mistake, and his apology sincere, his riding office has received far more critical calls and emails from voters for his apology than it has for his original gaffe.”

Paul, “if it was a mistake”? He made it sound like those who were at residential schools ELECTED to be there!

And having his riding office state their statistics? Not exactly scientific nor objective. When his riding office released this information I immediately wondered just how sincere that apology was since the MP would have had to allow that information to be given out, and that information totally contradicted his apology. It seems a ‘wink wink nudge nudge’ apporach— ‘yes I had to apology but you and I really know the truth, continue to vote for me.’ I wish someone had asked Poilevre why he aloowed his office to release the information… it would be fun to watch him talk out of both sides of his mouth.
Jackie Kent

Mr. Wells, I found this line to be interesting: “Dion’s resignation would plunge the party into another year-long leadership contest…”

I can’t see the Liberal party signing up for another 12-month encore edition of their last leadership ‘race’. Surely they’d be smart enough to book the convention for 4, maybe 6 months after Dion steps down, and not a full year? Wouldn’t they?
Paul Wells

Jackie, a senior guy at the party once explained to me that it’s very difficult under current rules — which can’t be changed before a convention — to compress the Liberal leadership process much past a year. Probably you could do it in eight months. But not five. That’s because you have to count backward from the end: delegates must be selected 90 days before a convention; people need time, at least several weeks, to sign up to compete for delegate spots; candidates need time to get potential delegates’ attention; candidates need time to organize.The later steps (first in my backward list) are incompressible. The first steps — organizing and campaigning — if they’re accelerated, confer a huge advantage on the best-known candidates. A six-month race would be a Rae-Ignatieff face-off, and I know enough Liberals who want no such thing that I’m sure the party executive will give other candidates time to get in the water.