|
|---|
Saturday 29 January 2011
 |
| Thirty shekels in a bag for Jack Layton |
The Cat is perturbed by Ignatieff's apparent lack of knowledge of the importance in politics of the need to frame issues so as to secure the approval of voters.
Despite the obvious lessons of our giant neighbour, where framing has been very significant in winning elections, it seems that the current Liberal advisors to the leader, and our leader himself, are content to coast along in blissful ignorance of modern politicking.
Despite the obvious lessons of our giant neighbour, where framing has been very significant in winning elections, it seems that the current Liberal advisors to the leader, and our leader himself, are content to coast along in blissful ignorance of modern politicking.
That said, I compliment Ignatieff on one very successful framing – his short, punchy, effective and issue-defining characterization of Liberal Party policy on university and college education funding for our students.
He has put it this way in several speeches:
You get the grades, and you get to go.
Good stuff, Michael!
The Cat has one suggestion for the coming battle over whether the Tory budget in March should favour tax cuts over other uses of those funds.
At an open house of Ignatieff which I attended, a young student asked Michael how he could explain just where he would get the funds to pay for the various programs he said a Liberal government would carry out, given the huge deficits we are now running, and the debt load our country faces.
Ignatieff fumbled – surprisingly, because this is an obvious question which he will need to address during an election campaign if he wishes to be a credible alternative to Harper – for an answer, and seemed to stumble onto one when a thought struck him: we as a Liberal government would use the funds now flowing in from the taxes on corporations which Harper wants to reduce through his "tax cuts".
The NDP will soon face a critical decision. Just how much in the way of bribes in Harper's March budget for NDP favoured special interests will Jack Layton and his team accept for them to agree to the federal government giving corporations $6 billion through the proposed Tory "tax cut"?
Will thirty shekels in a brown envelope be enough for Jack to prop up Harper's government?
The Tories have framed the "tax cuts" in two ways, and so far the Liberals, Bloc and NDP have failed to come up with a competing and more successful framing of this issue.
Harper's boys are calling their proposal a "tax cut". This is pure Republican framing: nobody in their right minds – so the repug theory goes – can oppose a tax cut, because everybody knows that taxes are bad things – money is taken from citizens and wasted by the central government. This framing still works in the US because the Democrats there have still ignored the lessons on this issue suggested by Lakoff. Liberals and NDP MPs are falling into the elephant trap Lakoff identified so clearly by using these same words.
The second framing now being used by the Harperites is simple and effective, as well. They now talk about the Liberals being opposed to "job creators" (being the corporations), and therefore being against reducing unemployment.
There we have it: Tory framing of "tax cuts" (good to do, bad to oppose) and "job creators" (good to support, bad to oppose, as Ignatieff is doing).
And Ignatieff is fumbling for a crisp, clear response on the issue which just might become the second major issue of the election if the government budget is voted down in March.
But fear not, Michael! The Cat is padding to your rescue.
All you need to do to win the framing battle on corporate taxes, is to frame the issue this way:
"We have a simple choice: cash for corporations, or cash for kids."
And back up the cash for kids by outlining in broad terms exactly how the $6 billion now paid in taxes by corporations will be used by a Liberal government to fund programs for kids.
And keep it restricted to kids – don't muddy the waters by talking about "middle class" or debt reduction or other issues when you talk about this plank. Keep it tight, keep it focused on the kids, keep it concrete, and above all avoid talking about tax cuts.
Got that, Michael?
We have a simple choice: cash for corporations, or cash for kids.
The Cat will accept payment of a due consideration in the form of cans of cat food. In a brown envelope. In a hotel room.
Oh, and in Canada, of course. For tax reasons ...
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
