I have to say for some reason I'm totally stumped this time around as for who I will vote for in the coming elections.
In past years it's been easier because of one party or the other has been incompetent enough for me not to want to lend them my vote. By the way, I'm an odd voter because I don't vote based on ideology alone, I vote more based on competence.
Small government? Great with me, as long as it's competent.
Big government? No problem, as long as it's competent.
Taxes increases? Fine, as long as the money is spent wisely.
Taxes cuts? Great, as long as it truly stimulates the economy and job creation and doesn't just makes the rich richer.
So for me the whole fear-mongering - Harper will make the rich richer, Ignatieff will kill jobs through wealth redistribution - doesn't even register, I just ignore it all and I'm more interested in who might have a sliver of a chance of running an effective government.
So today I took a look at the Green Party. I like Elizabeth May. She's clearly smart, very articulate, and seems unbelievably nice despite the uphill battle that the Green Party faces (you'd think it would wear on you and frustration would turn you a bit sour, but that doesn't seem to be the case with May).
I'll leave you to read their platform if that's something you are interested in. I thought I'd take a minute to talk about why I don't think the Green Party gets taken as seriously as it should from a PR perspective (because the problem isn't May, you couldn't ask for a better spokesperson I think).
A few things stick out to me from a PR perspective...
1) Green means what?
This may sound a bit jaded, but the reality is that jobs and standard of living trump everything, including the environment. If the financial crisis has taught us anything it's that (the majority) of people don't care until they can see the damage. It's not to say they want to see damage done, just that until they can actually see damage with their own eyes, until they are in danger, it's not something they put any thought in to.
As such, making eco-friendly your primary selling point, while rallying eco-activists, doesn't resonate with everyone else. How you get around this I couldn't tell you, but in a way it's become an albatross that, while on the moral high ground, doesn't resonate with most people.
In addition, Green is a color. Liberals stand for 'liberty'. Conservatives stands for 'fiscal conserveratism". NDP stands for "New" and "Democratic" (ie. of the peopel). The other party names stand for things that people hold dear to their ideological views. 'Green' simply doesn't resonate enough with enough people.
NCP might work - New Common Sense Party (as common sense seems to be what is lacking in politics and the greater economic ecosystem today).
2) Logo and colors
I hate to say it, but the Green Party logo is very similar to BP's logo. I think this says more about how good a job BP did at trying to brand itself 'eco-friendly'. Unfortunately for the GP there's a negative resonance (albeit subconsciously) with that symbol for a lot of people after the oil spill. So when new voters are hitting their Web site, while consciously they may not be aware of it, subconsciously I don't think the GP logo really evokes any kind of positive response at this point.
And the Web site is covered in green. It's a nice site, but man, you better love the color green (and I don't think a lot of people do).
Red and Blue are very resonant colors, red evokes passion (also the color on our flag) and blue evokes strength and stability (blue has to be the most popular color for most peopel out there, everyone loves blue).
The NDP uses orange, which isn't the best and is probably on par with green in the appeal of the color spectrum.
Also, no maple leafe doesn't help (all the other party logos have the maple leaf).
3) If you want radical changes use pictures
I read the GP's platform and they present a budget overview that shows how they will pay for their platform. There's some really hot-button issues in there that would really catch a lot of Canadians attention, legalizing and taxing marijuana is one of them for instance. I had to laugh that at the same time there is also money allocated for a campaign to discourage the use of marijuna (which makes total sense, just like we do with cigarettes, but it made me laugh none the less).
The problem with this lay-out is that the vast majority of Canadians either won't understand it or won't review it because they hate looking at balance sheets.
What they need is a graph or graphic of some kind (pie chart even - people love those pie charts) which visually shows people 'this is the Canada you live in today' ... 'this is the Canada you'd get tomorrow'. Slap the issues in there with dollar figures attached and let people visually see how things change.
4) Pull out the We're Number One Tactic
One thing I'm surprised none of the parties are using is the we're number one strategy. Canada use to be number one (or very close) in so many things - healthcare, the internet (I think we were number one for a long time), education, standard of living, etc.
I don't think we are anywhere near number one on anything right now.
I'm not really sure what the Conservatives stand for right now (fitness tax benefits? are you serious?).
The Liberals seem to be about family tax cuts.
The NDP seems to be about power to the unions.
No one is proposing that Canada be number one at anything. The GP seem to be pushing that Canada be number one at environmental sustainability and clean energy, which I guess is something (although that movement still seems to be five-to-ten years away).
So from a PR perspective I think the GP have done an excellent job at appealing to their core base but not the best job towards appealing to the rest of Canadian voters. Which means they are stuck waiting for Canadians to come around to their way of thinking.
Having said all that I may still vote GP.
At the very least I see a vote for the GP as a way of saying to the other parties 'Your platforms do not reflect my views.' At best, it sends a message that I'm sick of partisan bickering and perhaps encourages the parties to work together to come up with real solutions.
We'll see how the debates go. Although the fact that they kept the GP out of the debates is appauling to me. It's a black eye on all the other parties.
If they stood for the same kind of Canada I do (which they all say they do, except the Bloc), then they would have demanded the GP be at the table. Last time around the GP got a million votes (that's nearly three per cent of the Canadian population and probably around six per cent of those who voted). Cutting them out of the debate I think does a giant diservice to the one million Canadians that voted GP last time (not to mention however many more who want to hear what the GP has to say).
For that reason alone GP may get my vote.
In past years it's been easier because of one party or the other has been incompetent enough for me not to want to lend them my vote. By the way, I'm an odd voter because I don't vote based on ideology alone, I vote more based on competence.
Small government? Great with me, as long as it's competent.
Big government? No problem, as long as it's competent.
Taxes increases? Fine, as long as the money is spent wisely.
Taxes cuts? Great, as long as it truly stimulates the economy and job creation and doesn't just makes the rich richer.
So for me the whole fear-mongering - Harper will make the rich richer, Ignatieff will kill jobs through wealth redistribution - doesn't even register, I just ignore it all and I'm more interested in who might have a sliver of a chance of running an effective government.
So today I took a look at the Green Party. I like Elizabeth May. She's clearly smart, very articulate, and seems unbelievably nice despite the uphill battle that the Green Party faces (you'd think it would wear on you and frustration would turn you a bit sour, but that doesn't seem to be the case with May).
I'll leave you to read their platform if that's something you are interested in. I thought I'd take a minute to talk about why I don't think the Green Party gets taken as seriously as it should from a PR perspective (because the problem isn't May, you couldn't ask for a better spokesperson I think).
A few things stick out to me from a PR perspective...
1) Green means what?
This may sound a bit jaded, but the reality is that jobs and standard of living trump everything, including the environment. If the financial crisis has taught us anything it's that (the majority) of people don't care until they can see the damage. It's not to say they want to see damage done, just that until they can actually see damage with their own eyes, until they are in danger, it's not something they put any thought in to.
As such, making eco-friendly your primary selling point, while rallying eco-activists, doesn't resonate with everyone else. How you get around this I couldn't tell you, but in a way it's become an albatross that, while on the moral high ground, doesn't resonate with most people.
In addition, Green is a color. Liberals stand for 'liberty'. Conservatives stands for 'fiscal conserveratism". NDP stands for "New" and "Democratic" (ie. of the peopel). The other party names stand for things that people hold dear to their ideological views. 'Green' simply doesn't resonate enough with enough people.
NCP might work - New Common Sense Party (as common sense seems to be what is lacking in politics and the greater economic ecosystem today).
2) Logo and colors
I hate to say it, but the Green Party logo is very similar to BP's logo. I think this says more about how good a job BP did at trying to brand itself 'eco-friendly'. Unfortunately for the GP there's a negative resonance (albeit subconsciously) with that symbol for a lot of people after the oil spill. So when new voters are hitting their Web site, while consciously they may not be aware of it, subconsciously I don't think the GP logo really evokes any kind of positive response at this point.
And the Web site is covered in green. It's a nice site, but man, you better love the color green (and I don't think a lot of people do).
Red and Blue are very resonant colors, red evokes passion (also the color on our flag) and blue evokes strength and stability (blue has to be the most popular color for most peopel out there, everyone loves blue).
The NDP uses orange, which isn't the best and is probably on par with green in the appeal of the color spectrum.
Also, no maple leafe doesn't help (all the other party logos have the maple leaf).
3) If you want radical changes use pictures
I read the GP's platform and they present a budget overview that shows how they will pay for their platform. There's some really hot-button issues in there that would really catch a lot of Canadians attention, legalizing and taxing marijuana is one of them for instance. I had to laugh that at the same time there is also money allocated for a campaign to discourage the use of marijuna (which makes total sense, just like we do with cigarettes, but it made me laugh none the less).
The problem with this lay-out is that the vast majority of Canadians either won't understand it or won't review it because they hate looking at balance sheets.
What they need is a graph or graphic of some kind (pie chart even - people love those pie charts) which visually shows people 'this is the Canada you live in today' ... 'this is the Canada you'd get tomorrow'. Slap the issues in there with dollar figures attached and let people visually see how things change.
4) Pull out the We're Number One Tactic
One thing I'm surprised none of the parties are using is the we're number one strategy. Canada use to be number one (or very close) in so many things - healthcare, the internet (I think we were number one for a long time), education, standard of living, etc.
I don't think we are anywhere near number one on anything right now.
I'm not really sure what the Conservatives stand for right now (fitness tax benefits? are you serious?).
The Liberals seem to be about family tax cuts.
The NDP seems to be about power to the unions.
No one is proposing that Canada be number one at anything. The GP seem to be pushing that Canada be number one at environmental sustainability and clean energy, which I guess is something (although that movement still seems to be five-to-ten years away).
So from a PR perspective I think the GP have done an excellent job at appealing to their core base but not the best job towards appealing to the rest of Canadian voters. Which means they are stuck waiting for Canadians to come around to their way of thinking.
Having said all that I may still vote GP.
At the very least I see a vote for the GP as a way of saying to the other parties 'Your platforms do not reflect my views.' At best, it sends a message that I'm sick of partisan bickering and perhaps encourages the parties to work together to come up with real solutions.
We'll see how the debates go. Although the fact that they kept the GP out of the debates is appauling to me. It's a black eye on all the other parties.
If they stood for the same kind of Canada I do (which they all say they do, except the Bloc), then they would have demanded the GP be at the table. Last time around the GP got a million votes (that's nearly three per cent of the Canadian population and probably around six per cent of those who voted). Cutting them out of the debate I think does a giant diservice to the one million Canadians that voted GP last time (not to mention however many more who want to hear what the GP has to say).
For that reason alone GP may get my vote.
Comments
Post a Comment