Category: Chairman’s Desk

Navigator’s Executive Chairman Jaime Watt joins CBC News to weigh in on tonight’s scheduled debate between Doug Ford, Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath. This will be the first of three scheduled debates.

In the early 20th century, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt referred to the office of the President as a “bully pulpit.” Many have described the ability to speak to the nation from behind the resolute desk in the Oval Office as the most significant power a president has. Trump has, in my view, put that power at risk, writes Jaime Watt.

The daily outrages have grown tiresome. What was once shocking has become less and less interesting.

U.S. President Donald Trump‘s behaviour and the craziness surrounding his office – porn stars, law enforcement raids on his personal lawyer’s office, the bald-faced lies – have become the “new normal.”

But even as we all grow numb to the chaos, serious, long-term trouble lurks.

The seriousness, respect and responsibility that comes with the Office of the President of the United States is being eroded by the day.

According to Gallup, trust in institutions and the political process is at an all-time low. In fact, all American governmental institutions now experience trust levels below 50 per cent.

And Trump and his antics are not helping.

It’s important that the public has trust in public institutions. According to the World Economic Forum, “strong institutions empower economies by ensuring a stable operating environment,” whereby confidence in the institutions of civil society is what differentiates advanced economies from developing ones.

The president’s behaviour puts this balance at risk.

What’s more, there is no reason to think anything will happen to prevent all this from continuing.

First, Trump was elected as a direct result of the diminished trust Americans have in the institutions that govern them. Trumppromised to be different, and that he certainly is.

Second, Trump is delivering to his supporters exactly what he promised them. He has railed against Washington elites, spurred job growth, cut taxes and protected workers from trading partners everywhere. He may also have scored a diplomatic victory in Korea, something that, shockingly, has put him, according to the pundits, on the Nobel Peace Prize short list.

If Trump‘s behaviour and, by extension, the chaos surrounding his administration is giving him the desired results, why would he change?

Furthermore, why would an eventual successor to the office of the presidency change course? The U.S. must confront the question of whether a president can lie, tamper with the justice system and meddle in criminal investigations without consequence.

James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States and its fourth president, famously said that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” And while I don’t believe for a moment Madison ever imagined a President Trump when he wrote that, it does highlight that the presidency was designed by the framers of the Constitution to withstand strong headwinds.

I agree with Madison. I believe that the institution – and America itself – can withstand a rogue player. That said, I remain extremely concerned about the long-term consequences of this pattern of behaviour.

In the early 20th century, U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt referred to the office of the president as a “bully pulpit.” A place where, when the president spoke, the country and, in fact, the world listened. A place from which to chart the nation’s agenda.

Many have described the ability to speak to the nation from behind the resolute desk in the Oval Office as the most significant power a president has.

Since Roosevelt, the bully pulpit has been used to bring the nation together in times of challenge. Think 9/11, the Challenger disaster or the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. At times such as those, the nation coalesced around the bully pulpit to hear their president.

Trump has, in my view, put that power at risk.

The ability to appeal to the greater good, to the country’s better angels, comes not through the exercise of brute power, but through moral suasion. Without a moral compass, that is not possible.

In the short term, it may look like the president has had several successful weeks in terms of domestic and international policy. In fact, his antics may be giving him the short-term wins his supporters and admirers seek.

Yes, in the short term, such a politician can be portrayed as a welcome bull in the china shop filled with china that needs to be broken, someone who can finally get things done, a “different” politician.

But the long-term damage tells a different story; allegiance to this kind of politics will take us to a very unhappy place.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Political campaign veteran Jaime Watt outlines what he thinks are winning advertising strategies for Andrea Horwath, Kathleen Wynne and Doug Ford.

While most Ontarians are enjoying the first beautiful days of spring after what seems like an especially long and dark winter, the campaign teams of Ontario’s political parties are squirrelled away in dark editing suites putting their advertising campaigns together.

The pressure is on. And for good reason.

It is generally conceded in modern elections that, after the performance of the leader, advertising – whether mainstream or digital – can make the winning difference.

It is also well documented that although people routinely tell pollsters how much they hate so-called “negative” – I prefer the term comparative – advertising, it works. Like a charm. When executed effectively.

So just what are the campaigns thinking about when it comes to the messages they want to drive through advertising? And what are some of the pitfalls they should seek to avoid?

Let’s start with Ontario’s New Democrats. If there is an exception to every rule, then Andrea Horwath is the exception to the rule that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Despite being the leader for nine years, she is still unknown to many Ontarians. Her campaign’s advertising should focus on reintroducing her to the voter as the thoughtful, safe hand of change. Her message, repeated frequently, should be that you can have change that’s compassionate and sensible. In short, a 2018 version of that sage old Bill Davis adage that in Ontario “bland works.”

All of her spending should be on positive messaging. If she is clever, she will leave the fisticuffs to the others.

The Liberals have some tougher decisions to make. Their advertising has four objectives: remind Ontarians of the progress the province has made under their leadership; prove that the desire for change can be met by the Liberals themselves with a reinvigorated platform; demonstrate that Doug Ford‘s values are not Ontario’s values; convince Ontarians that Ford has not fully declared his agenda.

In doing this, they face a significant strategic challenge and that, simply put, is their length of time in office and current standing in the polls.

Voters will be skeptical that the Liberals, after 15 years in power, seem to all of a sudden have got religion.

To many, the response to a number of new Liberal proposals – especially the entitlement programs – will be, “If these are such great ideas, what took you so long?”

And with near-record-low approval ratings for both the party and the premier, messages around Ford’s unsuitability for office and fears of an undeclared agenda will be rejected as desperation tactics.

The PC’s choices are, like those of the NDP, quite straightforward.

First and foremost, the advertising needs to round out what voters think of Doug Ford and show him to be more than Rob Ford the second.

Self-deprecating humour that doesn’t have him taking himself too seriously connects with those who self-identify as his base, and delivers on his promise to be a refreshing change from the typical politician would be a great start.

But ads that are all puppies and sunshine will not be enough. The PCs must run tough ads that remind the electorate why they are fed up with the Liberals. Many at PC campaign headquarters will be arguing against such ads. Their argument will be that “with the lead we have, why take risks with upsetting people? Many voters already think Doug is a bully and that’s something we don’t need to reinforce.”

In my view, this is wrong-headed thinking. It would be a mistake for the Tories not to play back to the voter messages that reinforce the voters’ decision to abandon the Liberals and find a home, for this election at least, with the PCs.

Not necessarily a popular decision but an effective one to be sure.

A final note on the tactics of advertising:

• Production values don’t matter. Your slogan isn’t “good lighting for a better Ontario.”
• Minimize production costs.
• Save money for buying advertising time and space.
• Make visual clichés your friend.
• And at all costs don’t let your ad agencies have dreams of winning awards in their heads.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

“Trump is crass and a bully. Despite what has been said about him, the Conservative leader doesn’t have a penchant for inappropriate behaviour. In fact, Ford has said remarkably little that would not be considered fair game,” writes Jaime Watt.

Earlier this week, Ontario PC leader Doug Ford made an announcement that sent a shock wave through the canyons of Bay Street. His first act, should he be elected premier, said Ford, would be to fire Mayo Schmidt, the president and CEO of Hydro One, and the company’s entire board of directors.

Ford’s language was stark. “If they don’t [resign] … let me tell you something. When I’m Premier, you’d better believe I’m kicking each and every one of them out the door and taking their hands out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers.”

Rarely is such blunt and aggressive language used in Ontario public life. Predictably, the announcement was met with recrimination. Sceptics, business leaders and pundits alike quickly noted that the premier would have no such authority to deliver on his promise upon reaching power.

Hydro One itself immediately released a statement defending its compensation structure. The organization forcefully argued that its pay policies were in line with competitors and cost ratepayers mere cents on the dollar. Hydro One’s statement went on to remind Ontarians that they are an efficient and dedicated provider of energy.

But while the business community and other stakeholders were quickly lining up behind Hydro One’s board and executive team, a different coalition of voting interests was forming.

Ford knows well that for his electoral fortunes, there is nothing more helpful than a sweeping referendum on the governmental and economic institutions that underpin Ontario’s current system.

If the critics say it can’t be done, all the better. Ford knows that the Ontario voter is both frustrated and angry. And he knows they don’t care about details, they just want action. And so, he’s channelling that anger, refusing to get confused by details and he’s promising action.

Voters may not understand much about the regulations underpinning Ontario’s energy sector. But what they do understand is that they feel the system is rigged against them; that they are alienated and locked out.

Ford promises to fix that alienation – and voters don’t care about how he does it. They crave the action he promises.

Sound familiar?

Thousands of barrels of ink have been spilled about President Donald Trump and his manner of reaching disaffected voters in much the same way – a plain-spoken and frank approach that has long been out of fashion in politics.

But just as much has been written about the corrosive effect of the Trump approach.

And so it came as no surprise that Premier Kathleen Wynne accused Ford of acting just like Trump.

The reason for the comparison? Ford had said that “if Kathleen Wynne tried to pull these kinds of shady tricks in private life, there would be a few more Liberals joining David Livingston in jail.”

Wynne said the comments amounted to Trump-style bullying and were unwelcome in Ontario. “Not here,” wrote Wynne. “Not ever.”

The problem is, beyond their plain manner of speaking, Ford is not easily compared to Trump. While it’s true that neither man has much regard for the political or economic establishment and both have shown a penchant for publicly attacking institutions to shock that establishment and delight their fans, that’s where the much of the similarities end and the differences become quite evident.

Trump is crass and a bully. Despite what has been said about him, the Progressive Conservative leader doesn’t have a penchant for inappropriate behaviour. In fact, Ford has said remarkably little that would not be considered fair game.

Trump frequently veers off-message, speaking off-the-cuff about any issue that he pleases. Ford, by contrast, has proven remarkably disciplined, closely following his campaign’s central themes.

Which may be why the Trump attacks have failed to land. Ford’s approach has, thus far, allowed the PC leader to come across as a predictable and consistent, if brash, voice for respecting the taxpayer.

He has managed to successfully channel voter frustration, and every article penned about how the changes he champions cannot be made only reinforces his message that not only can change be made, he is the one to make it.

As unconventional as it is, this approach may well take Ford right to the premier’s office.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Looking ahead to election day, many Ontarians have decided there is china in the shop in need of breaking. Ford may well prove to be their chosen bull.

Handicapping political campaigns is not easy at the best of times.

That said, a polling perspective is forming on the upcoming Ontario provincial election. If the June 7 election were held today, polls consistently tell us (48 of the last 50, in fact) that Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives would handily win a majority government.

However, the election is not today. And history tells us that campaigns matter. They matter because not only do they provide a litmus test for voters to evaluate and test their future leaders under pressure, campaigns are when voters really pay attention to politics and political choices.

For the Progressive Conservatives, this may be what keeps them up at night.

Just how will their leader, Doug Ford, perform under the bright lights of a campaign – especially against a tested and capable campaigner like Premier Wynne?

Does Ford have any skeletons buried deep in his closet? Will he emerge a disciplined campaigner, focused on his core message? How will he perform during the debates? Are there any looming gaffes on the horizon?

For a PC party hoping to form government after 14 years wandering the wilderness of opposition, this is their main risk.

What’s more, untested leaders come with untested teams and untested platforms. Patrick Brown’s People’s Guarantee is gone, with little indication as to what Ford will campaign on in its place. When all of that happens, literally within days of the start of a campaign, problems are bound to occur.

In other words, it is all fun and games until the cut and thrust of the campaign starts. Having run and lost many campaigns, I have considerable sympathy for this analysis. Campaigns are much harder than is immediately apparent.

It takes a long time for teams to blend – not just with their leaders, but with each other. There are many potholes along the road to victory and it is very hard – actually I’d say impossible – to avoid mistakes the first time out.

Or so the traditional wisdom would tell us.

But it is possible there is a fundamental error in this analysis.

What if instead of untried, untested and risky, Ford is actually, from the voters’ perspective, tried, tested and true?

Ford’s approach to politics is well-known across Ontario – gaffes and all. Consider his brother Rob’s time as mayor, Doug Ford’s time as city councillor and mayoral candidate, as well as his time in the limelight as a public figure and quasi-celebrity.

After all, he received 330,000 votes in his race for mayor of Toronto, just shy of John Tory’s 390,000. And, as many observers believed, had the race been a few weeks longer, he would have won.

Looking ahead to election day, many Ontarians have decided there is china in the shop in need of breaking. Ford may well prove to be their chosen bull.

Polling supports this analysis. If you look closely, undecided voters have not materially grown since Ford was chosen leader, and the poll of polls shows the PCs are more likely to form a majority government with Ford than with former leader Brown.

Conventional wisdom would have told us that Brown’s hasty departure would have pushed a number of soft PC supporters back into the undecided column until they could take a fuller measure of the new leader.

They appear to have given Ford a test drive. They have said no to Premier Wynne and the Liberals. And they have taken the next step: they are saying yes to a Doug Ford-led PC party.

It is often said in politics, your successor is your legacy. Ernie Eves begot Dalton McGuinty. David Miller, Rob Ford. Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau.

Just as, in the end, Donald Trump proved an effective foil against Hillary Clinton, it may well be Doug Ford is the right foil against Premier Wynne.

As with all predictions, this is just that – a prediction. Time and one of the most interesting and wild campaigns in recent memory will prove it right or wrong.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.