I recently appeared on Business News Network, discussing the strategic choices facing Stephen Harper as he prepares the upcoming budget. Here is some of the background thinking:
Why Stephen Harper may not cooperate
Tactically, it is not in his best interest
We will likely never know whether Stephen Harper failed to anticipate the formation of the opposition coalition in December, or whether he anticipated the scenario but gave it a low probability of occurring. Either way, examining his strategic decisions from the past give us insights into what he might do on January 27.
Popular opinion seems to be that since his stumble in December, Stephen Harper will be forced to tone down his approach, make concessions, and cooperate with the opposition. But there are sound reasons for exactly the opposite course. Moreover, Harper's retreat in December can be seen as sound tactical thinking, not cooperative politics.
I mapped out the strategic choices that faced Harper after his October reelection to a minority government. The first choice was whether to confront as he had in the past, or cooperate given the election result of yet another minority government.
Although his initial tone was one of cooperation, the December economic statement was obviously confrontational. He made one mistake - he expected the opposition to roll over as they had in the past.
Once the coalition formed, continuing to a confidence vote was too risky, since Harper had inadequate information to make a good tactical decision. He wasn't sure of the public mood, since the economic statement was obviously a direct provocation of the opposition. It wasn't certain the Governor General would call an election (whose outcome was also uncertain.) His first tactical choice was to try to appease the opposition by backing down on several fronts.
But the opposition didn't quit. Since Harper still didn't know the public mood, he prorogued parliament. Proroguing allowed the Conservatives time to gauge public opinion and paint the coalition as 'un-democratic'. Though there was some risk to proroguing, it was much less that the risk of making decisions without good information.
As we approach January 27, Harper once again faces the choices of cooperation or confrontation, this time with better information. The "obvious" course is to introduce a budget which the opposition Liberals will support. But if that happens, the benefits all go to the Liberals.
If the Conservatives introduce a budget that the Liberals willingly support, several benefits accrue to the Liberals. They can put the unpopular coalition on the back burner; they can take credit for forcing Harper to respond to the economic crisis; they can claim they have the best interests of Canadians in mind; it gives Michael Ignatieff time to build his profile; and last but not least the Conservatives will remain in power during the tough economic times.
On the other hand, if Harper introduces a budget unfriendly to the Liberals, the Liberals have two tough choices. They can hold their noses and vote in favour of the budget, allowing the Conservatives to paint Ignatieff as being the same type of leader as Dion. This also passes the budget that the Conservatives want. The Liberals' other choice is to oppose the budget, leading down several uncertain paths ending up in coalitions or elections.
In these scenarios it is likely the Conservatives would stress that Ignatieff is an unelected leader. If the coalition was re-formed, the Liberals would be constrained in what they could do. It is also uncertain whether the Governor General would allow the coalition to form a government. And if an election is called immediately (either with or without the coalition), it would likely be an unpopular election.
Stephen Harper has shown he will play hardball, in situations where his tactical choices are not nearly as clear as they are now. Those who expect a new, cooperative Harper on January 27 may be in for a surprise.
The lessons for you? Things may not be as obvious as they appear; good strategic decisions depend on good information; and it is important to think things through before jumping to conclusions.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Prime Minister's choices
Sunday, October 5, 2008
How Political Parties Capitalize on the Way People Think
For many Canadians, elections are a boring sideshow to their regular lives, or a duty to be endured. But people are likely paying much more attention to the political messages than they think.
Political campaigns are carefully planned and scripted, using time-tested approaches to winning. Many of these approaches prey on the weaknesses of the human decision making process, the thinking traps that most people don’t recognize, even as they succumb to them.
“If citizens understand these thinking traps and how the parties apply them, they can better analyse the information and make a decision at the ballot box with more confidence,” says Randy Park, an expert in how people think and make decisions, and the author of Thinking for Results. “The majority of our decision making takes place without us ‘thinking’ about it - and the parties count on this fact.”
The framing of the “ballot question” is by far the most important aspect of the campaign. It is designed to capitalize on two thinking traps: the anchoring trap and the extreme thinking trap. Each is important in its own right; combined they have a huge effect on the voter’s final decision, which is why the parties are so focussed in the early days on trying to define the ballot question in a favourable way.
The anchoring trap says that when making decisions people tend to place more emphasis on the first information they receive. (This is similar to comparing a “regular price” to a “sale price.”) If a party can anchor the ballot question in an advantageous way, everything else the voter sees or hears is filtered through that question. For months it has been clear that the Conservatives intend the ballot question to be about who is a strong leader.
The ballot question also relies on the “extreme thinking” trap. Our brains like to view decisions as yes or no, good or bad, one extreme or the other. It is much easier to make a decision if we have two clearly distinct options. (The physiological basis for this tendency is that it takes less time and energy to make a yes/no decision than to ponder the subtleties of issues.) If a party can define the ballot question in a way that has a yes or no answer (“is he a leader?” versus “what are the characteristics of a leader?”) people are more likely to make solid choices.
“The risk with using the extreme thinking trap in defining a ballot question is that during the campaign, if the opposition manages to sway public opinion, it could backfire in a huge way, says Park. “Using the example of defining the ballot question as ‘leadership,’ if Stephane Dion performs well, and Stephen Harper has a slip, the voters’ opinions of who is a leader could flip and cause the Conservatives serious damage.”
Friday, October 3, 2008
Praise for The Prediction Trap
I was thrilled to receive some excellent reviews on my second book, The Prediction Trap. Here are some samples:
“The Parrot Principle discussed in The Prediction Trap is especially demonic in the world of economics, and as an economist, I can attest that it’s an easy trap to fall into. We economists talk so freely about all kinds of things, and if they are said often enough they can become ‘truisms’ all without qualifications or caveats.”
Todd Hirsch, Senior Economist, ATB Financial
“Randy Park has once again hit the mark. All leaders should heed his warning and learn how to think and actually deal with the complex, ambiguous reality that confronts us. Come to think of it, everyone can benefit from this book to learn how to prepare for the future.”
Shelle Rose Charvet, author, “Words That Change Minds”
