Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Finally, a question about strategy / tactics. > >First off, let me say that SPUDCO was a complete >cock-up from start to finish. Personally, I think >Carol Teichrob's take is about right -- a pair of >too-clever-by-half bureaucrats without enough >supervision. And as much as I believe in public >investment, SPUDCO is a case study in how NOT to do it. > >Why did Calvert apologize for a cover-up if there was >no cover-up? An excellent question. And one I'm >still puzzling over myself. > >Of course, government communications at the time were >not particularly focussed or well managed -- hence >some of the more recent changes in personnel. > >The handling of the post-SPUDCO events was almost as >inept as the SPUDCO investment itself. This was one >of many tactical blunders on the part of the NDP >government which handed a huge tactical advantage to >the SaskParty in the lead up to the election. Hence >the significant SaskParty leqad in the polls. > >Here, for the record, is the broad strokes of how I >would have managed the SaskParty campaign: > >1. I would have played up the team -- Wall, Krawetz, >Merriman, Chevaldayoff, Bakken especially. I wouldn't >have hidden Elwin -- that has its own pitfalls as we >saw last spring -- but he would not have been the sole >focus of all provincial advertising. > >2. I would have had Elwin act the part of Premier. He >should ALWAYS have been on the high road. Even on the >cartoon, Elwin should NEVER have been the one asking >for people to be punished. Leave the dirty work to >others. > >3. I would have had Elwin act the part of the Premier >in the debate. I don't think he can play the part as >well as Calvert (a combination of experience and the >way his personality projects on TV, as unfair as that >is). But the aggressive stance he took -- which >worked well for him in 1999 against Romanow -- worked >against him in 2003. > >4. I would have had clear and unequivocal language >about the possibility of provatizing the Crowns. ie >-- "We will not privatize the four core Crowns" and >"any sale of non-core crown assets will be proceeded >by a public consultation with the people affected. > >5. I would not have let the NDP set the election >agenda. Whatever te merits of the NDP's accusation >about the Crowns, the longer it was talked about the >more it hurt. I would have done everything possible >to shift the agenda to issues where the NDP was >vulnerable (SPUDCO and such as a prime example). And >to the degree that I'd have had the SP respond, I >would not have had half the commercial time -- and the >first half at that -- repeating the NDP's accusation, >thus reinforcing it. > >There are a lot of bright organizers working for the >SaskParty. I know some of them. And I know that one >or two of them were trying to correct some of the very >errors I've been identifying here.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.