It was just a few short months ago when the Conservatives and the Liberals were fighting over who was less likely to produce a deficit if elected. And now they’re fighting to see who can spend more, faster.

The economic crisis was in full bloom during the election, but the politicians were slow to admit it publicly. Since the election, the full reality of the massive slowdown in the U.S. economy has hit home making it expedient to promote stimulative fiscal policies.

I’ve been interested in how the Tories have moved on the file from a communications standpoint. Nowhere is communications a more vital part of the management function than in politics, because it is often the communications strategy itself that sets the policy tone. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government  was threatened with defeat at the hands of the hastily assembled coalition of Liberals, NDP and Bloc, he changed his government’s economic direction on a dime. Where previously he refused to consider deficits, now he’s leaking information of plans for a $64 billion deficit over the next two years.

The Tories have been active across the country trying to sell their new economic vision. They met with the premiers. They sent MPs back to their ridings to meet with local influencers and media about what to do. The PM himself convened a special panel of leading business people to advise him. The party has been airing commercials to support all of their consultative activities. And, finally, this week, the Tories have been leaking large bits of the good-news-for-everyone budget in advance of tomorrow’s presentation in the House of Commons.

Roadshows, speeches, community meetings, advertising, and a major media relations campaign all in six weeks… the communications staff at the PMO must be pining for some time off.

If you’re in a crisis and there’s an elephant in the room, the number one rule of communications is to share your observations about the elephant with your audience. Point out the elephant. Marvel at its size. And if you’re the one who invited the bloody thing into the room, apologize for doing so. Prime Minister Stephen Harper had an opportunity to do just that last night, but failed.

In this case, the elephant was a massive, sweaty, angry elephant stampeding around the room smashing the furniture, but still he ignored it. Canadians are angry at what’s going on here. No one voted for this bizarre and distasteful coalition of Liberals, NDP and Bloc. Had it been an option on the ballot, not even the most religious Dion or Layton supporter can believe it would have won.

But all of that aside, the Prime Minister caused this mess with his hamfisted attempt to kneecap the opposition parties by proposing to take away their financing. In the same economic update, he put off any mention of a stimulus package though he’d promised one just days before. Last night was his chance to apologize for his lacklustre presumption that he had the support of Parliament. Last night was his chance to say he’d withdrawn the party financing measures and that he was sorry for bringing them forward without consultation. Last night was his chance to say he was willing to work with the opposition to ensure this government - the government that Canadians elected - could continue.

But he didn’t say those things and he’s probably going to be trampled by the elephant because of it.

Of course the opposition parties deserve more disdain and criticism. To dress this naked power grab up as the only means to save the economy is to beggar belief. Nobody can possibly believe that having NDP leader Jack Layton and five of his droogs in cabinet will be good for the economy … nobody, except for Jack Layton, of course, whose party has lusted for power for years and been stymied by voters every time.

Layton is now on record saying he started plotting and scheming for this turn of events even before this Parliament began sitting. He wants his turn to spend the public purse. His plan has always been to hike taxes on our corporate sector and to give away billions in social spending. That approach, in our current economic crisis, will be a two-headed monster that will devour any economic advantage Canada currently has.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion wants his turn to rule and he has the side benefit of being able to dig a knife into his archrival Harper before he’s forced to step aside (even his own party doesn’t want him as PM). And Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe has a Cheshire Cat smile as he covets veto power on budgets that will no doubt deliver untold billions to Quebec.

In this crisis, the best way out is for Harper to recognize that he is the lightning rod. What is happening on both sides is not rational behaviour. It’s turned into a petty, partisan, personal vendetta against him. He must apologize for his behaviour first. And if he can’t ratchet down the rhetoric and get Parliament working again, then he must also consider resigning to defuse this situation. What a shame, because he is the best one we have to lead us out of the current economic crisis. Canadians just said as much a few weeks ago in an election.

I don’t recall a time when Canadians were more agitated about politics as they are right now. People got in a tizzy over the Free Trade election, but nothing like they are over the plot by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc to seize power. It’s an unholy alliance to be sure; one that was not endorsed by the electorate.

Personally, I find the entire episode disgraceful: from Stephen Harper’s  arrogant attempt to kneecap his opponents by slashing their funding, to Stephane Dion and Jack Layton’s spiteful lust for power and attempt to overturn the last election. None of these men won a majority, yet all are behaving as though they did.

From a public relations perspective, this has turned into the worst sort of crisis for the Prime Minister. If he can’t calm the waters, I believe he’ll be walking the plank soon. In fact, I’ve begun to think that that is one of the main objectives of the coalition leaders; they want Harper out. It’s personal. It’s a vendetta. It’s crazy.

Check out today’s snoo.ws for more on the public reaction to the story.

As the country recovers from an uninspiring federal election campaign, I’m left wondering whether the Tories lost the election by trying to be too careful.

Much has been made about Stephen Harper’s controlling nature. As the leaders criss-crossed the country, it became very clear that no one other than Harper would be speaking for the Conservatives. Funny that, when he had more than 300 candidates. Only Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was permitted a microphone and that was only due to the extreme financial crisis that boiled over during the last two weeks.

Local Conservative candidates in Winnipeg skipped all candidates meetings. Trevor Kennerd - by most reports a decent guy with a good head on his shoulders - was attacked by critics who labelled him an extreme social conservative. Yet he did not respond in any substantive way. Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz even went so far as to make the media wait outside in the cold on election night rather than inviting them in to his headquarters as is the tradition. According to the CTV reporter last night, she was told he’d deign to give the media three minutes at the end of the night.

My theory is this kind of micro-management by the Prime Minister’s Office probably cost them their coveted majority. Preventing candidates from debating and discussing the issues is against democratic principles. It breeds mistrust, and acts contrary to the creation of a credible national party. Leaders need to trust their people; they need to be proud of their party and allow their people to do what they’re supposed to do; and they need to cultivate future leaders.

What I fear, however, is that Harper believes his team was too weak and not ready for primetime. He hoped he could skate through a few weeks without anyone really recognizing the lack of bench strength. We don’t know that for sure though and won’t until the Conservative leadership allows its MPs and candidates to have their own points of view.

What I find most perplexing about the muzzling strategy is just how impossible it is to control messaging this much in a blog-a-day, twitter-filled world. All it does is allow your opponents to frame the debate and position you as untrustworthy.

I’m not hopeful.

Political campaigns make for some interesting studies in communications theory and issues management. Take the case of Trevor Kennerd, former football player and current Conservative candidate for Winnipeg South-Centre (which happens to be my riding).

Twice in the last two weeks, Mr. Kennerd has been ambushed by critics trying to tar him as an extreme social conservative, anti-abortion advocate and homophobe. If he were running in rural Alberta, he might just cheer that kind of characterization, but he’s running in what is probably the safest Liberal (and liberal) riding west of Ontario. It’s Lloyd Axworthy’s old riding; the only riding in Western Canada that remained Liberal in the Mulroney landslide of 1984; and one that’s been held quite comfortably Liberal likely since the Tories hung Louis Riel.

The Conservatives have made Liberal incumbent Anita Neville a target and have flooded the riding with pamphlets for the past two years trying to soften up her support. They recruited the well-known Mr. Kennerd earlier this year and local media were starting to talk about the possibility of an upset.

Then came the first blow. It seems Mr. Kennerd accepted campaign financing from an anti-abortion group. I don’t know if it’s true or not. Mr. Kennerd didn’t answer the charge in the media. He said nothing (as far as I can tell anyway).

Then the next blow (see Gordon Sinclair’s column here). A gay and lesbian group dug up an old letter that Mr. Kennerd and his wife had written to the Winnipeg School Division in 1999 blasting plans to use the classroom to fight discrimination against homosexuals. This time, his campaign responded, but only with a written statement which didn’t deal with the central issue, the accusation of bigotry.

I don’t know what Mr. Kennerd truly believes. That’s not why I’m writing this. From a pure communications perspective, he did himself a great disservice by remaining mum and not responding quickly and directly to the attacks. Instead, he let his opponents and critics position him as a man with views that many in this riding would consider intolerant. By not responding, he missed the opportunity at air time and ink to refute and reposition.

In issues management and branding… you can never let your opponents position you. You have to position yourself. As a marketing guy, he might have followed the examples of the advertising world in this regard. Witness Microsoft’s recent I’m a PC advertising campaign aiming to do just that versus Apple.