Three weeks into the campaign, the Conservatives have not yet released a platform. Do they need to release one soon? Could they go the entire campaign without doing so?
Scott Reid
(former communications director for Paul Martin): There's no right or wrong way to play platform bingo. Some campaigns have succeeded with highly detailed documents released mid-campaign. Some have unveiled their blueprints a year in advance. Some have skated by with individual planks laid out over the course of the writ period.
Practically speaking, only two principles must be honoured when it comes to launching party programs: do no harm, and shore up strategic deficiencies where possible.
The first speaks for itself. Who knows what might have happened in the last Ontario election if John Tory hadn't chosen to die on the hill of religious schools funding.
The second is more subtle. In 1993, Jean Chretien skillfully blunted suggestions that his was a substance-free zone by presenting a professional and balanced program. It answered critics and sealed off a major potential vulnerability. With the Red Book, the Liberals gave themselves instant gravitas and forever changed the way campaigns treat their party platforms.
In this election, Stephen Harper hardly need worry that voters will suspect he lacks substance. Say what you will about Mr. Harper, he's never going to come across as a policy lightweight. That doesn't mean he can afford to be cavalier on the issue.
In the post Red Book-era parties must, at some point, present their program in whole with a financial reconciliation. Especially at a time of weakening economic performance, it would be flat-out reckless for Mr. Harper to simply say, "trust me."
For that reason, we will see a platform document sooner or later from the Conservatives. And it will be accompanied by some attempt to account for the costs of their promises.
The difficulty of achieving the latter may explain why it's set to come so late in the campaign. One thing's for sure: For a prime minister who urges voters to see him as the safe steward, he can't afford to get his numbers wrong. That would trespass against the first sin of platform launches.
Greg Lyle
(former chief of staff for premiers Gary Filmon and Gordon Campbell) :There is absolutely no need to release a platform. When I starting campaigning in the 1980s, no one released platforms. Gary Doer won the election of 1999 with a five-item agenda. Mike Harris won re-election in 1999 on a job description, not his platform.
Although platforms aren't necessary, they can be useful. By taking a stand across a broad range of policy options, an opposition party can demonstrate it is ready to govern. That isn't a problem for the Harper Conservatives. But providing a platform also helps defend against charges of a hidden agenda. Right now, if the Tories had a platform book with a page on arts and culture, they would be better able to defend themselves against attacks. Platforms also provide a hymnbook from which all the party's candidates can sing.
On the other hand, platforms offer targets to your opponents. They check to see if the numbers add up. If you missed a key priority of an important stakeholder group, you run the risk of alienating them. Not every policy is necessarily perfectly thought through and some backfire. So platforms should not be an automatic choice for a campaign. They need to weigh the pros and cons.
Platforms are just a means to an end. For campaigns, the end is winning. Running an incumbent government with a wide array of policies in place, Stephen Harper does not need a platform to win.
