Harper has until next fall to drop the writ

By Patrick Vaillancourt, Senior Columnist

Formerly published in The Other Press. November 18, 2014

The next national general election is scheduled for October 2015, thanks to the fixed-elections provisions Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government passed in 2007; that said, the leader of our national government has the power to request the dissolution of Parliament at any time. Harper himself broke the very law he passed in calling the 2008 federal election, which would return him to power with a second consecutive minority government mandate.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper participating at a Q&A event in Quebec in February, 2014

Prime Minister Stephen Harper participating at a Q&A event in Quebec in February, 2014

In short, Harper could call an election any time before next October, and constitutional term limits would allow him to stay in power until well-into 2016.

It seems pundits are suggesting that an early election could work in Harper’s favour given the bump in the polls he received in the aftermath of the attack on Parliament Hill, which coincides with Canada’s newfound military involvement in Iraq. These issues, considered alone, make for terrible points of interest in the guessing game surrounding the next federal election, particularly because those most concerned with issues of national defence are already solidly in Harper’s vote column—that’s the Conservative Party’s base.

Also, it would be illogical for the prime minister to call an early election, when the fixed-elections provisions in the Canada Elections Act came precisely to prevent incumbent prime ministers from calling snap elections. In calling the election in 2008, Harper rationalized it by saying that “Parliament had become too dysfunctional.” He would not be able to get away with that now, as the leader of a majority government.

Some suggest that the timing of an early election may have to do with external legal matters. Suspended Senator Patrick Brazeau will be particularly busy next year in court, defending himself against sexual assault charges as well as breach of trust allegations in two separate trials. Senator Mike Duffy is also expected to have his day in court on bribery and breach of trust charges next spring. It’s been suggested that Harper will call an election in advance of these cases coming before a judge. The problem is that much of the damage on that front has already been done—having these cases heard will not make anyone less inclined to vote for the Conservatives. It’s clear that the Conservative base can be revved up to unseat a corrupt government of another political stripe (see: the Liberal Party and the sponsorship scandal), but will likely turn out to vote Conservative in the face of their own party’s misgivings. Given the Conservatives’ rather healthy war chest, I’m certain they can afford a well-coordinated campaign in October, without worrying about the Brazeau/Duffy legal drama.

The wild card is polls, and for the last 20 months, Harper has trailed the Liberals. The attack ads so effective in destroying previous Liberal leaders have failed. Harper’s best bet is to wait and let Justin Trudeau trip up, which will be easy as soon as Trudeau’s autobiography comes out. Harper will have some fodder to play with in creating new attack ads, and place the young Liberal leader on the defensive. This strategy requires time, which brings us back to the October election date.

Finally, a February budget forecast projects a return to surplus for the first time in a number of years. Harper will want the opportunity to pass the budget and give Canadians the goodies: adult fitness tax credits, doubling of the tax-free savings account maximum, income splitting measures, and expanding his child care tax credit. All bundled together, it makes Harper look like he’s doing a good job, and Canadians will remember this over the scandals that took place on his watch.

Harper may not stick to the October 19, 2015 fixed-election date, but I’m putting my money on a “back to school” fall 2015 election.

Week three: Blowing it all up and starting from scratch

By Patrick Vaillancourt, Senior Columnist

Formerly published in The Other Press. November 18, 2014

Patrick Vaillancourt is a political essayist and seasoned in the arts of non-fiction writing. His first book, a memoir, is scheduled for publication later this year. He is participating in National Novel Writing Month, otherwise known as NaNoWriMo, for the first time.

I admit that if there is one flaw that will cost me success in NaNoWriMo, it’s that I am thinking too much about designing the perfect plot and getting to the end of the book. It has cost me valuable time that could have been otherwise spent on writing.

So this week, I did the unthinkable: I threw away the concept I had previously envisioned and began writing a new novel, one that, with any luck, will see me to the end of this contest.

I am still struggling with perfectionism, something that has led me to procrastinate more than once this week. It was only when I came to a realization that perfection isn’t required for a first draft that I started making considerable progress, though much later in the week. Perhaps not a good sign for me given that I am already playing catch-up with my word count as it is.

Though it will definitely sound like an excuse, the weather also became a factor last week. Though sunny, it was a little too cold for me to sit outside at Starbucks (I can’t sit inside and write for some quirky reason) or for me to sit at Kitsilano Beach and type ideas and dialogue into my phone. The mere fact that it was nice actually had me doing other things, like doing some window shopping downtown to gather Christmas gift ideas. That being said, I am sure some other excuse would be made if the weather had been different this week. It’s not that I dislike writing or that I am trying to avoid it—it’s that novel writing is simply not my forte.

This week, I am committing myself to 16 hours of writing—two hours per weekday and six hours on the weekend. It might sound like a lot, but it really isn’t. The first draft of my memoir was written in about 120 hours of dedicated writing, but I was writing about a story that had already been played out. My novel could generously be described as an “unfinished idea” at best; it is essentially a mélange of personal anecdotes from my own life, with some fictional events filling in the gaps to the story. It’s much more complex than one may realize.

I am hopeful that this coming week will get me over the halfway point, especially considering that I am running short on time. I signed up for NaNoWriMo to put a manuscript together by the end of the month, and I am still committed to meeting that objective.

Could bilateral online reviews be commerce’s ‘great equalizer’?

By Patrick Vaillancourt, Senior Columnist

Formerly published in The Other Press. November 10, 2014

Feature spread as seen in the November 10, 2014 print edition of The Other Press. (Layout: Cody Klyne)

Feature spread as seen in the November 10, 2014 print edition of The Other Press. (Layout: Cody Klyne)

It is often said that “the customer is always right.” The expression is perhaps as old as commerce itself: we’ve all heard it said and we have all used it at one point or another when trying to resolve a grievance or complaint with a merchant.

I didn’t coin the expression, but my understanding is that it was coined as a means to highlight the benefits to businesses in providing a high-quality customer experience. After all, a happy customer is a repeat customer.

The art of doing business, as any student of the subject would attest, is a complex mixture of providing quality products or services at an attractive price-point, while offering the best experience to the clientele. A failure on the former would simply result in a customer looking elsewhere, whereas any misgivings on the latter could potentially produce blowback that could cripple a commercial venture.

Ask anyone who has owned a small business in the last 25 years: they likely won’t joke about that double-edged sword known as “word-of-mouth.” The dynamic of a business transaction—that of a buyer and a seller—has always tended to favour the buyer. If a buyer didn’t like their experience, there are consumer relations boards to call, a letter to the Better Business Bureau to be written, and spreading that horror story to 10 friends. Business owners could do little about managing a disgruntled customer, aside from trying to resolve the matter privately.

Just as business owners bowed their heads and found solace in the notion that it couldn’t get anymore one-sided, the Internet came along.

The digital space is increasing its reach into our lives, and it is only accelerating exponentially as more and more people become literate in developing smartphone applications and other web-based services. Its importance in our lives compels businesses to adapt, asserting their presence online to increase their reach. The benefits to businesses going online are limitless, but in the early days of the Internet, owners of small and medium enterprises (SMEs for short) saw the digital space as simply another avenue for consumers to air their horrible customer experiences. It wouldn’t even matter if the experience was factual. The attitude was, if a customer detailed their story about a product or service they didn’t like via a blog or forum post, the business was at fault. When you consider the anonymity granted to a user of the Internet (especially in its early days), there was no recourse for a business to rectify the situation. Once again, “the customer is always right”—even if they lie.

There was some semblance of change when eBay came on the scene with its proprietary feedback system. It naturally allowed buyers to rate their seller either positively or negatively and allowed them to leave a detailed account of their experience. It was, however, revolutionary when it allowed sellers on the site to rate their buyers.

Surprised? Yes, eBay allowed its sellers to rate those who purchased products or services from them, and allowed them to leave comments on a buyer’s profile as well.

Suddenly, that buyer who promised to pay for the item within 24 hours could be called out by the seller for paying late, or not paying for the item at all. It was eBay’s way of weeding out the bad apples, and helping those trying to run a business worry about just running the business.

The eBay feedback model evolved with time, and its ratings have become more geared toward ensuring that quality sellers get the most exposure. Buyers with repeat negatives on their profiles are dealt with by site administrators, usually with a suspension or removal from the site altogether. The model may seem primitive now, but in 1997 it was the first of its kind.

In recent years, other online initiatives have followed in eBay’s footsteps. Not a bad idea when you consider how prominent online reviews have become in the buying behaviour of consumers.

A study conducted by BrightLocal revealed that, “79 per cent of consumers trust an online review as much as personal recommendations.” The same study concluded that 73 per cent of those surveyed made decisions on the trustworthiness of a business based on online reviews.

What does that mean for businesses? Companies with positive reviews are able to convert up to 183 per cent more business than a company with negative or no reviews, and with consistent good reviews they are potentially earning a business with 58 per cent more sales revenue.

The story of online reviews is one of dollars and cents, which is why initiatives meant to give business a voice online are now starting to find some traction. That consumer’s blind rant about a business they don’t like isn’t as damaging as it once might have been, thanks in large part to innovative new uses in online review websites, such as rating a review. This particular technique, in which a user can rate another user’s review as either “useful” or “not very helpful,” has sprung up on Yahoo, TripAdvisor, Amazon, and Yelp, just to name a few. These sites will take the information from these ratings to rank the order in which reviews appear. Those that are deemed more useful are featured more prominently on the page, while the others are found at the bottom of the list.

Other sites too have adopted eBay’s bilateral review approach, such as Airbnb and Uber. In the case of Airbnb, a site that allows a user to find a place to stay within someone’s home, reviews could be critical. No one wants to welcome a stranger into their home if they have a track record of destroying the furniture. The case is the same with Uber, the app-based taxi service, which allows drivers to refuse fare from customers if they are rated poorly.

Many business owners welcome the opportunity to participate, and some are not pulling punches.

Take, for example, a case from April 2013, in which the owner of a popular Beverly Hills restaurant publicly shamed some of his prospective customers on Twitter for not showing up for their reservations on a busy Saturday night. The owner, who had prepared for a packed house that evening, turned away dozens of walk-in customers, only to have seven parties “no-show” that night.

“I hope you enjoyed your GF’s B-day and the flowers that you didn’t bring when you no-showed for your 8:15 res.,” read one tweet from Noah Ellis’ Twitter account. A tweet posted shortly thereafter tagged seven people as no-shows for reservations that evening at Red Medicine, the restaurant co-owned by Ellis. The public shaming of his customers sparked a mixed reaction on social media, but many took to Yelp to give Red Medicine poor reviews. It didn’t seem to matter, since the media attention caused by Ellis’ tweets gave the restaurant more exposure, thus expanding its customer base.

A review that enables a business owner to publicly shame customers clearly isn’t the answer, but bilateral reviews seem to be more acceptable because they still provide some discretion. The idea is still in its infancy, and the complete story of online reviews will only unfold through the passage of time. Nonetheless, digital innovation seems to have made the relationship between buyer and seller somewhat more equal.