On advance preparation

Robert Silver offers the radical argument that a party isn't particularly well served to keep its policy platform hidden:

(W)ith every policy announcement, your best case scenario is you get an hour or two of coverage, worst case scenario, you’re (sic) policy is completely ignored.

If the point of a platform is to:

1. Give voters a sense of what precisely you would do if elected (crazy, crazy thought);

2. Frame your values/ideology/approach to government;

3. Brand your party and leader; and

4. Differentiate you on all of the above from your opponent.

I would argue that the ONLY chance you have of that being successful is to release it well in advance of an election, work like hell to defend it from attack from your opponents and hope that some of it seeps in with Canadians by the time election day comes around. Without taking a shot at anyone, the only reason I can think of in 2011 to hold a platform back until the middle of the campaign (which I know is the conventional way of doing things) is if you are trying to bury your own platform.

But while Silver avoids taking any shots or offering any plaudits, it can hardly escape notice that one of Canada's opposition parties has made a huge chunk of its possible election platform into a staple of this year's budget coverage. And of course it's the Libs who have once again chosen to stay mum as to what they actually hope to accomplish.

That gap looks particularly significant with the NDP already well-trusted when it comes to handling specific issues. And its work in building up a strong platform in advance of a campaign means that an election centred on policy may offer just as much room for growth as one based on leadership.