Conservative MP Garth Turner was turfed from the Conservative causcus yesterday because of his blog, the Turner Report.  The Conservatives cited confidentiality concerns.

I like this guy, I don’t agree with him on much politically, but I really like his take on democratic engagment.  His blog has unmoderated comments, and he participates in conversations with people who comment.  This type of front line engagement with constituants is exactly what we need in politics today.  Few people don’t feel threatened by the openness of social media, but this guy is absolutely fearless.

But there is a political blogging lesson in this.  If you are the maverick MP with differing opinions from your causus, I’m not sure that I would use my blog to further the debate.  What is said in Causus, should stay in causcus.  But that doesn’t mean that he should not engage in discussion.  By all means, write about the important issues and express your opinion.  But don’t be an idiot and tip your bosses hand.  That’s the kind of move that’ll get you fired.  And it did.

So as much as I like the guys “people first” attitude, I wish he handled this with a little more tact.  As much as I cringe everytime I read the “reaganomic” basis for his financial policy, I like having someone in the conservative causcus who will ask questions and disagree.  Disagreements lead to discussions, and good heated discussion inherently sqashes dictatorial leadership. 

We are worse off with this guy at home.

PS: Check out the comments in yesterdays post.  Gosh I’m glad I don’t hang out with hardened conservatives.  They might start calling me a commie, and I hate that. 

Shel Holtz, of For Immediate Release, wrote a great post on the perception of PR in a municipal/ public works setting. 

So many city or provincial projects run into serious misunderstandings with constituents that are effected by the work.  As I work for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, I regularly see projects that have developed resistance from locals who don’t really understand the project that is underway.  FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) seem to have such a grip on people when it comes to public infrastructure projects.  People have such a deep seeded mistrust of the government that they take an oppositional stance immediately.

MTO has been fairly progressive in this respect.  We regularly host Government Information Sessions when in the planning stages for a new project.  These sessions give people a chance to sit down with planning and design people as well as the lead engineer, to have their questions about particular problems and personal circumstances in the context of the project.  It makes people feel better to know that their concerns have been addressed and planned for, we just need to let them know that we have been thinking about their needs.

But the main point of Shel’s post is that often municipal politicians find it hard to justify the money it costs to do those things.  I’m sure that many American cities are in the same cash strapped situation that Canadian cities are.  When your city is operating with deficits and can’t afford to do all of the infrastructure projects that it would like to do, it is really hard to justify that Communications/ PR budget line.

The other point that Shel makes is about the “good” projects that a well constructed communications effort can initiate.  I totally agree, when you would like to mobilize citizens to participate in community driven event or initiatives, getting people jazzed about it is the only way to get them going.  To get them jazzed you must let them know the end game and the vision of the successful project.  Unfortuately self-interest motivates people, and letting them know they will benefit in the end will get them engaged.

Finally, with all due respect to Shel, I would respectfully submit that PR pros should take the emphasis away from the negative preception of PR and focusing on the good stuff.  I’m not a PR pro, but I follow the PR blogosphere/ podosphere and there is a huge emphasis on trying to turn around the perception of the industry.  I would say that pointing out the positive and economically beneficitial aspects of PR would let executives, politicians and business leaders learn about the positive value of PR.  Constantly coming back to the “unethical behavior” of the few gives legitimacy to the concerns of sceptics. 

I know that PR people are doing good work.  Tell us more about that.