We never get a chance to miss this guy.
His last headline didn’t get enough media traction.
So, he had to manipulate some coverage, forcing the lens to zoom in on another one of his co-morbidities- public deflection- to engender conversation because his political life is sustained by media coverage.
This time, the irony is his claim of defamation to his reputation.
We’ll agree every body has one of those…a reputation, that is.
The concept of damage, however, is what we won’t comment on because we don’t know if there are degrees of infliction on what may have been a pre-existing condition.
The mercury rose from the demand for an apology to a 10 million lawsuit, leaving us with a currency dilemma with this cross-platform perplexity.
Trying to configure a mathematical equation for conversion of ‘apology to dollars ‘– ten million specifically – puzzles us as to what the hyper-cubed formula would look like in written form, how a small base –his ‘non-virgin reputation’ – could result in such massive out put- multiple millions….emotion nth?
Thank God there are lawyers, so we won’t focus on that.
What we are concerned about is the tarnish he continues to apply to the ashes of the Party he incinerated and the perception of the Members of Parliament he, purportedly, leads.
And this takes us to the internal dynamics of the Party representatives in Parliament, their public show of lauding Norton’s leadership when, reportedly, there are private grouses among several.
The overt show of support for Leadership that has done little, past the public showings of performative politics, is a literal gamble with no money.
The public has already seen the hemorrhaging, knows where the cancer sits and will continue to query why the loyalty -show is being prioritized over the health of the Party and the institution of politics, itself.
There is no easy or sudden fix to the decimation of the Norton era but, surely, there is some team of overseers and advisors redirecting them to the path of recovery.
Grief-hopping and focusing on urban decay, though noble, are always measured by the practice before the electoral loss, especially if the appearance, when grief strikes, comes with a camera man. There are always questions, too, about the role the Party played in alleviating the circumstances that caused the decay.
The unregulated garbage dumping that has suddenly caught the eye of this losing Party invokes the query of ‘where were you’ before you were reduced to campaigning on garbage and why your sudden realization, that our living conditions are subhuman, should earn our vote.
Branding – the founding reputation, image and goodwill, of the original PNC- is what Norton rode in on to sit in its turret.
His obliteration at the polls didn’t only strip away it’s gravitas but devalued the currency of the brand.
Its re- branding requires a reparative strategy that’s more substantial than pictures for social media and a short term news snippet to record a convenient appearance.
And not to over-emphasize, re-branding should never replace or compromise the original purpose and intent of the brand.
Ascribing catchy names, like ‘Solid Twelve’ to the dwindled team, invites the thinking of “as opposed to what”… hence the demise?
Re-branding, we’ve learned, is an evolution not a dissolution. Establishing and retaining core supporters, too, is more than going back to the same well with the same flaky pail to dip the muddy dregs of whats left of its water.
Voter retention is a skill not a whim and requires reaching past the assumption that similarities and shared characteristics guarantee acceptance and commitment.
If there was ever a lesson, it’s in the win of WIN (We Invest in Nationhood), an untested political entity that brought uncomplication to its promises by oversimplifying possibilities and simulating reality with tangible gifts to the needy.
Policy vacuums abound there, complementing a system that’s more reactive and accusatory than constructive and innovative. It’s easier to say what someone is doing wrong and offer a patch as a fix than to create a studied plan and implement it as a broad solution.
Offering ‘things’ instead of long term remedies that are founded in economics and produced from economic data, is the make-shift repair of the ill-equipped campaigner who is clueless about sustained development; catering to the now over the later.
It’s a back rub for the politician but a belly burn for the constituent. What is never needed is the bland and generic ‘we will fix it’ model, jet-fueled by the timely gift or needed necessity.
None of these are carburetors of a thriving economy. And the neglected and disenchanted voter wouldn’t care when a pair of loving political arms is extended to help them along their dredge-weary way.
Yet, none of these ‘made-for-election’ tactics have been ‘post-mortemed’ by the PNC and shared with its voting constiuency in granular manner in the form of voter education, seemingly.
The ‘know your voter’ antidote seems to be that of mimicking the ‘lofty promise’ -poison and the pop-up politics that serve more to shape appearance, prioritizing image over substance.
The insightful politician would host a meeting and invite the voter to come. The numbers of those who take time and find interest in attending would be the baseline to creating and developing strategy. It signals the point past passive support which is hypercritical to both building and rebuilding.
It’s the point at which genuine political capital can be measured.
Knocking on doors after a significant election loss is almost futile. People didn’t vote for you for a reason. To think you could show up on their door step and ask to be invited in, or to be heard, is a couple of things- not the least of which is obtruding.
Questions would include what new are you offering, gauging from the budget debate performance. Has any of your ‘Peoples Parliament’ meetings outlined a new thing? Have you told your voters that you’ve analyzed your missteps and are revamping your strategy, your tactics, your approach, your road map?
And this takes us back to the Parliamentary Representatives who should be asking these questions of Leadership, requesting some sort of plan before they free-style a methodology that diminishes both stature and effort.
We appreciate the desire to provide public service at that level. But it is neither a personal mission nor accomplishment when you were elected for the position, expressly to represent constituents.
There is a difference between supporting enduring principles and pledging allegiance to an individual whose performance is unquestionably failure.
And this is a core consideration of constituents whose votes you need, not to mention the negligible odds of luring the cross over voter.
Identifying and protecting voter vulnerability from potential poachers would be revealed as one of the causes of electoral death, if an autopsy is finally done.
But the ‘death’ has been ignored and the corpse has been propped up to look life- like. Imagery is what got us to foundational failure and an institution that is pending death.
We’ll call it what it is, especially for those who feel calling a spade a spade is bashing. Calling right-sizing bashing, we’re convinced, depends on what you serve.
Our committment is to fact and objective opinion, both of which demonstrate Norton as a loser and an incompetent leader. And if you feel that this should not be underscored, given his committment to destroying the embers of the PNC, then we offer you our condolences.
Addressing the ‘retention’ of Norton with polite ambiguity is deliberately foregoing the disastrous reality of the situation.
We’ve been seven months into him using every accelerant he can conjure up, to position himself as representing the institution he deformed through unimaginable failure.
He understands that taking the Party hostage will be met with muted apprehension. Stifled fear of losing an appointment and pride in ‘doing laundry on the front step’ – an etiquette that has been bludgeoned to death- is his secret weapon.
Publicizing internal failings, he has already done. The political wipe out he led the Party to is now in the annals of history.
And all this is happening as his Party is manufacturing strategy to combat a failure whose root cause they have not analyzed, apparently. Their cosmetic rather than substantive responses, to an elctorate unimpressed with their purported prowess, bear us out.
Playing follow – the – leader by attempting to replicate the conduct of the Party that ousted them in 2025, is making pretend traction. With no apparent cross – demographic reach, it’s difficult to conclude policy changes, let alone popular support for vague attempts targeting narrow segments.
Our conclusion stands unequivocal and irretractable. It’s a finding that is submerged in evidence and based on fact.
The damage to the Party remains as predictable as any chance for its resurrection failing, as long as Norton remains at its head.
And this is easily accomplished with a Party he stripped of its structural power, rendering it too impotent to wrest the reigns from him.
