The Joy of Political Giving, By-Elections edition #nlpoli

Official election finance returns for two by-elections in 2010 and 2011 show an interesting pattern of political contributions.

The most interesting tidbit is that the Tories had to pull out all the financial stops to ensure Vaughan Granter won Humber West. The party transferred more than $17,000 to his campaign.

The single largest expense for the campaign was for workers’ travel.  The Granter campaign spent $14,000 paying for campaign workers’ travel. In addition, the Tory party spent another $10,000 of their own on worker travel. In total, the Tory party spent $28,000 on the by-election.

The returns are the by-elections in and Conception Bay East-Bell Island (2010) and Humber West (2011).  The table below  shows the contributions broken down into personal donations and corporate ones.  CBE-BI is on the top and Humber West is on the bottom.

It’s the mismatch between the personal and the corporate that stands out in Conception Bay East-Bell Island.  Tory David Brazil received 43 corporate donations averaging $470 each, but had contributions from only 18 individuals.  

Among the corporate donors to Brazil’s campaign was a numbered Ontario company that apparently operates an Italian restaurant.  1148305 Ontario Inc. (New Hope Properties) also donated to the Ontario Liberal Party in Cambridge Ontario in 2003 and 2007.

Brazil also got donations from OCI and the Pennecon as well as the gang of loyal givers from the Old Man’s old law firm.

Liberal Joy Buckle also had a large number of corporate donors.  The more interesting ones show a connection to the former leader of the Liberal party and the current one.

New Democrat George Murphy was the only one of the three by-election candidates who turned out more personal than corporate donations.  among his big benefactors was wannabe party leader and current MHA for St. John’s North Dale Kirby.

Check what they spent their money on and you can see the huge advantage incumbency gives you.  The Tories raised more than $37,000 compared to about $15,000 for the NDP and slightly more than half that for the Liberals.  But the Tories were able to transfer out of the campaign more money than the Liberals raised in total and almost as much as the NDP spent.

Out on Humber West, the story was different.  Liberal Mark Watton turned up 47 donations from individuals and 11 from corporations.  The geographic origin of Watton’s donors  - across Canada and one from France - attests to his wide personal appeal and connections.

While Watton’s successful Tory opponent netted a large number of corporate donations, a couple of them might be looking for his help these days.  Well, at least four members of the Corner Brook Firefighters Association, newly out of work thanks to Vaughan Granter’s Tory colleagues on the Corner Brook city council.  Maybe the boys can ask Vaughan to intercede on their behalf.  They did give him $500  - via the association - in the by-election.

Their spending and income statements, though are where things get really interesting.  Watton raised way more than Granter.  The Tory party had to transfer $17,000 into Granter’s campaign. Granter only raised $14,600 on his own compared to $25,000 for Watton.

- srbp -

Forecasting the fall

Pick up a sharpened pencil.

Now take a clean, white sheet of paper from the computer printer.

Close your eyes and make a small round mark on the paper with the pencil.

Look at the black dot.

You can’t real tell much about it, can you?  Unless you knew the story, a person looking at the dot couldn’t even tell you how exactly it got there beyond the fairly obvious point that someone likely made it. If a pencil had been able to roll off a nearby shelf onto the page, for example, you couldn’t even say decisively that a person had made the mark deliberately or accidentally.

So it’s a dot on a piece of paper.  Someone  - apparently - used a pencil because there’s a fairly obvious difference between a pen mark and a pencil mark.

But beyond that, everything about the dot, including its position on the page really only comes from adding some other details. 

For example, you can describe the dot’s position in relation to the edges of the paper.

You can assign a grid system to the paper and say the dot is in one of four quarters or describe its location in relation to one of the corners. But is the corner on the top of the page, the bottom, the left or right?  You can’t tell that because it depends on how you lay the sheet of paper on the table and how you lay it in relation to you.

Context.

You have to put the dot and the paper in a context in order to give it meaning.

In politics, the context is sometimes called a frame, as in a picture frame.  Photographs only let you see what was in front of the lens.  They don’t give you the wider context.  You have to supply the context – or frame – as a way to help people see the picture as you think it should be seen. People can take the frame out of their own knowledge or experience or someone can supply the frame.

Now if the frame is factual – here is a black dot on a page – then there isn’t much you can say about it.
But when the frame is gets further and further from fact – like saying that the dot could represent a trend  - you have pretty much entered the world of bullshit.

With that frame in mind, take a gander at a recent CBC story about a potential new Democratic Party surge in the October general election.

One point – the NDP win in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl during the recent federal election  - becomes the possible harbinger of a much larger break through for the NDP.

But the federal election showed that there is great potential for pulling in new support.
For instance, NDP candidates in the metro St. John's area pulled 9,467 votes in the 2007 election.  By contrast, 50,069 people in the same pool of voters backed the NDP in May's federal election.  St. John's East incumbent Jack Harris won his race by a landslide.

You can’t fault the NDP for running with the line they think a breakthrough is possible.  That’s the sort of thing political parties are supposed to say especially running up to an election.  People see where it’s coming from and they can judge the source for themselves.  CBC reports other comments from a New Democratic candidate and from the party’s local president.  Fair ‘nuff.

That bit about the vote result turns up in both the online version and the Here and Now television story.  It’s apparently of CBC information that lends some support to the NDP line.

But it is a completely misleading frame.

Really far from not fair ‘nuff.

For starters, it compares two completely different election results.  One was federal.  One was provincial. That’s a big difference in local politics.  Then there are the many differences in issues and personalities, that is, in the stuff that drives vote choices. 

Then consider that the snippet only gives the NDP result.  It doesn’t tell you what happened with other parties.

The CBC data dot doesn’t tell you about any provincial elections held in the area since 2007.  If they did, CBC would have had to report that Jack Harris scored a huge victory in the 2008 federal election but that he and his team couldn’t translate that into anything at all in a couple of recent provincial by-elections. 

The provincial Tories turned out for their team in a provincial contest, despite voting for Jack Harris federally.

Add more information and the frame in this story doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny, as your humble e-scribbler noted a couple of months ago.

As it is, the fall election is likely to bring a few new twists people haven’t anticipated. Does this story herald other changes outside politics directly? Maybe this story is a one-off.  Maybe it’s a new form of free-time political broadcasting.  Maybe it’s another version of Faux News North in which torque replaces information.

One thing's for sure:  if this is the type of reporting that carries on into the fall, forecasting this fall election could be a lot more entertaining that anyone might have thought a few short weeks ago.

- srbp -

How do they elect these candidates?

Craig Welsh is a bastard who used be be from St. John’s. Now he lives in Iqaluit where he spent some time the other day pondering some of the candidates elected recently.

You can find his blog post here:  towniebastard.blogspot.com

All of which is a preamble to I'm sure there's a punchline to last night's election results in Quebec, but I've never really got French humour. For example, Ruth Ellen Brosseau won her seat despite:

A. Not living in the riding.
B. Going to Vegas in the middle of the campaign.
C. Her riding is 98% French and she can't really speak it that well.
D. Appears to have not even visited the riding during the election.

Yet she got 40% of the vote, won the seat and now gets a $150,000+ a year job, which is a bit of a step up from assistant manager at a pub.
So yes, there's a punchline here somewhere, I just don't get it. Can someone explain French humour to me, please?

A wise man, experienced in the arts of the campaign, once told your humble e-scribbler that a candidate in any given riding is basically worth about 5% of the vote total.  Monday’s night result was brutal example of just how true that is.  Any hint of scepticism left in this corner is gone.

The other chunk of the candidate votes in any given riding come from voting tradition, that is people who always or usually vote for the same party.  The other bit is driven by the campaign itself, usually at the national or provincial level.

Now there are individual candidates who can count for more.  We are talking averages here. So quick recap:  candidate:  a little.  Tradition and the campaign:  a lot.

Now in Quebec, as in Newfoundland and Labrador, voters also seem to make a distinction between provincial elections and federal ones.  They tend to pay less attention to federal campaigns.  Take a gander at some statistics on turn-out in federal elections by Memorial University professor Alex Marland and you can see the idea. 

People in this province typically don’t turn up in great numbers to vote for their federal representatives. In the 60 years after Confederation, turn-out in the province for a federal election cracked 70% exactly twice.  It hit the high 60s a few times but for the most part, turn-out has been less than 60% of eligible voters.

By contrast, provincial elections get turn-outs about 10 percentage points higher.

Marland puts this down to a bunch of factors including literacy levels.  That night be part of it, but frankly the one idea that really seems to explain the difference in turn-out  over time is proximity or familiarity.  Provincial ridings are smaller than federal ones. People may know the local candidate personally and odds are good they will get the chance to shake all the hands of everyone. 

The same can’t be said at the federal level.  And that is reinforced by the fact Ottawa is so far away both physically and mentally for most people.  Think of it as an extreme version of the old saying that all politics is local.

In other words, people don’t seem to see federal members as being as important as their provincial ones when it comes to affecting their lives. It’s hard to come up with a better idea to explain people trooping to the polls to vote for candidates with precious little life experience in some instances, let alone the kind of experience one needs to be an effective political representative in the national legislature.

There’s another notion you can add to this as well:  just as people don’t seem to be as personally connected to their federal candidates as they might have been once, the relentless message from the news media is that the individual candidate simply doesn’t have any kind of power and influence. Sure candidates make some promises but you have to wonder if people actually believe that, for argument sake, any of the newly minted parliamentarians will be able to do much now that the Harper gang have a majority.

Did the voters on Flower Hill mark their “x” for Ryan because he promised to relentlessly fight to get a n inquiry into the fishing industry or because Jack Layton promised to deliver more doctors and nurses?  Did they even know that Ryan  - himself  - thinks that is his main job now that he is off to Ottawa to spend more time with the kids?

In Newfoundland and Labrador,  people have an object lesson [on all this] right in front of them.  For the past seven years, local politicians counted for exactly zero compared to the Saviour of the Universe, attended by a raft of disciples who knew he crapped nuggets of pure gold every day, thrice a day. Now whether that is true or not on any level isn’t as important as the fact that some people seemed to believe it.

So if you have people getting this relentless message from politicians and from news media that everything is about Steve and Danny or Michael and Jack, and the local guy is just a placeholder or a bootlicker, you can see why people in Quebec and elsewhere might just look at what colour someone is and cast vote on that basis.

Disagree? In St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, the most visible campaign sign in the riding was a four foot by four foot sign bearing the name of Jack Layton.  This was no accident.  Nor was it an accident that smiling Jack was everywhere on NDP householders and in television and radio spots. Heck, even  Liberals like Scott Andrews are blaming the Liberal loss on the fact that Michael Ignatieff supposedly had no charisma and people didn’t like him compared to Jack and his accordion playing smile. 

There are a bunch of different reasons why people vote the way they do.  Tradition counts for much of it.  The dynamics of the campaign are part of it as well. But increasingly the evidence seems to be that local candidates don’t matter very much at all when it comes to voters making decisions about who gets their vote.

You can vote for a unilingual anglophone bar manager who has never visited your riding because she  - or by extension the federal political system - doesn’t count in the ordinary voter’s mind.

Now place-holder candidates aren’t new in politics.  England had its rotten borough and Newfoundland still has its seats where the party of choice can run a half-eaten Mary Brown’s snack box and the voters would send it off to St. John’s.  It just seems that these days, individual candidates seem to count for less and less.

This also doesn’t mean that everyone who does get elected these days is a previously chewed tater.  Politicians are a cross-section of society as a whole.  You get your good ones and your not-so-good ones.  You get your exceptional people and you get your oxygen thieves.

It’s just that we seem to be in a period where voters sometimes don’t seem to pay much attention to local candidates when they vote.  Good, bad or indifferent, local candidates don’t seem to count for much.

And incidentally, for the people on Flower Hill, the New Democrats want to take the tax off home heating fuel.  It’s just that they have also promised to back a provincial Conservative plan to make sure that anyone on fixed and low incomes will pay twice as much for electricity, guaranteed,  even without taxes, while people outside the province can get the same power for about what you are paying for it now. 

Not bad, eh?

The NDP aren’t alone.  The Liberals and the Conservatives in your riding promised basically the same thing.

You are forgiven if you missed that bit, though, in all the clips of Jack and the squeeze-box.

- srbp -

[Proofed, edited to make sentences read more clearly]

Attack of the Fluffy Bunnies #elxn41

You can tell we are in the final week of a federal election campaign.

The attack ads are out.

Everybody has one.

Some people are whining about them.

Some candidates are trying to distance themselves from them, as in NDP candidate Ryan Cleary:

The NDP is distributing a flyer questioning Ignatieff's trust and attendance in Parliament.

The party's candidate in St. John's South–Mount Pearl, Ryan Cleary, said the negative advertisements are coming from the national NDP campaign, not his.

"I've seen that and that's one of the strategies they want to take, so, yeah," he said.

There’s no small measure of hypocrisy in the NDP attacks, of course.  Cleary’s supporters have been whining about since 2008 about some material Liberal incumbent Siobhan Coady circulated in the last election about Cleary.

There’s a reason why campaigns use so-called attack ads or negative ads:  when they are done properly, they work and they often work better than anything else.

“Done properly” means factual comments that address a concern voters have about a candidate, a party or a leader.

A campaign team will figure out the voter concern through polling.  Forget the horse-race stuff.  That’s just bumpf for the people who need to feed their tweets.   A well-organized campaign can turn around the run-away races or quickly eliminate a close race using solid research coupled with good communications and a willingness to use the tools correctly. 

Make no mistake:  it isn’t that simple or formulaic. Campaigns are as much about the battle between teams as anything else. Teams are made up of people. People make decisions and sometimes they make bad ones.  But given the situation, most campaigns will use the tools they have, including negative or attack ads.

What makes the spate of local attacks ads curious is that they seem to be bizarre.

According to the Telegram, the NDP dropped a postcard in St. John’s East this weekend that, like its counterpart in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl attached Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff because of his poor attendance in parliament?

Okay people.

Jack Harris needs to run attacks ads to fend off the Liberals?  According to the only poll publicly available, the Liberal contender in that riding is running at less than five percent of the vote.  The thing can’t have an spill-over because it was delivered to households.

But then there’s the issue. People loved Danny Williams all to pieces and he had such naked contempt for the legislature he set new record lows for sitting in the legislature by a serving Premier.  On the face of it, this is not what you would call a vote-determining issue.  But hey, maybe they have some sooper sekrit research that shows people in Kilbride and Torbay are parliamentary channel nerds.

Then there are the Conservative ones.  Loyola Sullivan is hammering away at the idea that without a Conservative government in Ottawa the loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls is a goner.

In February, 2011 CRA’s polling for the provincial government showed that three percent of respondents thought that the Lower Churchill should be the top priority of the provincial government in the next few years.

3%.

That’s not a typo.

That’s all.

Even if Loyola was running in Labrador, his Lower Churchill scare piece would appeal to only the 4% of respondents there who thought it was an issue.  Again, not exactly what you would call a topic that is going to drive voters to the polls, let alone make them pick a particular candidate.

For their part the Liberals, their bizarreness is the absence of any local negative pieces this time out. That’s not to say there aren’t;  maybe there are.  It’s just that your humble e-scribbler hasn’t seen or heard anything. 

Not like there isn’t plenty to hammer away at for either the Conservatives or the New Democrats and their candidates just like their could be for blue and orange to toss at red. It’s the kind of stuff you’d expect in a race like St. John’s South-Mount Pearl that is, supposedly, too close to call.

Maybe the clue is the way all the candidates and all the media are fixated on Muskrat Falls. Grits and Dippers are talking about it because the Connies made it an issue. The media are covering it because the pols keep telling them it is big. But there is no sign the voters give a tinker’s damn about the dam.

Bizarro.

No one should be surprised if – in the end - the Newfoundland negative ads in this federal election are likely to fall completely flat.  The reason is simple: they obviously aren’t driven by what voters are interested in. 

As a result, they may look aggressive but they are the equivalent of hitting your opponent with fluffy stuffed bunnies. 

- srbp -

My own electoral grandpa: vote in an election that isn’t happening yet

Danny Williams is worried that local politics is being more like the American system.

Much like the more benighted souls in some parts of Eastern Europe, most of Africa and gigantic chunks of the Middle East, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could only dream of such a thing.

You see, even though they live in one of the most civilised places in the world – Canada – they are subjected to electoral laws introduced since 2003 that make it possible for people to vote in elections that don’t actually exist. Talk about making a mockery of our democratic legacy.

News of the latest version of this farce came from ads in the local papers.  in itself that is another reminder of the backward steps for democracy taken in this province since 2003.  Where once the chief electoral officer was a non-partisan public servant, the last two have been partisans.  One was a former Liberal cabinet minister. 

The current one had to resign from his seat on a party organizing committee in order to take the job. The party, of course, is the province’s Reform-based Conservative Party, and the guy who currently serves as chief electoral officer used to be the president of that highly partisan crowd.


This is yet another one of those things you could not make up.  You could not make it up because it is the most ridiculous idea imaginable in a democracy.

Yet it exists as the law in this province.  It’s one of a package of “reforms” introduced by the governing Conservatives after 2003 that turned out to be more of a farce than not.  Meanwhile, the meaningful reforms Danny Williams promised in 2003 - new campaign finance laws, for one - simply vanished as if they never existed.  What was it he used to say about unkept promises?

And if you enjoyed this little tidbit of electoral idiocy, consider the version in 2007 when Williams called a by-election that never actually happened.  This was the original version of “I am my own electoral grandpa”.

- srbp -

Aussie Dippers

It may be the website for The Australian, but a Canadian IP address will turn up a Canadian ad.

There's a CIBC one.

And one for the New Democratic Party and Jack Layton.

There's a pretty creative use of the Internet and it would be interesting to know how many Canadian voters actually saw the Dipper's Aussie ad.

-srbp-

Turn the page

Campaigns that are purely negative don't work.

Relentless bile just doesn't get people to turn out to the polls and vote for something. 

People need something to vote for.

The federal and provincial Conservatives started out this campaign in an all-negative series of vicious personal attacks.   Provincial Conservatives attacked Stephen Harper.  Harper attacked Stephane Dion.  The only difference was the target.

But this video - one of the latest from the Liberals - is the kind of stuff that actually starts to make voters look twice. 

It offers a positive, upbeat message while at the same time conveying critical comment about the key opponent's position. 

The thread that runs through this spot is change.  It's titled "Turn the page", as in leave the past behind and move forward.

If you want to get a truly stark contrast in messages - even allowing for different formats - compare this commercial with the Danny Williams' speech from last week. 

Gutteral, angry and clearly focused on vengeance for past wrongs.  Take a look at any federal Conservative comment on Stephane Dion. Nasty and personal;  stinking of animosity.

Then look at this again.

There aren't two more starkly different ideas or approaches.

-srbp-