S’truth #nlpoli #cdnpoli

New Democratic party candidate Linda McQuaig caused a bit of a stir in the first week of the federal election campaign when she said that in order to meet the national carbon emission reduction targets, we’d likely have to leave most of the oil sands oil in the ground, undeveloped.

Writing in the Toronto Star on Tuesday, Seth Klein of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the reaction to what he called McQuaig’s “innocuous and true statement” is just further evidence that “our politics do not allow for serious — and truly honest — discussion of the most pressing issues of our time.”

Klein then decries the fact that all sorts of politicians from all sorts of parties are not embracing all sorts of policies that Klein thinks are not just good ideas but absolutely correct ones.  Therefore, our politics is bad.

Well, it isn’t actually. 

Lead by Example #nlpoli

Dwight Ball is the leader of the Liberal Party.

He now has a chance to lead by example when it comes to donations for his leadership campaign.

Ball told CBC News that he spent somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000 on his leadership campaign. Even though the party executive failed to provide any rules for campaign financing – as SRBP told you in July – Ball should set an example and publish a list of all donors over $100 and the amounts they gave.

The Ground Game Counts #nlpoli

Two posts, quite a distance apart touch on the same basic political (science) issue:  the role of the local, get-out-the-vote effort in any political campaign.

Cost per Vote: the Rural/Urban Divide #nlpoli

In looking at by-elections in Newfoundland and Labrador, the second and third phases offer a neat cluster of by-elections in urban (metro St. John’s) and rural (everywhere else) districts.

Break those out and you get some information that shows the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parties, depending on where a by-election occurred during the period between 201 and 2011.

For starters, here is a reminder of the cost per vote results for the three major parties in all three time periods (phases).

Now let’s take a look at the second phase, that is, on the by-elections between the 2003 and 2007 general elections.

Three by-elections took place in what we can consider to be urban.  They are Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Kilbride and Ferryland.  The rural by-elections took place in Exploits, Placentia-St. Mary’s, Port au Port, Humber Valley, and Labrador West.

In the urban by-elections, the Conservatives average  cost per vote was $8.98.  The Liberals CPV was $15.71 and the NDP CPV was $18.17.

As much as we all assume that the New Democrats’ base of support is metro St. John’s, these CPV figures suggest otherwise.   Now part of that high cost is attributable to the fact that the Tories hotly contested the seat when Jack Harris left for retirement in 2006. 

But when you average the figure out the average cost per vote of the other two, you get  $15.70. That almost exactly the same as the Liberals and their political infrastructure in the metro St. John’s area just shrivelled up to nothingness by 2007.

CPV is not a measure of actual effort of course.  Parties in Newfoundland and Labrador don’t have to report all their efforts.  Volunteer workers, for example, don’t show up as an expense in and of themselves.  They show up when the party or the campaign has to foot their travel and accommodations bills. 

That’s the kind of thing that happens to the Tories in rural Newfoundland. The Conservative Party itself spent more than $26,000 on campaign worker travel in the Labrador West by-election (2007). The by-elections in Ferryland and Kilbride cost the Tories only about $15,000 and $18,700 for example.

Labrador West essentially comprises two towns that are spitting distance apart.  You would not have to spend $26,000 on travel unless you were flying people in from other parts of the province to work the by-election. Scan the by-election finance reports and you’ll see exactly the same kind of phenomenon in other Tory campaigns in rural Newfoundland. 

Some call it “by-election-in-a-box” but what the Tories really do is maintain a team of campaigners they can drop into augment the local candidate’s effort.  In addition, the Tories have a pattern of tapping into a regular pool of donors to help finance the given by-election.  And again, it is part of a pattern of adding to the local campaign.

Contrast that with the Liberals, for instance.  In any by-election, Liberal candidates are basically on their own.  Sure there are some people who work by-election to by-election, and sure the party headquarters may toss some cash to a campaign. 

But on the whole, Liberal candidates couldn’t count on the party for much of anything during the second and third phase by-elections.  Two noteworthy exceptions to this were the Straits-White Bay North North and Terra Nova both of which took place in 2009 (Phase Three). 

Incidentally, when people talk about the Liberal Party’s lack of organization and infrastructure, this is the kind of stuff they are talking about.  This is the meat and potatoes of politics and the Tories know how to make a fine stew of it.

 

In Phase Three, you had three by-elections in the metro St. John’s are.  Those are our urban set:  Cape St. Francis, Topsail and Conception Bay East-Bell Island.  The rural by-elections were in Baie Verte-Springdale, the Straits-White Bay North,  Terra Nova and Humber West.

The Liberals’ urban cost per vote hit $22.50 in Phase Three. Spending dropped, on average, from about $9600 to a little under $7500 and the average vote went from 612 to $330.

NDP urban spending went from $14,412 to $11, 472 and the vote went from 793 to 751.  The resulting CPV improved in Phase Three, reaching $15.27 compared to $18.17 in Phase Two.

The Conservatives CPV was $9.00.  Their urban spending went up by about $2400 and the average vote went from 2370 (Phase Two) to 2741. 

Conservative rural CPV dropped (marginally) from $23.07 to $22.25.   Tory rural spending dropped by about $6,000 and the average vote dropped by 170 votes.

The New Democrats’ CPV in rural Newfoundland was $30.82 during Phase Three compared to $16.45 in Phase Two. The NDP increased their spending, on average by $1300 but their average vote dropped by 151.  They spent 19% more, in other words, and got 36% less.

Liberal spending on rural by-elections increased by 70%, on average, in Phase Three compared to Phase Two. Liberal rural vote went up by four percent.

- srbp -

Campaign Spending and Efficiency #nlpoli

Two of the three political parties in this province are spending more, on average, and getting less, on average in by-elections.

That’s one of the things you can see in an assessment of a decades worth of by-elections from 2001 to 2011.

Last week, SRBP gave you a teaser of a look at the idea of cost per vote, as measure of campaign efficiency and effectiveness.  As the name implies it tells you how much each campaign spent for each vote it received. The information for the assessment comes entirely from financial reports and by-election vote reports issued by the province’s chief electoral officer.


There were 21 by-elections during that time.  You can break them up into three phases or time periods.  Phase One covers the by-elections between 2001 and the general election in 2003.  Phase Two covers the by-elections from 2004 to 2007.  Phase Three runs from 2008 until the 2011 general election.

The charts below show the average spending and votes received by the three main parties with the resulting cost per vote in each of the three  phases.  We’ll look at the phases individually in other posts.



From Phase One to Phase Two, average Liberal spending on by-elections dropped 64% from an average of around $37,000 to about $13,500. In Phase Three they were spending about $20,000 less per by-election than they were when they were in power.

In the shift from being the opposition to government, Conservative average spending climbed from about $27,000 to $40,700.  It’s a jump of about 51%.

The average NDP spending over the same two periods went up from $2118 to $10,069.

The NDP and the Conservatives spent more in Phase Three than they did in Phase One.  Even the Liberals, who dropped significantly by the second phase had boosted their spending by the third phase to hit $17,663 per by-election on average.

What they got for their efforts is shown in the comparison of average votes received.



The most dramatic changes are at the beginning.  Both the average Tory and average Grit vote per by-election dropped precipitously from Phase One to Phase Two.  The Conservatives went down 30% while the Liberals went down 42%.

Dipper support climbed from 132 votes, on average, to 576.

The Liberal slide continued into Phase Three.  They dropped another 200 votes and took an average 1,000 per by-election in Phase Three.



The line that stands out is the orange one.  The NDP are getting more votes and they are spending more money on average to get them.  But the cost per vote is also climbing.  In the third phase, the NDP was spending $20.23 per vote compared to $16.05 before 2003.

The Conservatives saw a huge increase in their cost per vote by the second phase.  Incumbency effectively doubled their CPV from $8.15 to $17.65.

In Phase Three, the Tory CPV was $15.70.  It’s the lowest of the three parties, but not by much. By Phase Three, the Liberals are back close to their pre-2003 CPV with $17.64.  That’s nothing to cheer about.

Those Phase Three CPV numbers suggest that all three parties have problems getting their messages across or aligning with public opinion.  Remember, the lower the CPV is, the better you are doing.

Still, you can see some indication of what came in the 2011 general election if you look at Phase Three compared to Phase Two:

• The Tories spent 8% less and got 3% more votes. They’ve got a relatively better position than the others and that helps keep them in power.
• The Grits spent 31% more and got 17% less in the vote department.  That’s all sorts of bad news.
• The Dippers spent 5% less and got 18% less in votes.  Again, that should be all sorts of news, most of which isn’t good. 

Once Elections NL releases the 2011 general election financial reports, SRBP can do a comparison for all three general elections since the turn of the century.  We can also cross reference the general elections with the by-elections to see if there are any things that turn up.

In the next post on CPV, we will take a look at the three phases broken down by urban and rural by-elections.

- srbp -

*edited to correct typos

What if they gave an election and nobody came? #nlvotes #nlpoli

Next Tuesday, the face of the province’s House of Assembly likely won’t change very much at all.

The new premier will take office following an election with what is on track to be a record low turn-out.

That’s got nothing to do with public opinion.  It’s got everything to do with the way the politicians re-engineered the law governing provincial elections in a string of changes made after 2003.

For starters, how long does an election campaign have to be? 

Well, according to the Elections Act, 1991, there must be a minimum of 21 days between the day the House is dissolved and voting day.  Historically, incumbent parties liked to call elections with the shortest possible campaign time.  But some elections have gone on for almost a month.

After 2003, the provincial Conservatives introduced changes that set voting day as the second Tuesday in October.  They could have the official campaign period before that for as many days as they’d like.  In 2011, they called it so that there was the minimum time to campaign allowed by law.

But that doesn’t mean there is actually 21 days of activity.

When the Tories picked the second Tuesday in October as their preferred date, they didn’t pick by accident.  They picked it so that voting day would always be right after the thanksgiving day weekend.

Clever boys and girls are they.  That automatically reduces the  period during which voters are paying attention to the campaign by at least three days.  No party is going to campaign on the holiday weekend, for fear of pissing off voters.  And voters who are travelling around to visit relatives aren’t going to be thinking much about politics as they sleep off a big scoff.

Take that 21 and knock off three.

We are left with 18 days.

Advanced voting takes place a week before the final day.  Lop off four more days.

That leaves you with a functional campaign period of just 14 days.

The election financing rules make it illegal for an individual candidate to raise funds before the election is called.  That makes it pretty tough for a candidate in a district to raise local cash for his or her own local campaign. They have to rely on the party.

For someone who might want to run as an independent candidate, it’s impossible.  Well, impossible unless you made millions on the lottery or by flipping your cable company.  For the average schmuck in the street, the rules are stacked against you.

To see how it works in practice, don’t look at the Liberals who barely tried over the past four years.   Look instead at the NDP to find out how those rules work.  Party president Dale Kirby told Randy Simms a few whoppers on Tuesday about fundraising.  He claimed they only had money for a few ordinary people.  That bit was true. 

The fib was the bit he left out:  the NDP’s major bankroll comes from one union.  The single largest contribution of anyone, to any party, bar none.

Kirby also left out the fact the NDP use the House of Assembly and the government money that goes with it, just like all parties do for the odd staffer here and there.

But a whole campaign, all year?  Only the incumbents can do that.  And rake in cash the provincial Conservatives have, especially from people who do business with the government.  The Tories are bankrolled by Big Oil,  the other Dale Kirby whopper.  The province’s construction industry chucks the most grease on the wheels of the governing party’s machinery.

Incumbents flush with cash, others starved of cash, and election rules that make it very hard for anyone who doesn’t already have a high profile from having been in office already to try and get known in a mere two weeks.

But the real loser in all this is the voter.  People don’t pay a great deal of attention to politics at the best of times.  They have other things in their lives. 

Election campaigns, and all the noise and commotion that goes with them are the means by which parties get their attention.  Elections are supposed to be when voters get to make choices based on information.

The only problem is that provincial elections in Newfoundland and Labrador are designed not to engage voters.  They don’t give anyone enough time to get involved.

And this time around they certainly don’t give much chance for the parties to send information around and canvass for votes.  A week before polling day and your humble e-scribbler has received exactly nothing in the mail from either of the three parties.  One candidate – the Tory – showed up on the doorstep last week for the first time since he first got elected.  He had a brochure that said little.

The Tory obviously knew shag all about Muskrat Falls than the bullshit he’d been told to say and had nothing to offer other than that. The Liberal hit the doorstep on Tuesday night.  No sign of the Dipper and odds are neither he nor a piece of literature will show up between now and the last day to vote.

One of the most common complaints this election is that people don’t know who their candidates are.  One voter-friend of the scribbler in St. John’s East was surprised to discover who the incumbent was in his district. 

Ditto for a few people in Virginia Waters who were shocked to know their member of the House before the writ dropped was none other than Kathy Dunderdale.

The other candidates across St. John’s are unknown, for the most part and none of them have sufficient time to get their message to voters before the first votes are cast.  And that’s even if you allowed them a full bank account and all their prep done so they could start canvassing on the first official day of the election.

Aside from structural impediments to campaigning that all three parties have endorsed over time, the three political parties have all decided to avoid creating any sense of interest or excitement in the electorate this time around. 

Advertising appears to be at an all-time low volume.  The parties have a social media presence.  But the three parties in this province seem to use it as a token of their hipness rather than as the tool for voter activation that it can be.  .

Of course, for the incumbents – especially the Tories - that’s a useful strategy.

For the opposition parties, it would be idiotic.  Well, it would be if we started from the premise that the opposition parties want to unseat the government party.  Sure they say the words about what they’d do if they formed government, but the opposition political parties seem to think they are incumbents too.  Neither the Liberals nor the NDP have done anything meaningful that would risk them winning the election and taking over government. They both seem to be contented with things as they are.

It’s an old refrain around here that the three parties have essentially the same platform and that they all agree the Tories should be re-elected.

The election has turned out to be proof of it.

And all that is the reason Kathy Dunderdale will take off based on one of the lowest, if not the record lowest turn-outs in provincial history.

You’d almost think they wanted it that way.

 

- srbp -

Do debates matter? Part Deux #nlvotes #nlpoli

Last week ended with a wonderful bit of insight into where televised political debates figure into an election campaign.

Before you go any farther into this post just stop for a second and think of all the media chatter last week about the debate, what the strategies were supposed to be and then what the fall-out was after the whole thing was over.

Now with that load of crap firmly in front of your mind’s eye, look at some of the results from Market Quest Omnifacts’ poll released last week.  look at the bit about the election.

Only one third of those polled actually watched the debate.  Some news media played up the fact that 36% thought Kathy won, 22% picked Lorraine and some small percentage thought Kevin Aylward came out on top. The rest thought no one came out on top.

What likely slid by most people was the fact that only about one third of those polled actually watched the debates at all.  MQO then presented the picks as if 100% watched. 

That’s a fine an example as you can get of how some pollsters mislead people when they ignore the undecideds in their poll results on party choice and tell you only what the decideds said.

You see, two thirds of those polled had something better to do than watch the debates.

That’s the real story for that question:  66% were combing their armpit hair or something else that was more pressing than listening to the province’s three party leaders discuss what they’d do if they got the chance to run the province for the next four years.

A mere 12% of those polled thought Dunderdale won the debate.  Lorraine impressed the bejesus out of seven percent and Kevin picked up two percent of respondents.

13% thought neither of them won.

The debate itself was not some sort of major event for most people in the province. As a result, the debate itself was just one more thing they might see as part of the campaign’s communications alongside print ads, a brochure,  radio and TV spots and stuff that is cropping up on social media.

You’d have to dig into some hard numbers on audience share for the broadcast to get a better sense of how the debate stacks up in impact compared to the others.  Based on experience, your humble e-scribbler would say the debate itself mattered a lot less than other stuff including, incidentally, the media hype, torque, spin and general bullshit that surrounded it.

Include in that general bullshit the way Nalcor’s pollster reported the results:

When asked about the leaders’ debate, 34 per cent of those polled said they watched the televised leaders’ debate on Wednesday, September 28. Of those respondents who watched the debate, 36 per cent felt Kathy Dunderdale won the debate, while Lorraine Michael was seen as the winner by 22 per cent, and six per cent said Kevin Aylward came out on top. The remainder of respondents said there was no clear winner of the debate.

That got into news stories almost word for word.  Here’s the way the Telly reported it, for example:

Thirty-four per cent of those polled said they watched the televised leaders’ debate on Wednesday. Of those who watched the debate, 36 per cent felt PC Leader Kathy Dunderdale won, while 22 per cent saw NDP Leader Lorraine Michael as the winner, and six per cent said Liberal Leader Kevin Aylward came out on top.

The remainder of respondents said there was no clear winner.

Nothing, as some famous politician once said, could be further from the truth.

But you can bet lots of people last week were misled into believing Kathy Dunderdale emerged the clear winner of the debate last week in the opinion of other ordinary voters.  They’d get that idea as a result of the way the poll results wound up in the news fare.

And that message, carried by the province’s news media as if it were true,  likely had a much bigger impact than Kathy Dunderdale’s comments on the night.

- srbp -

It’s unanimous: more of the same… #nlpoli #nlvotes

So now you’ve either seen the debate or read some of the media coverage about it.

Here’s a question for you:

• what was the ballot question for you as posed by each of the leaders?

While you’re thinking about that for a second, let’s just review a few things.

Elections are about choices.

Candidates want you to pick one among them.

The ballot question is why you should vote for that one candidate as opposed to the others. The question should be stated in a way that distinguishes one candidate from all the others.  Political campaigns ought to be structured to reinforce the basic choice – the ballot question – over and over.

If you are still wondering about this – and that would be a bad thing for the parties – let’s just begin by figuring out which parties want change and which parties want things to stay fundamentally the same.

After all, in an election where there is an incumbent, the basic question is change versus more of the same.

Take another few seconds, if you need to.

Okay.

Time’s up.

So what was the answer?

Let’s start with the easy one.  The Tory message is the classic incumbent one:  stay the course.  Kathy Dunderdale wants you to vote for the Conservatives because things are good and they will get better.  Tories made a change and now you need to stick with the course that brought the change. 

Kathy Dunderdale said it at the beginning of the debate and she said it at the end. her comments in between supported the proposition by pointing out the good things she and her friends have done and all the bad things the others did or would do if given the chance.

In her television spots, Kathy Dunderdale says she thinks every day about who put her in her current job. Well, it wasn’t ‘we”, but that didn’t stop her from using the magical persuasive construction of talking about joining with her:  “together, we…”

Plus, she respectfully asked for your vote.

She hit her marks every time.

So what about the other two?

Well, it’s a bit of a trick question really.

Parties other than the incumbent should be advocating change.

But if you thought that in this election you’d be dead wrong.

The NDP message was “it’s time.” 

Time for what?  We’ll, Lorraine wasn’t really sure.  it might have been it’s time to give the NDP a turn at the wheel but her heart really wasn’t in it. 

Lorraine Michael spent a lot of time in her opening remarks telling people what they  - the people  - thought. 

No need:  they already know.

She talked about how the NDP had listened and would do something.  people were looking to her for some idea where the NDP would go that was different from where things are.

But when things got going, Lorraine reverted to the default NDP mindset of being a supplicant.  Take the discussion about a seniors advocate. Lorraine talked about it as a nice idea. Kathy got away with saying:  we have no objection to that.  There was the implicit idea behind her comments that Lorraine should come talk to her after the election so the Premier could think about it.

And when Lorraine wasn’t doing that she was criticising the Tories.

Lorraine’s attitude and the general vagueness of her message confirmed that the NDP want the Tories to win.  They have already conceded that they don’t really want change.

Ryan Cleary was right.

And that brings us to Kevin Aylward and the Liberals.

His opening remarks were the first shot to make a simple, clean statement of the ballot question.  Instead, he spent two minutes talking about the other guys. He talked about their ideas and their actions.

And throughout, he spent his time criticising.

That’s what opposition politicians do.  They criticise.

They don’t push ideas of their own and force the other guys to respond on their terms.

They don’t set the agenda for discussion.

Neither Lorraine nor Kevin set the agenda.

They didn’t even try.

If you look at the election platforms of the parties you can see the same thing.  They don’t distinguish themselves.  They give you variations on a theme.

For voters, the message was clear:  better to stick with the crowd you do know than the ones who already told you that where the province is going is just fine.

And if you want to know the extent to which the Liberals and NDP love where the province is right now and what the Tories have been doing – with a few exceptions - consider which parties in this election want to talk about Danny Williams.

Kevin Aylward said the other day that Danny did some neato things.  Heck, Kevin Aylward loves Danny so much he was trying to get Liz Matthews to run for the Liberals in her father’s old seat of St. John’s North.

When confronted about their crude oil tax and tearing up agreements, Sin Jawns North New Dem and party president Dale Kirby invoked the sacred Old Man.  Lorraine would pull a Danny, sez Dale, and not stop until the job got done fighting Big Oil.

At the economic forum on Tuesday night, the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats actually spent more time agreeing than disagreeing on anything.

While the Dippers and Grits are talking about yesterday’s Old Man, Kathy Dunderdale accepted their premise that she will win the election. 

Dunderdale claimed the title of leader Kevin and Lorraine offered her and passed herself off as the agent of change during the debate even though what she is really talking about is more of the same, too.

The debate  - as it turned out - was nothing more than a continuation of the message track each of the parties has been following since Day One.

Funny thing, that.

- srbp -

Welcome to the Echo Chamber #nlpoli #nlvotes

Pretty simple idea, really.

Opinions, beliefs and ideas move around among like minded people in what is an essentially closed space. 

The effect can be amazingly powerful just as it can be amazingly deceptive and distorting.

President Barack Obama talked about the echo chamber in American political coverage in early 2010 during a meeting with Senate Democrats:

"Do you know what I think would actually make a difference.... If everybody here — excuse all the members of the press who are here — if everybody turned off your CNN, your Fox, just turn off the TV, MSNBC, blogs, and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics. The topic is politics."

In the United States, the problem Obama is pointing out is not just the idea of people from different political perspectives focusing on politics exclusively all the time. 

This isn’t the Permanent Campaign* as all-consuming.

It’s about political polarization in the 100 channel universe. People chose what they want to pay attention to and, increasingly, that seems to be a matter of picking only the information  - websites, radio stations and television news programs  - that reinforce their existing beliefs.

Princeton University professor Cass Sunstein describes it this way in the 2001 digital book Echo Chambers:  Bush v Gore, Impeachment and Beyond,

Many of these vices involve the risk of fragmentation, as the increased power of individual choice allows people to sort themselves into innumerable homogeneous groups, which often results in amplifying their pre[-]existing views. Although millions of people are using the Internet to expand their horizons, many people are doing the opposite, creating a Daily Me that is specifically tailored to their own interests and prejudices. Whatever the exact numbers, it is important to realize that a well-functioning democracy—a republic—depends not just on freedom from censorship, but also on a set of common experiences and on unsought, unanticipated, and even unwanted exposures to diverse topics, people, and ideas. A system of “gated communities” is as unhealthy for cyberspace as it is for the real world.

Slightly north of the great republic, and in a much smaller place, there’s another kind of echo chamber.  The way it works may be slightly different but the concept is still the same.

The provincial government makes the noise.  Other provincial opinion leaders – other politicians, key interest groups and news media – reflect the noise back. 

The political parties themselves are semi-closed organizations dominated by self-selecting elites. The rules on who can get into the elites and how aren’t written down.  Sure both the Conservative and Liberal parties have constitutions that set out rules about how they are supposed to work.

But as first the Conservatives and the Liberals showed in 2011, their constitutions are fictions.  First the Conservatives twisted and turned before finally rejecting as illegitimate a candidate for leader of the party who followed exactly the same rules the party bosses themselves used.  Then the Liberals switched leaders.  The party executive may have created the process that ended with Kevin Aylward as leader, but what happened in the five weeks before that – secret offers to this one and that one – could only take place in a group where the written rules and the real rules are two different things.

And lest anyone thing the NDP is different consider the special role given to unions in its constitution.  A party with the word “democratic” in its name was hardly democratic at all.

To see how all this works, consider a couple of examples.

Start with the fishery in the current election to see insiders talking among themselves.

Earlier this year, CBC released the results of an opinion poll they commissioned from Corporate Research Associates. CBC found that:

… 60 per cent of the province believes the fishery should be concentrated in fewer locations to be more efficient.

Only 23 per cent say it is well managed and doesn't need change.

The majority opinion is that a smaller leaner fishery would be more profitable.

That isn’t as surprising as it would have been even five years ago. Times have really changed in the industry. And such a poll result isn’t surprising given that the industry leaders themselves agreed that they have to reduce the number of people and plants in the province.

What is surprising is that – even though a clear majority of people in the province support downsizing and the industry representatives themselves seem to agree - both the provincial Conservatives and Liberals want to create a new version of the Fisheries Loan Board in order to get more people into the industry. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives mentioned that this idea came from the union that represents plant workers and fishermen, incidentally.

Amazing, though, this fisheries policy might be, Muskrat Falls remains the finest example of the echo chamber of local politics and the interconnections among the groups inside the chamber that help to reinforce the messages.

Over the past 18 months, poll after poll done for the provincial government showed that only three or four percent of respondents thought it was the most urgent issue for the province.

Health care was at the top of peoples’ list of major issues, across the province hands down.  The economy and jobs came in second.

Nonetheless, Muskrat Falls has dominated provincial politics since Danny Williams announced his retirement deal in November 2010.

Muskrat Falls is the centre piece of the Conservatives’ re-election campaign.

The Liberals have a section of their platform devoted to hydro-electric development issues.

The New Democrats include it as well, although their comments are much more vague that the other two parties’ commitments.

A St. John’s Board of Trade panel selected the Lower Churchill overwhelmingly as the major issue for the election.

And lastly, a poll released last week shows that Muskrat Falls was a major issue for 13% of respondents.

But hang on a second.

As it turns out, the poll came from the firm that polls for the provincial government’s energy corporation. 

And that Board of Trade thingy.  Well, the panel had only four people on it.  While the BOT didn’t release the names of the panel members, M5 was so proud that Craig Tucker had made the cut, they tweeted about his work on the Board’s panel that put together some comments for the election.

Yes, gang, that Craig Tucker.  Co-chair of the 2003 Tory election campaign, former Tory-appointed director of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro after 2003 and now the guy whose advertising firm is the agency of record for Nalcor.

Meanwhile, the CBC uses Nalcor’s lobbyist as an election commentator alongside their own provincial affairs reporter, as if the two were the same sort of independent political observers.  They didn’t even bother mention that the guy is Nalcor’s lobbyist in Ottawa.

What’s most amazing about CBC and those who reported the poll last week without noticing the Nalcor connections is that they didn’t feel the need to notice the Nalcor connections.

For people inside the echo chamber, that sort of detail might be so well known they didn’t feel like it was an issue.

But outside the circle of au courante types, out among the audience?

Not so much information that they’d readily have those details or even that they’d feel the need to go check. They trust the news media to give their all the relevant information, after all.

More than two decades ago, political scientist Susan McCorquodale wrote about the relationship between the media and politicians in this province.  She described it as '”symbiotic”, a close and long-term relationship that works to the benefit of both.

“News originates with the press release, the press conference or the daily sitting of the House of Assembly,” she wrote.  These days she might have added twitter, e-mail or the Blackberry message from a political source feeding tidbits to reporters.

McCorquodale noted the lack of investigative reporting, something else that remains little change these days.   And she also noted the “tendency of reporters to end up in comfortable PR jobs with government.”

What she could not have foreseen was the day when the president of the major commercial radio broadcasting firm would sit as a political appointee on the board of one of the provincial government’s energy companies.

Nor could McCorquodale have expected that this same fellow, so tight with the pols the could receive a patronage appointment, would call his own station to complain about media coverage of his patron’s health problems.

Politics in Newfoundland and Labrador occurs inside a large echo chamber.  While in the United States, there are separate political echo chambers for people with differing political views, in newfoundland and Labrador, the echo chamber tends to separates the opinion elites from the majority of society.

To see it work, you only have to look at the general election campaign.

 

- srbp -

• Permanent Campaign: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Changing the game

Politics, Don Jamieson once said, is no place for fools.

But you don’t have to be a fool to expect that people act with basic human decency.

Definitely not acting with such decency are the number of people over the course of Monday who spent very little time discussing Yvonne Jones and her health problems and a great deal of time picking through her political entrails to find a successor.

From the Tory low-lifes on radio call-in shows with their unfounded hints of backroom skulduggery to the local blogger who started and ended the day listing off as many people as he could as potential replacements, each represents the very worst of what local politics has become in the last seven years.

Sadly the days ahead will likely bring more of the same as partisan operatives from all three parties seek to make the greatest political gain from someone else’s misfortune. Only the most brazen will do it openly. Most of them will whisper or make anonymous comments online.

If you think all three parties don’t have these sorts of bottom feeders, consider that there is at least one scumbag who fed David Cochrane  the name of one potential replacement such that it would get a mention on the main Here and Now broadcast.

The name had to come from someone or several people close enough to the party’s inner workings  - and the named supposed candidate himself - that Cochrane could report it with such confidence.

There is a particular place in hell for people so devoid of scruples or having such poor judgment.

Late on Monday evening, word is Yvonne Jones will hold a news conference and tell the rest of us what is happening.  After that the party’s executive board will meet to figure out where the party goes from here.

No matter what the executive board decides , let us hope that the next leader can change the tone of politics away from the miserable place it has been for the past seven years.

We do not need more of the sort of callousness some have displayed already.

- srbp -

Scumbucket Example A:

From the first comment posted at 1131 PM on a CBC online story Monday night posted at 1117 PM:

The Liberals were in trouble come October anyways....now they are REALLY in trouble. I suspect the Liberals will be wiped off the political map on Oct 11th. NDP will pick up a few seats and become the official opposition....but in the end it will be life as normal...a solid responsible PC govt...something that we have all gotten to know over the past 8 years....

With all that being said, I wish Ms. Jones a healthy retirement...she's earned it.

It had 16 thumbs up votes by other readers by 12:15 AM. It was posted by someone who called himself or herself “holeinthebucket”.

Like Momma always said…Part Deux und Trois

The only funnier thing than a guy up on assault charges claiming he is a wannabe Tory candidate are opposition party politicos who campaign for the incumbents.

In the past couple of weeks, comments coming from both parties have highlighted positive economic news.

Liberal leader Yvonne Jones did it before she headed back to Labrador for a series of meetings. She issued a news release that mentioned how the Labrador economy is booming.

Then  provincial NDP president Dale Kirby tweeted a link to a Globe and Mail story about how well the provincial economy is doing in comparison to the rest of the Atlantic provinces.

Wonderful stuff.

Except that in both cases, Jones and Kirby wound up reinforcing the classic argument for staying the course and keeping the current government in power. Things are going well, say the incumbents. Don’t risk all the good times by changing horse in the middle of the stream of cash and jobs.

Opposition parties need to draw attention to things the incumbent party isn’t talking about. There are plenty of issues. Some of them are ones the incumbents just don’t give a frig about but opposition voters do.  Some are issues the incumbents haven’t figured out are potentially decisive. Others are ones the incumbents will scream blue murder about because they are sore issues.

But talking about how good things are under the current administration?

Not really a message that says vote for me, the leader of the party that didn’t deliver all this good stuff.

It’s good for them to be positive, you say.  Otherwise the opposition parties would be all negative.  No one likes it when you are negative.  More people would listen to the opposition parties if they weren't negative all the time.

Well, for starters if you think that way, then you are – without question  - an ardent supporter of whatever incumbent government we are talking about.  Either that or you make Pollyanna look like a suicide waiting to happen.

Only incumbent politicos and their staunch supporters dislike it when others talk about problems.  Face it:  problems exist all the time.  They may not be big problems but they do exist.  It’s natural for people to talk about them if for no other reason than they would like the incumbents to fix them.

But incumbents hate people talking about problems.  The longer the incumbents are in office the more they dislike problems.  The longer the incumbents are in office, you see, the more likely it is that they caused the problems.

Incumbents also know that problems energise the opposition supporters.  After all, talking about the problems at the time are what helped get the incumbents elected in the first place. 

It seems like ancient history these days, but those who can recall the period between 2001 and 2003 will remember Danny Williams talked relentlessly about problems.  He was angry.  He stayed angry even after the 2003 general election. In fact, Danny stayed angry right up to his last days in office.

Tories  - and Danny lovers - don’t see it that way, of course. They think he spoke the truth.  But that’s what one would expect Tories to say, just as Liberals would have said the same sorts of things the last time Liberals were in power.

And when the incumbents hissed at Danny that he was too negative, he just ignored them and carried on about his business.  Danny carried on because he knew what opposition politicians are supposed to do if they ever want to get back into a government office again.

- srbp -

Republic of Moose

In an announcement that had absolutely no ties whatsoever to the current election campaign, the provincial government today tossed $5.0 million into a variety of efforts that are supposed to reduce the number moose-vehicle accidents in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The provincial government will spend $1.0 million on the traditional make-work job of clearing alders and other scrub from the sides of provincial roads.  this time though it will be clearing alders and scrub specifically to reduce moose accidents.

Out of the hundreds of kilometres of paved highway in the province, the government will build protective fencing on 15 of those kilometres as part of an experiment to see if it might keep moose from wandering onto roads where they get hit by cars and trucks. As one perceptive tweet comment had it, though, no one has explained how the government will measure the success of their efforts to reduce something that happens at random. 

Kinda makes the experiment silly, but as we noted, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact moose accidents are a political issue the government has ignored until now when it is – purely coincidentally – an election year.

There are other reliable indicators, though.

You can tell the provincial government is serious about this project because they spending the same amount of money cutting down on moose accidents that they spend subsidizing production of the CBC series Republic of Doyle.

You can tell the announcement had nothing to do with an election because both opposition party leaders couldn’t wait to praise the ruling Tories for making this splendid announcement.

- srbp -

How to win without news media

Texas governor Rick Perry won re-election without relying on conventional news media.

Perry shunned editorial board meetings, for example.  Those are sit-down sessions with the entire editorial staff.  It’s a traditional way to garner an endorsement and that is traditionally seen as a key part of any major political campaign.

The reason is pretty simple politics:

Mike Baselice, Perry's highly skilled pollster, acknowledged Wednesday at a public forum sponsored by The Texas Tribune that the campaign asked primary voters in Texas whether a newspaper endorsement would make them more or less likely to vote for Perry. Only 6 percent said an endorsement would make them more likely to support Perry, while an eye-popping 37 percent said it would make them less likely (56 percent said it made no difference).

In other words, for all the energy conventional thinking would have you put into sucking up to editors, the average Texas voter didn’t really give a rat’s derriere one way or the other. And with almost 40% taking an endorsement as a bad thing, that pretty much clinched the deal. 

Predictably the news media slagged Perry.  That only increased his standing in the eyes of voters, especially the 37% who said they would look unfavourably on a candidate who had a news media endorsement of any kind.

Perry also didn’t do the usual things associated with a conventional campaign, like lawn signs or direct mail.  Instead, his campaign used social media, paid television and “field operations” – face-to-face work by campaign volunteers.

- srbp -

Kremlinology 27: Going negative early has its risks

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be forgiven this week if they thought they’d entered the savage world of American politics complete with its intense and highly orchestrated personal attacks.

While the 2011 provincial election campaign has been underway since last spring, the provincial Conservatives went negative this week with a pre-emptive attack on the Liberal party.  The pretext for the attack was the opposition office’s new communications director, Craig Westcott.

Conservative leader Danny Williams was characteristically blunt in justifying both the attack itself and the violation of the province’s privacy laws by the release of an e-mail Westcott wrote to the Premier’s office in February 2009.

I did feel it was important that the people of the province know who they’re dealing with and what they’re dealing with when this man is now an integral part of the official opposition in this province.

The task of leading the attack went to Kevin O’Brien, recently promoted from a low-level portfolio to the slightly more demanding job of municipal affairs. O’Brien noted the idea as well of letting people know what  - supposedly - they could expect from the Liberals:

It's sad really to see the Opposition take that path because what I see is a fellow that can't even contain himself with regard to expressing that hatred."

These statements stand out because they characterise something that had not occurred.  Both Williams and O’Brien drew attention to what they considered Westcott’s personal “hatred” for the Premier. 

Westcott has been characteristically blunt in his criticism of Williams, but his comments have been typically not as personal as Williams presents them.  And sure, Westcott made plain  - before he started the job – that he was concerned about Williams’ impact on politics and the potential the Williams’ Conservatives could win all 48 seats in the provincial legislature.  But at the point O’Brien mentioned the e-mail, the opposition itself hadn’t gone anywhere near negative.

Interestingly, Westcott described Williams accurately in 2007:

it's impossible to avoid being negative about a leader who is so negative himself, especially about his critics and some of the people who try to do business in this province.

And Williams and his crowd took great offense at anything and everything Westcott said.  For his part, Westcott released a raft of e-mails with Williams’ communications director at a time when Westcott published a local newspaper and couldn’t get an interview with Williams. Westcott ran for the federal Conservatives in 2008, largely as a personal gesture in reaction to Williams’ anti-Harper crusade.  One of the consequences is that CBC stopped using him as a commentator after the election.

That isn’t just background for the most recent shots in an ongoing personal feud,  nor does it suggest that both sides are equally guilty of anything. Westcott started his new job on Monday morning.  On Wednesday, the Conservatives launched the assault. Until then, there was nothing other than the known animosity between Westcott and Williams. The point to note is that the Conservatives characterised what Westcott and the Liberals would do in the future. 

But that prediction – and all the negative implications – are entirely a fiction created by Williams’ Conservatives.

Going negative isn’t something new for Williams.  He likes the ploy and has used it on everyone from Stephen Harper to a previously unknown lawyer named Mark Griffin.  Around the same time Westcott sent the now infamous – and previously private – e-mail, Williams labelled Griffin a traitor.  Williams also started a lengthy battle with the Globe and Mail over a column that speculated about Williams’ possible motives in expropriating assets from three private companies in central Newfoundland.

Nor is it the first time Williams has tried to put words into someone else’s mouth.  in the most famous episode cabinet minister John Hickey sued then opposition leader Roger Grimes for defamation.  The case quietly disappeared because Hickey sued Grimes not for what Grimes said but for what Williams attributed to Grimes.

The provincial Conservatives are a tough and effective political organization.  They bring message discipline and zeal to the table. On top of that they have an army of enthusiastic sock puppets who will fill any Internet space and radio talk show with pre-programmed lines. Going nasty and negative is second nature to them.

The curious thing about the episode is that Williams could easily have waited until the first lump of mud came hurling his way. 

But he didn’t.

He sent O’Brien out as his crap flinger, first.

Taking the first shot, going negative in this way, this early in a campaign would be a risky venture in any case in Newfoundland and Labrador. Most voters aren’t engaged in politics and the overwhelming majority aren’t thinking about the election yet.  Local politics is anything but the highly competitive, ideologically-divided wasteland of the United States. People don’t like taking the battle-axe to the heads of their neighbours and friends. 

Politics can be competitive, but heavily negative campaigning doesn’t bring any great benefits.  Going negative early carries a risk of alienating people from the Conservatives and from politics generally. And it’s not like Williams has a surplus of voter support he can afford to tick off with negative campaigning.  He won in 2003 and again in 2007 with about the same number of votes, about the same share of total eligible vote.  That’s because Williams’ voters consist of a core of traditional Conservative supporters plus a group of voters who have voted for other parties, usually Liberal, in the past.  

For someone with Williams’ reputation, however, there is the added danger that yet more relentless negativity will affect his own support. Voters may not be able to stomach a full year of his highly concentrated political bile on top of the seven years they’ve already witnessed. Even Conservatives have been known to revolt against Williams’ diktats.  In 2008, Conservatives in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl voted heavily for the New Democratic Party, despite the fact that four prominent cabinet ministers campaigned for the Liberal. In other ridings, they just stayed home in response to Williams’ personal anti-Harper crusade.

There are signs that voters, generally, in some parts of the province are discontented if not slightly cranky. Williams’ Conservatives have already started trying to mollify concerns over some issues. Public money is flowing freely in announcements about spending for new outdoor basketball courts or cassettes for x-ray machines.  A news conference heralding a new case of DVDs or a packet of screws can’t be far behind. 

The provincial Conservatives have also telegraphed that they are worried about voter attitudes toward the party, generally. Maybe it wouldn’t take much to see the sort of rejection of the Conservatives that happened in the Straits and White Bay North spread to other districts along the northeast coast and other parts of central and western Newfoundland and into Labrador.

In a sense, going negative early suggests the Conservatives are particularly sensitive about any prospect that a resurgent Liberal Party might be able to capitalise on voter discontent. It reinforces the idea that Williams’ personal smear of Marystown mayor Sam Synyard had more to do with a fear of political rivals than anything else.

In the insider baseball world of political reporting in this province, this week’s drama about an e-mail and a communications director may looks like one thing to some people.  But if you look more closely, another picture may appear.

No matter what, the next 12 months could bring some of the most interesting political developments in years.

- srbp -

Outside the Overpass Update:  The Overpass is to Newfoundland and Labrador politics as the beltway is to American federal politics.  In that light, consider this e-mail from the province’s other daily that puts the week’s game of insider baseball in perspective:  “Get back to work”.

Going negative this early has its risks.

Insider baseball

What is interesting to people on the inside is often of no interest to people outside.

That idea, in a great many more eloquent words and with a bunch of other ideas, may be found in this 1988 article by Joan Didion.

Some people will get this.

Most will not.

- srbp -

The rent is too damn high

Politicians should know how to communicate their ideas simply, consistently and repeatedly.  Repetition is one of the ways you can ensure a message gets through and that it sticks.

Take as a fine example of these simple axioms none better than Jimmy McMillan, candidate for governor of New York.  Say what you will about McMillan’s political party, these edited clips of a recent candidate’s debate demonstrate how effect he is as a communicator. 

Get the message?

If you listen to any other bits of the debate, you’ll quickly realise the extent to which McMillan is a fringe candidate.  But when it comes to simply and effectively communicating his party’s key message, this guy is way out in front of the pack.

These clips running on the nightly news as part of a straightforward report would likely win the guy a ton of votes. If you don’t think it’s possible, just look at local politics since 2003.

- srbp -

Pushing buttons: technology and campaigns

While most candidates in the St. John’s municipal election have embraced some form of technology to support their campaign, the level of usage and the sophistication varies widely.

On one end of the spectrum you’ve got Ward Three candidate Bruce Tilley and his Web 0.5 beta site that looks like it was left over from the days when the Internet ran on vacuum tubes.

There’s no one who has fully embraced Web Campaign 2.0, but some are pretty close.

Like Shannie Duff and Simon Lono. Both have the social media add-ons like Twitter and they update them frequently. Both are also using videos through youtube to help spread their views. 

Those are just two;  their are others like Sheilagh O’Leary or Debbie Hanlon who are making maximum use of the facebook space to keep their network of dedicated supporters informed an up-to-date.

Others have got the look down, but the content is lacking, like any of the mayoral contenders or Keith Coombs.

Doc O’Keefe has a really expensive electronic brochure but then again that’s what you get when you hire an advertising agency. It’s all non-threatening designer beige and even the photos of the candidate are retouched packages of pure crud. 

Human beings simply do not look like this.  Borg have healthier skin tones.   There’s a calculated effort here to be inoffensive but the effect is so calculated and so miserably executed that it comes off being offensive and obnoxious.

 Ron Ellsworth’s site looks good, but there are some inconsistencies in the content that mar the overall package.  He has a section called “My approach” and the sub-headings are about “Our” this and that.  There are plenty of these jarring internal contradictions in Ellsworth’s campaign.  Think a plan where the first action item is to develop a plan. Altogether, these suggest Ellsworth hasn’t got his political shit together or his campaign team is so inexperienced or otherwise incapable that they can’t get a bit of focus to the message.

Take Twitter as another example. Ron’s got it, but one suspects he’s got it because someone told him that’s what campaigns need to look good.   But Twitter is the sort of thing that hyper-caffeinated hamster people with crackberries use to keep people notified of the bathroom habits or random firings of the few synapses left in their brains.  Some of them are so wired they are proof  a monkey can sometimes luck out and type a coherent sentence with just their thumbs.

Okay, so that’s a bit of an exaggeration.

But when a guy uses Twitter like a stone tablet in cuneiform – google it, people on your iPhone -  you know that  Ellsworth can talk about engaging people but he has no idea how to actually do it. 

But if you want to get a taste for raw energy and the sort of straight-up presentation the Web 2.0 technology can deliver, check out Lono’s virtual door-to-doors. 

Specifically have a look at the one on community, taxes and services.  It should raise a few hackles but it speaks very loudly and very deliberately to a raft of voters in the west end of St. John’s.  Curb-side recycling is funny but the humour is an entree to a simple message about the need to just get on with better waste management.

The two that are getting the most attention are two you might expect to, though.  Bally Hally speaks directly to an election issue and one that will face the next council.  Lono makes his position clear. Lono’s call for a municipal auditor general seems to have struck a nerve with people too, if the number of visitors is any indication.

There are plenty of ways to use technology in political campaigns. You can see the full spectrum in the St. John’s municipal race.

-srbp-

Police investigate allegations in SK and ON party races

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are investigating some aspect of the recent leadership race for the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party:

NDP CEO Deb McDonald said the Mounties requested 1,102 membership forms that were submitted in April by an overzealous volunteer from the Dwain Lingenfelter campaign that were later cancelled by the party.

"We immediately said we would absolutely co-operate in any way that we can," McDonald said.

"On Monday we turned over the memberships and today they informed me that they are starting a criminal investigation."

Lingenfelter won the party leadership on Saturday, capturing 55 per cent of the votes cast, compared to 45 per cent of the votes garnered by Saskatoon doctor Ryan Meili.

Meanwhile,  the Ontario Provincial Police are investigating allegations of voter intimidation in the race to replace John Tory as leader of the provincial Conservative party:

Progressive Conservative Party president Ken Zeise has asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate a letter that was mailed to some members of the party, warning them that the RCMP was conducting its own probe into allegations involving voter fraud in provincial party leadership contests.

The letter is clearly “bogus,” Mr. Zeise said in an interview on Thursday. And while the letter was sent by someone with access to the names and addresses of party members, Mr. Zeise said he has no evidence to suggest that a party member was behind it.

He said he called in the OPP after officials representing two of the leadership hopefuls – Christine Elliott and Frank Klees – formally complained to him and asked him to investigate the matter.

-srbp-

A little help for his friends

So which Progressive Conservative – maybe a member of the current House of Assembly - got the benefit of Ed Byrne’s constituency allowance to get elected?

Some time between August 2000 and April 2004, Ed Byrne used $3,000 of public money that was supposed to go toward Byrne’s constituency-related business to pay a campaign worker for work on a provincial by-election somewhere  in Newfoundland and Labrador.

By-election finance statements before 2005 aren’t available at the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website so someone will have to troop along to Paul Reynolds’ office to get a look at the documents to see if the money was reported.

Plus, we can’t be sure that is the only such payment made out of the money Byrne is supposed to have misappropriated.  His agreed statement of facts recently in answer to fraud and corruption charges only accounted for a fraction  - 25% or so - of the total.

Then there’s things like the building supplies – lumber? – he bought and shipped up to his cabin in the woods. Did anyone check to see if it was dry-wall and  two by fours?  If there was a raft of two by twos in there, as well as washers and roofing nails and the timing was right, that might also turn out to be election-related purchases.  Two by two lumber, washers and roofing nails are used to hold up the ever-popular two foot by two foot election sign.

But what provincial by-elections were held in that time?

Trinity North (April 25, 2000)

Humber West (June 19, 2001)

Port de Grave (June 19, 2001)

St. Barbe (January 30, 2001)

The Straits and White Bay North (January 30, 2001)

Bonavista North (July 24, 2002)

Conception Bay South (November 12, 2002)

At least one of the Progressive Conservatives in those by-elections got a boost from public funds.

Which one was it?

-srbp-