You’d swear someone was polling.
Of the dozen announcements made on Tuesday [August 3], 10 of them either announced public money or warned news media to stand by for an announcement of public cash for something.
Of the two odd-ball releases, one was a release about participation in a national basketball tournament while the other was about health care consultations.
Wednesday should be quiet as it is a civic holiday.
- srbp -
August is polling month for the provincial government’s pollster. You can tell because on the first working day of the money, cash announcements and announcements of announcements flowed like water:
There were 12 announcements made on August second. Two were public advisories and another four were media advisories, including warning of a media availability later on Monday and a funding announcement on Tuesday. One of the dozen announcements covered the closure of the school for the deaf.
In other words, outside of the media and public routine announcements, the provincial government issued six news releases on Monday.
Five of them were about spending.
- srbp -
The second part of Canadian Press’ expose.
And for good measure, the second part of the 2006 BP series on the local version of the same idea.
-srbp-
Steve has Message Event Proposals.
Danny just controls everything.
The first in a series by Canadian Press (h/t @stphnmaher) and a three-parter (here’s the first one) from your humble e-scribbler, circa 2006.
-srbp-
Support for the Danny Williams Conservative party dropped nine points in three months according to the latest poll results from the provincial government’s pollster.
Corporate Research Associate’s quarterly poll showed that 58% of respondents indicated they would vote for the provincial Conservatives party if an election were held tomorrow. That’s down from 67% in February.
The numbers are likely grossly inaccurate even with the correction presented here. The orange line shows the actual percentage of eligible voters who voted Progressive Conservative in the last provincial general election in October 2007. The blue line is CRA’s number, adjusted to remove their artificial inflation of Tory support.
The provincial government’s pollster doesn’t report the numbers this way, though. CRA routinely inflates Tory support by as much as 28% by only reporting the percentage of decided voters.
These corrected figures also don’t account for the provincial government’s deliberate efforts to skew CRA’s polling numbers. As Bond Papers noted in late 2006, the Williams administration times its communications activities to correspond with their own pollster’s polling periods. probably one of the most significant examples of this would be the Premier’s disingenuous “have province’ announcement during the November sweeps month.
Local news media also routinely report CRA polls inaccurately by accepting at face value the CRA news releases.
Even allowing for problems with CRA’s polling, and for the government’s organized poll goosing efforts, that’s the largest quarterly drop CRA has reported for the Williams Tories since early 2005.
-srbp-
Sure there is a sudden uptick in the number of happy-crappy announcements about everything from water bombers to smoother roads.
But you can really tell it is polling month because of this.
-srbp-
Yes, CRA is in the field again.
No, not Conestoga-Rovers and Associates doing more environmental work for Charlene in the battle against the Great Satan of the Moment.
Corporate Research Associates.
While many of you might think something else might wind up being a big issue in public during that time, offshore drilling might well top out whatever you’ve got on your list today.
The Globe’s got it started with questions about Chevron’s planned deep water exploration well offshore Newfoundland.
And @cbcnl Morning Show in St. John’s is adding to the discussion with comments by biologist Bill Montevecchi who had a go at all comers, including the offshore regulatory board.
Let’s see how things shape up.
-srbp-
Imho-humtep Update: This story is not going to develop any traction whatsoever if the best anyone can do is start quoting implacable offshore drilling foe Ian Doig. Apparently someone has managed to resurrect Doig for a quote.
If all we get to listen to are people who thought Hibernia was a bust then let’s just quote Wade Locke and be done of it. Next thing you know we’ll be hearing about aluminum smelters in Labrador again.
What’s the difference between approval and satisfaction?
Well, quite a lot according to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians surveyed during February by two polling firms.
A Corporate Research Associates poll conducted between February 9 and February 25 showed public satisfaction with the Danny Williams administration at a record 93% percent.
But a new survey by Angus Reid conducted during the same time period (February 16 to 23) showed that only 80% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians approved of Danny Williams’ performance as Premier.
The Angus Reid poll has a lower margin of error at 3.9% 19 times out of 20 compared with CRA’s 4.9%. in addition to a news release, Angus Reid also released a description of the polling methodology and details on the poll itself. CRA does not release that information.
What this really shows, though, is the gigantic discrepancy between CRA and other pollsters in their results. The problem with CRA polls is highlighted by the difference in results between AR and CRA for Nova Scotia. The Angus Reid poll also highlights a huge discrepancy between the AR poll and CRA’s results on a similar question in Nova Scotia.
According to CRA:
Satisfaction with the NDP government declined even more significantly, with one-half of residents satisfied with the overall performance of the government (49%, down from 63% three months ago).
But according Angus Reid, the Nova Scotia government led by New Democrat Darrell Dexter has only 23% approval down from 49% in November 2009.
Bond papers has contended for some time that CRA polls are wildly inaccurate measures of public opinion.
-srbp-
So the final legal agreements are signed. Nothing has changed since the announcement of almost exactly the same details in June 2009.
So why the second announcement?
Poll-goosing, of course.
The only twist is that the provincial government is claiming they’ll make more money - $3.0 billion - now than before. There’s more money, though, simply because they changed the assumed price of a barrel of oil.
Now anyone with a brain could tell you that isn’t news, nor is it any more reliable and factual than claiming the amount of money would be double the projection from last year.
CBC is reporting the $3.0 billion as if it was true/real. VOCM attributed the cash – making their statement doubly false - to the equity stake.
As noted here last year, the bulk of the revenue – no matter what assumed price of oil you use – comes from one place and one place alone: the 1990 Hibernia deal. You can see that pretty clearly when you look at the supporting documents.
Meanwhile, the two bits of real news in this have been lost. Settling the transportation dispute will bring the provincial treasury about $120 million in one-time oil cash this year. That will help with revenues that are still running below forecast. Oil production in December was 2.0 billion barrels below production in the same time last year.
And in the other bit of real news: no oil from the extension until the third or fourth quarter of 2012. The offshore board got the development application on 01 February.
Now if that wasn’t enough poll goosing, there’s also the announcement from the provincial government’s oil and gas company that drilling is starting on yet another parcel NALCOR bought on the Great Northern Peninsula. Real oil companies tend not to make such a huge deal out of every exploration hole they spud. Political ones do, though, especially when they have to help goose a poll for The Boss.
And on a related bit of poll goosing, former Peckford-era policy advisor Cabot Martin is all smiles as his company continues exploring for oil, too.
-srbp-
According to someone who participated in the current poll by government pollster Corporate Research Associates, the provincial government questions focused on attitudes to private delivery of publicly-funded health care.
The question or questions presented a range of options from private collection of blood for testing to private operation of hospitals.
Other questions probed attitudes about the effectiveness of the province’s education system.
Some questions included the phrase “Williams-led” or “Danny Williams-led” government.
That sort of wording would have the potential to skew the poll. CRA reports some of its poll results publicly in a way which is viewed by the research industry as misleading.
-srbp-
That seems to be the mantra of government spending announcements for things like the Conception Bay South Bypass Road.
This is one recounted in this space last summer.
Well, now Terry French – since elevated to cabinet – is breaking the oft-announced and long delayed project down into its sub-components. It’s no longer good enough just to announce a construction. Now there has to be an announcement of the award of tenders to supply every bit of the sub-work.
In this case, it is the call for tenders for five kilometres of brush clearing. Undoubtedly awarding the tender will get another release and then the felling of the first bit of scrub should be good for a photo op.
It all fits into the current Conservative philosophy – provincial and federal – of announcing announcements previously announced. Makes it look like things are happening and that perception gets especially important four times a year.
Like say right now.
It’s February and the official government pollster is in the field.
-srbp-
Ye, verily, lo and behold, good citizens:
There are problems with reports coming from Alberta about the Wild Rose party and polling.
Sounds very familiar.
One thing leaped out in particular and this had to do with the reliability of online surveys:
Unbeknownst to most Albertans – even many politically savvy ones and apparently to most political journalists, too – was the import of this statement.
First, this is an on-line survey, based on interviews with a group of Albertans, obviously interested in politics and quite possibly committed to a political party, who selected themselves for the job.
The advantage of on-line panels of this type is that they’re inexpensive to conduct. The disadvantage is that their results cannot be called scientific and they are not particularly credible.
Also unknown to most Albertans following this story is the fact that the phrase “margin of error is 3 per cent” is highly controversial in professional polling circles when applied to this kind of survey.
The implication is that the survey was based on sound scientific methodology and can be counted on to be accurate within a margin of 3 per cent.
The fact is the survey is based on the opinions of people who selected themselves to join the panel and answered questions on-line. In other words, this is not necessarily a particularly trustworthy poll.
That probably refers to issues like the ones raised in this businessweek.com article in 2008.
And it points out again why reporters need to ask more questions about polls and pollsters before they report the results.
Lie say this little gem from an American association of polling firms giving 20 questions journalists should ask about polls:
6. Are the results based on the answers of all the people interviewed?
One of the easiest ways to misrepresent the results of a poll is to report the answers of only a subgroup. For example, there is usually a substantial difference between the opinions of Democrats and Republicans on campaign-related matters. Reporting the opinions of only Democrats in a poll purported to be of all adults would substantially misrepresent the results.
Poll results based on Democrats must be identified as such and should be reported as representing only Democratic opinions.
Of course, reporting on just one subgroup can be exactly the right course. In polling on a primary contest, it is the opinions of those who can vote in the primary that count – not those who cannot vote in that contest. Primary polls should include only eligible primary voters.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, reporting poll results as a percentage of “decideds“ is “one of the easiest ways to misrepresent the results of a poll…”. Some people won’t be shocked by that nugget.
If you scroll down you’ll also find a good section that points out methodological problems with online poll results.
And that’s before people misread news reports that seemed to suggest Danny Williams scored a 70% approval rating with all Canadians surveyed by Angus Reid last fall during the local poll goosing month of November.
At some points, local news organizations will either stop reporting obviously unreliable poll results or hold off until they get answers to some tough questions from the people flogging the polling fodder.
-srbp-
The chart at right shows the CRA number in red and the correct number in blue.
Corporate Research Associates polls like clockwork every November.
The provincial government knows that because because they buy the quarterly omnibus.
Since 2006, CRA has released it’s November results as follows:
2006: December 12.
2007: December 6.
2008: December 9.
That’s the data available on line.
Go back before that and you will likely find the results released typically in the first week of December or later, depending on how the calendar falls in a given year.
Here’s a little challenge for you: find the last time CRA released a quarterly omnibus poll on or about November 25, that is a week before the end of November.
Odd coincidence that there is a by-election in this province on the 26th, isn’t it?
-srbp-
Seems the use of fire trucks as polling season props just never gets old.
This one even made CBC supper hour news.
-srbp-
Well if Tom Hedderson is putting on his firefighter’s hat to go visit Joan Burke, you know it’s either to announce another fire truck, officially kick off the November sweeps month with the government’s official pollster or both.
At this rate fire trucks could be the key to keeping those government-paid polls artificially government-goosed.
Zombie News Update: Not only did Tom show up to announce a fire truck, he also showed up to announce money for capital works that have already been completed or which will be completed in a couple of weeks.
Holy blatant poll goose Batman.
Talk about the hypocrisy of recycling old money announcements for fairly blatant political gain.
-srbp-
With Labour Day falling late this year, the government’s official pollster is likely still in the field.
That likely explains the flurry of news today, including a new fire truck.
We already told you about this special time of year back in August.
-srbp-
Throughout 2008 and 2009, the provincial government claimed it created a forest sector diversification program in 2008 worth $14 million, but there’s no sign in publicly available documents that the money was actually budgeted and spent until 2009.
And the amounts mentioned in different government documents, including the 2009 budget, show there was less money involved than the $14 million referred to constantly.
A news release issued in April 2008 referred to a total of $14 million in diversification funds. That included $11 million “to establish a diversification program that will provide for infrastructure required by industry to produce new forest products and gain access to new markets.” Another $500,000 was supposed to go to promoting the wood pellet industry.
A November 2008 news release on the wood pellet promotion also refers to $14 million and a name; Forest Industry Diversification Program
A description on the federal government’s website claims a $14 million program was created in 2008.
But Budget 2008 Highlights don’t mention the diversification project at all. instead there’s a reference to
“Allocating $10 million in provincial funding to add to the $4 million in federal funding under the Community Development Trust for forest industry initiatives.”
And there’s no such program or amount anywhere in the 2008 budget for the department responsible for the forest industry that covers the federal and provincial cash totalling $14 million or anything close to it.
That didn’t become become plain until early 2009 and the new provincial budget.
The 2009 Estimates (right)show that the government didn’t spend a nickel on the program before the end of March 2009. The “revised” column is blank.
Instead, the provincial government carried over the federal cash received but not spent in 2008 and added to it the rest of the original federal contribution for a total of $4.0 million in cash from Ottawa.
What’s more, the provincial government didn’t add either $10 million or $11 million of its own money in 2009 as it had suggested in previous news releases. Nor did it add a second year’s provincial contribution to the first to make a program worth upwards of $25 million.
Instead, the provincial government included the extra federal cash and reduced the provincial cash to a produce a program in 2009 that had less money than earlier news releases claimed.
The tomfoolery didn’t stop there.
The 2009 budget highlight document uses a while new set of numbers that don’t match any of the others and which certainly don’t match the figures included in the 2009 budget.
Here’s what it said:
Further investment of $6 million in the Forestry Industry Diversification Fund to assist the industry in identifying new products and markets. This is in addition to the $8.5 million carried forward from 2008.
There was no new investment, of course, as the budget documents clearly show.
As it is, two sawmills gobbled up 83% of the interest-free money in the form of loans that don’t have to be repaid for 15 years and as grants that never have to be repaid. One received a total of $10 million while a second scarfed down $2.25 million in free government cash. The same cash was announced several times over the course of a week during August polling season 2009.
The other money appears to have gone the wood pellet program and to hiring a marketing consultant for a project that supposedly cost – you guessed it - $14 million.
-srbp-
Day One: the observation.
Day Two: the confirmation.
The whole thing couldn’t have been any funnier if your humble e-scribbler had advance knowledge of the government’s news release schedule.
-srbp-