Far from being a new approach to regional economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador, Kathy Dunderdale's announcement of new funding on Friday, March 18, 2005 continued the program contained in the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), as modified by the Tobin and Grimes administrations up to 2003.
The SEP was a genuinely strategic document. It contained specific action items for each of the departments with economic responsibilities, including fisheries, tourism and environment. The SEP reorganized the old development department into a new department called Industry, Trade and Technology and focused attention away from resource exploitation and onto non-resource-based enterprises. This stood in sharp contrast to the Peckford administration's heavy emphasis on oil and gas and related spin-off manufacturing like petrochemical plants, a theme that re-appeared almost 20 years later as Chapter 2 of the Williams campaign Blue Book.
More importantly, though, the SEP document contained a broad philosophy that underpinned government's subsequent approach. In future, government's role would be one of creating an overall environment in which individual private-sector entrepreneurship would be the engine powering economic growth. The SEP highlighted the needed for improved productivity throughout the economy and on being competitive globally based on local strengths. It spoke of the need for innovation and on an educational system that fostered individual entrepreneurship and adaptability.
The SEP also called for the creation of economic zones, originally 15 and later expanded to 20 with political agitation from the old rural development movement. The zones would serve two major purposes. For government, the zones gave a basic planning framework so that the provincial government could ensure that each area had the necessary infrastructure to support the second purpose: economic initiatives based on regional plans developed by local boards.
Through the zones, the Economic Recovery Commission (ERC) and Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador (ENL), government's approach to economic development would be decentralized and placed in the hands of local representatives. Overall, the goal was to ensure that there was economic activity within each zone such that one could live in one community and find lasting employment within easy driving distance. That phrase found its way in one form or another into all sorts of government documents, public comments and news releases.
The new Tobin administration abolished the ERC. It absorbed ENL and its five regional offices into the development department, which was itself renamed several times. Eventually a business investment corporation was started, a pale shadow of ENL, and new investment programs were created to give financial aid to qualifying businesses.
The investment corporation has been retained under the newly announced plan and the funding programs created under Tobin and Grimes after the death of ENL have been sweetened with new cash by the Williams administration. The names may have changed but the fundamental concepts remain the same.
The number of boards has apparently also been reduced from the current 20 to nine. This change appears to owe much to an inverse of the logic of Spinal Tap's amplifiers. "We have made progress; there are now nine boards" as one may well expect to see in a government media talking point on the Dunderdale announcement. The number of boards is less important, though. The goal of the nine new boards is identical in every respect to the original zone boards created under the Wells administrations SEP. [ Challenge and Change: a strategic economic plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, (St. John's: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 1992), pp. 16-18. Sadly this is not available online.)
In the new budget expected on Monday, other initiatives may also reappear from the 1990s, including some ideas generated by Dunderdale's deputy minister Doug House but rejected by the Wells administration. The Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, chaired by House, had recommended and the ERC subsequently endorsed the idea of series of investment schemes such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Stock Savings Plan, the Venture Capital Tax Credit Program, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Savings Bonds.
There are some differences in the New Approach and these may prove telling for overall government policy in the future.
First, the New Approach does not contain a simple set of objectives, as the SEP did to guide overall economic development. There are no simple set of guiding statements that cabinet may use when tackling issues such as the future direction of the fishery. Old ideas which run counter to a commitment to innovation and productivity can take hold. As a result, government policy may well support holding people in stagnant jobs, dependent on some form of income supplement like Employment Insurance because it is politically expedient rather than economically sound.
As well, government may begin to reassert itself into the actual business of economic development thereby replacing the private sector as the engine of growth. Before 1989, government was often seen as the economic engine of the province. Emphasis was placed on government jobs. Government itself invested in industries or provided loan guarantees. Under Wells this was replaced by the SEP philosophy. But in time, the Tobin administration restored government's misplaced role with his decentralization program. The Williams Blue Book talks of using procurement as a means of generating economic activity. it advocates changing procurement decisions from a basis on quality and cost to one of net economic benefit. May we see pencils made in Labrador at 50 cents each because of the job creation involved, rather than buying imported pencils at a nickel each?
Or, in a related way, calls have been made recently for greater government spending generally, both federal and provincial, on public sector jobs with no other benefit than giving everyone a piece of the action. Bella Oxmix would be pleased.
Second, in a structural sense, government is no longer served by a fundamental competition of ideas between established interests and a new vanguard. Doug House railed bitterly against many things in his memoir Against the tide, not least of which was what he called "The Old Guard". These were senior public officials who held their positions under the Peckford administration and who continued to do so under Wells and later Tobin and Grimes.
House's Old Guard could be better described as government officials used to operating within established bureaucratic organizations and patterns. The names may well have changed in the intervening decade but the fundamental approaches of government bureaucracy - hierarchical decision-making, "process" versus outcome - are all retained.
What House missed in his memoir was the value of the competition of the ERC and the "Old Guard" in generating ideas for cabinet. Government is about choices but too often established orthodoxy limits the range of choice. Under Doug House, the ERC embodied the core values of the Strategic Economic Plan. Yet none of its ideas was allowed to emerge as policy without being rigorously tested by a critique from House's nemesis. Cabinet benefited from this process since half-formed ideas could be made whole through the very act of advocating an idea. House disliked advocacy, prefering to simply impose the idea but there is no question of the value of rigorous examination and debate in developing an idea into government action. Out of the dialectics of the approach, policies and programs could emerge which were more likely to stand up to the trials of actual experience. There was little chance of some folly surviving or of some minister or other latching onto a hare-brained scheme that met short-political needs but which was scatter-brained in any other sense.
Unfortunately, the Williams administration has put House into a line department thereby perpetuating the monolithic process of the Tobin administration. House has become, after a fashion, part of the very bureaucracy he once derided. But in a larger sense, House and his associates have become the new Orthodoxy, the new "Old Guard", at least within his department. They will face no meaningful test of what they propose before it is government policy. Much worse, though, House and company cannot define themselves as being different from the bureaucracy when they are now an integral part of it. House may have what he always wanted - namely the power to impose a concept - but he has earned it by essentially becoming what he derided in Against the tide. How many of those he lambasted in its pages have spent the last year chuckling in their retirement beer? In time, Doug House may not serve the province as well in his new role as he did in seven years as ERC chair.
Third, there is no ENL. While it grew out of the Peckford era development corporation, ENL in the early 1990s was a model of practical business advice. It pioneered the use of computer networks to deliver support in communities across the province. It partnered with federal agencies and created positive relationships with all sectors of the economy and society. More importantly, though, ENL provided local groups with direct access to solid information. Contrast that to the post 1996 approach which brought greater power into the hands of St. John's bureaucrats and encouraged in the zone boards - now called Red Boards - a focus on seeking government hand-outs instead of actually fostering sustainable development.
Tobin's business corporation, perpetuated by Williams, is a rump with little real ability within its ranks to do what ENL used to do. After 1996, economic initiative died in Newfoundland and Labrador, assimilated neatly under the control of bureacurats. The words, the appearances survived but underneath the exterior trappings bureaucratic nanoprobes stifled the creativity and effectiveness of the old ERC and ENL staffers. There is no small irony that Roger Grimes has criticized the ERC, falsely, for dictating to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the system that emerged after 1996 with his support did exactly that.
House himself may well see the shortcomings of the modern structures; he criticized them very accurately in his memoir. Yet now he is trapped within that framework. There is little effective co-ordination between Ottawa and St. John's, for example, and in the fall-out from the Premier's Great Crusade, the federal government is unwilling to entertain much in the way of co-operation with the flag stompers.
As an integral part of the bureaucracy, beholden entirely to Williams for his place, House is unlikely to set about building contacts within the federal system that would work despite political disagreements. House was able to do it before, under Wells, but now he cannot go against his master. There is no one who occupies the same role Doug House once occupied to build much-needed bridges to the mainland. There is no Doug House, but more importantly there is no place for such a person to work.
Fourth, what we actually have here in the DUnderdale announcement is less of the substance of the Wells era SEP and more that of Tobin and Grimes. The Blue Book, for example, copies almost word for word the SEP as its first chapter. Yet, in its second chapter, with the emphasis on petrochemical plants and hydroelectrical development and mineral processing we see the same theme of heavy industry and primary resource extraction common to Tobin and Peckford.
We see exactly what Doug House characterized as the ideas of the "Old Guard" (p.79):
"With respect to economic development, the Old Guard, who are of the same age cohort, espouse ideas that were conventional when they did their undergraduate degrees. Their views combine the urbanization/industrialization approach of the Smallwood era with the resource management approach of the Peckford years. In the main, they believe that industrial, resource-related megaprojects in oil and gas, hydroelectricity, and minerals constitute the province's best hope for the future. ... They also believe in a federal presence in Newfoundland and Labrador that would reflect this megaproject philosophy through such things as large penitentiaries and defence bases. [or we might now add agricultural stations, weather forecasting or giant underwater tunnels]".
To be fair, the current administration has not displayed overt skepticism of small and medium-sized enterprises, as House describes the Old Guard view. In fact, House's approach aims at them. But this announcement on Friday was soft. There was no sign of the Premier, confirming that he has no personal interest in the regional diversification initiatives contained in whatever Dunderdale unveiled. The Premier may be earnestly occupied with something else, or taking a vacation but were he genuinely interested, he would have scheduled the announcement for a time when he was available. He campaigned on jobs and business development. He is said to want to focus on that now that he has shuffled some responsibilities off his plate. Yet, where was he on Friday past?
The New Approach is slowly revealing itself to be very familiar. The essential strengths of the Wells administration's economic policy have been affirmed by the very fact that a decade and more after they were put in place, they remain as government policy. Danny Williams trumpets his success to an audience at the Empire Club of Toronto. His landmark economic policy: the "EDGE" program established under Clyde Wells.
Yet for all the strengths of the various programs that made up the policy, its current incarnation contains the same fundamental weaknesses that grew up under the Tobin and Grimes administrations. Only some have been touched on here, but the ones noted point to lingering challenges in economic development.
One is getting politicians out of the business of job creation. Recall, if you will, that Danny Williams stood for election on a platform of creating jobs, not fostering the climate for job creation. Danny Williams, entrepreneur, entered government in order to create employment. Only in Newfoundland and Labrador is this not considered a bizarre idea.
The other challenge is to increase emphasis on anything but government and government- subsidized industrial activity.
Those two are aspects of a fundamental tenet of the SEP: the private sector is the engine of economic growth. They reflect more than a half century of failed efforts up the notorious Sprung greenhouse. They come from two and a half years of consultation with the private sector that led to the SEP, yet for all that, they remain something from the SEP politicians refuse to accept.
They remain the enduring challenge to be overcome before meaningful change can take hold.
20 March 2005
18 March 2005
Clyde Wells' SEP is New Approach to economic development: Dunderdale
St. John's. 18 March 2005
The Progressive Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador today announced a revised version of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) developed under the Liberal administration of Clyde Wells in 1992 as the Williams administration's core economic development policy.
Innovation Trade and Rural Development minister Kathy Dunderdale released the revised Liberal platform plank in a news conference at Confederation Building.
Dunderdale's deputy minister, Doug House, was head of the Economic Recovery Commission under Wells.
The SEP has formed the basis of government economic policy since 1992 and was included, in its entirety, in the PC election platform in 2003.
-30-
I just saw the government release, linked above and chuckled all through my lunch before I wrote the little bit you see before the "-30-".
Over the weekend, I'll dig out my old SEP documents and other stuff the ERC pumped out in concert with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the phrases in the Dunderdale release are almost verbatim copies of stuff written in 1992. A comparison is in order, as well as a comment on the challenges of changing attitudes toward regional economic development in the province.
Oh yeah, don't miss the emphasis in the new document on a form of regional government but it appears to be a provincial government administrative concept rather than the creation of local government around the province.
That will lead to another post or two, I am sure.
The Progressive Conservative Government of Newfoundland and Labrador today announced a revised version of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) developed under the Liberal administration of Clyde Wells in 1992 as the Williams administration's core economic development policy.
Innovation Trade and Rural Development minister Kathy Dunderdale released the revised Liberal platform plank in a news conference at Confederation Building.
Dunderdale's deputy minister, Doug House, was head of the Economic Recovery Commission under Wells.
The SEP has formed the basis of government economic policy since 1992 and was included, in its entirety, in the PC election platform in 2003.
-30-
I just saw the government release, linked above and chuckled all through my lunch before I wrote the little bit you see before the "-30-".
Over the weekend, I'll dig out my old SEP documents and other stuff the ERC pumped out in concert with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of the phrases in the Dunderdale release are almost verbatim copies of stuff written in 1992. A comparison is in order, as well as a comment on the challenges of changing attitudes toward regional economic development in the province.
Oh yeah, don't miss the emphasis in the new document on a form of regional government but it appears to be a provincial government administrative concept rather than the creation of local government around the province.
That will lead to another post or two, I am sure.
More Anal than Anal is our motto, Mr. Deckard.
Try this link about selling a house in Switzerland.
Sounds like being in the army.
Reminds me of a buddy of mine on his basic training course. Recruits were required to share a room with one other recruit and they had to have all the room, closets and drawers laid out according to a standard pattern and matching each other. Everything had to be neat, pressed polished and almost sterilized for cleanliness. It all had to be - The Same.
They had the privilege of one drawer which was theirs to do with as they saw fit; it wouldn't be inspected.
Morning inspection after breakfast.
Directing staff otherwise known as DS (two master corporals) enter and begin the hunt for flaws.
They hunt.
and hunt.
They find nothing.
The boys had been up all freaking night working to outfox the DS.
DS go over the place with a fine tooth comb for the better part of 15 minutes. (Usually 30 secs is enough to find one hair on a shirt or one lousy crease in pants as part of the game.)
By this time thoroughly pissed off, the DS pull open the personal drawers looking for anything like contraband porn.
Staring back at them are two identical drawers, laid out neatly and in accordance with a pattern the boys had worked out for themselves. Everything matched, right down to diameter of the socks rolled up. Same toothpaste. Same shave cream.
No contraband.
Nada
It was perfect.
The DS just stared at the boys, standing rigidly at attention and immaculately turned out.
They quietly walked out to the next room which they turned upside down in the space of a few seconds.
The boys s*** themselves laughing.
Sounds like being in the army.
Reminds me of a buddy of mine on his basic training course. Recruits were required to share a room with one other recruit and they had to have all the room, closets and drawers laid out according to a standard pattern and matching each other. Everything had to be neat, pressed polished and almost sterilized for cleanliness. It all had to be - The Same.
They had the privilege of one drawer which was theirs to do with as they saw fit; it wouldn't be inspected.
Morning inspection after breakfast.
Directing staff otherwise known as DS (two master corporals) enter and begin the hunt for flaws.
They hunt.
and hunt.
They find nothing.
The boys had been up all freaking night working to outfox the DS.
DS go over the place with a fine tooth comb for the better part of 15 minutes. (Usually 30 secs is enough to find one hair on a shirt or one lousy crease in pants as part of the game.)
By this time thoroughly pissed off, the DS pull open the personal drawers looking for anything like contraband porn.
Staring back at them are two identical drawers, laid out neatly and in accordance with a pattern the boys had worked out for themselves. Everything matched, right down to diameter of the socks rolled up. Same toothpaste. Same shave cream.
No contraband.
Nada
It was perfect.
The DS just stared at the boys, standing rigidly at attention and immaculately turned out.
They quietly walked out to the next room which they turned upside down in the space of a few seconds.
The boys s*** themselves laughing.
Indy reads Bond
Just a note for the sake of curiosity:
For the first time since I started keeping track of this blog's hits (the audience), there was a clearly identified hit from The Independent. [For those concerned with privacy, I can only see which internet service provider provider visited and what they visited. That helps me see what pieces are popular and which ones are generating any interest. It doesn't change where I go, but it does tell me what is resonating with or, for that matter, annoying people.
They've known about Robert Bond Papers for some time, probably since the first week I started it.
But this week someone obviously started paying attention;
More than five hours of attention going through what seems to be just about every post made.
Hmmmm.
Wonder what it means when someone at the Indy spends almost an entire workday reading my blog?
For the first time since I started keeping track of this blog's hits (the audience), there was a clearly identified hit from The Independent. [For those concerned with privacy, I can only see which internet service provider provider visited and what they visited. That helps me see what pieces are popular and which ones are generating any interest. It doesn't change where I go, but it does tell me what is resonating with or, for that matter, annoying people.
They've known about Robert Bond Papers for some time, probably since the first week I started it.
But this week someone obviously started paying attention;
More than five hours of attention going through what seems to be just about every post made.
Hmmmm.
Wonder what it means when someone at the Indy spends almost an entire workday reading my blog?
The Leader Opps
Strange things happen on the flight to and from Labrador.
That's where I was yesterday and on both the flight to Goose and the one back I couldn't help but think about Craig Westcott's column from the Wednesday Express and the Tory cheerleading from Thursday's Post.
Craig took time to praise Roger Grime's as an effective leader of the opposition. Craig's main criterion? That Roger irks Danny. Yes, Danny turns beet red answering questions from Roger.
Craig rightly points to Roger's string of successes as a cabinet minister after 1989. He also compares Grimes to 19th century British prime minister William Gladstone. The Brit Liberal managed to serve as PM four times despite being regarded by the Queen, for example, as a bit of a bore.
The problem for me was that I finished Craig's column unconvinced that driving up your opponent's high blood pressure is a viable political strategy. It just doesn't seem practical to get back to power by inducing a stroke in The Other Guy(s) ; that is, unless you can hook them on fags, force-feed em Pepsi and fee and chee and get them to spend their days on the couch watching the soaps.
Nope. I just shook my head at the idea, wondering if Craig got the idea from the CIA's nutty attempts to off Castro in the 1960s. Poisoned cigars. Beard termites. Extra starch in his fatigues to give him the itches which lead to scratching which give a real nasty, nasty infection that won't go away because the embargo won't let those commie Cubans buy American wonder ointments and powders. Setting up a radio station to broadcast the words "neener neener neener" over and over again on a frequency that can only be received by custom-made radios to be dropped by Cuban ex-patriots from American made balloons drifting across the Caribbean.
There had to be another answer to the Liberal puzzle. Why exactly are they getting slaughtered in the polls?
Leap over to Stephen Harper and you can see the similarities between the two Opposition leaders.
One of the Posties hit on the answer.
Define yourself or be defined.
Poof.
Politics is based on choices.
Political communication therefore is heavily dependent on one bunch of people pointing out the differences between themselves and The Other Bunch.
The main challenge for Roger Grimes has been defining himself and his policies in the public mind. It's a problem that goes back to his time as Premier. How is he different from Brian or Danny?
Does that mean Roger is lame? Far from it. Craig rightly points out that Grimes is one of the most experienced political leaders around. He has handled some incredibly tough political issues with amazing success. People who have known Grimes for a long time are struck by his ability to grasp an issue and dissect it, by the ease with which he can relate to CEOs or EI recipients on their own terms.
But, for some reason, Grimes as Liberal leader has come to be defined by some mistaken popular ideas or by the politically inspired characterizations of Danny Williams when he was Leader of the Opposition (Leader Opp in pol-speak). Voisey's Bay was not another give-away.
Politicians must define themselves or face the risk of being defined by others. Grimes seems to have fallen into that second option and come off much the worse for it. Grimes last showing in the CRA poll is actually very odd. The Telly this week carried results of some CRA polls done for the provincial government last fall that show the provincial government actually didn't have very high approval ratings for its performance in a bunch of areas.
These are all points where Grimes should have been picking up and holding onto stronger support.
To be fair, it is really a mistake for me to lay this solely on Roger's shoulders. Yes, as leader the buck stops on his desk, but this lack of definition seems to beset the entire caucus.
And to really make the relevant point from my post asking why there is an Opposition here at all: if you look at Nova Scotia, the Opposition Liberals are very aggressive in presenting an alternative point of view. They are keen to dig away at the government like jackals, not some small blood-sucking insect. (Craig likened Roger to a tick burrowing under Danny's fur)
Look at the Opposition Tories here before 2003 and you will see the same pattern as the Nova Scotia Libs.
Both Stephen Harper and Roger Grimes should be making better headway in their work. That they don't seems to result from some problem with defining themselves and their parties and then hammering that home with the electorate.
As I finish this off, Roger Grimes is on Open Line making strong points and demonstrating that he has a firm grasp on the details of the issue around Abitibi and its mills in the province. He is making points - good points in clear language. And yes, Craig, when the House is open, Grimes is a high flyer. There are some other star individual performers when it comes to poking at some specific issues.
Think about it this way. Computers produce pictures from things call pixels. These are individual little spots of varying colours that when you step back and look at them reveal an image. Roger Grimes and the Liberals can be really good at producing pixels and bunches of pixels (specific issues and details) especially when the House is open, but when you step back, the picture doesn't have a coherent definition. It doesn't last in between House sessions.
The big difference between Harper and Grimes is that Roger Grimes does not have to deal with the fundamental differences of opinion and values within the party that beset the federal Conservatives.
If Roger was doing such a totally bad job as Leader Opp, the knives would already be out. He has the time and the room to define himself and his party and run a strong campaign in the next election.
He just has to do it.
That's where I was yesterday and on both the flight to Goose and the one back I couldn't help but think about Craig Westcott's column from the Wednesday Express and the Tory cheerleading from Thursday's Post.
Craig took time to praise Roger Grime's as an effective leader of the opposition. Craig's main criterion? That Roger irks Danny. Yes, Danny turns beet red answering questions from Roger.
Craig rightly points to Roger's string of successes as a cabinet minister after 1989. He also compares Grimes to 19th century British prime minister William Gladstone. The Brit Liberal managed to serve as PM four times despite being regarded by the Queen, for example, as a bit of a bore.
The problem for me was that I finished Craig's column unconvinced that driving up your opponent's high blood pressure is a viable political strategy. It just doesn't seem practical to get back to power by inducing a stroke in The Other Guy(s) ; that is, unless you can hook them on fags, force-feed em Pepsi and fee and chee and get them to spend their days on the couch watching the soaps.
Nope. I just shook my head at the idea, wondering if Craig got the idea from the CIA's nutty attempts to off Castro in the 1960s. Poisoned cigars. Beard termites. Extra starch in his fatigues to give him the itches which lead to scratching which give a real nasty, nasty infection that won't go away because the embargo won't let those commie Cubans buy American wonder ointments and powders. Setting up a radio station to broadcast the words "neener neener neener" over and over again on a frequency that can only be received by custom-made radios to be dropped by Cuban ex-patriots from American made balloons drifting across the Caribbean.
There had to be another answer to the Liberal puzzle. Why exactly are they getting slaughtered in the polls?
Leap over to Stephen Harper and you can see the similarities between the two Opposition leaders.
One of the Posties hit on the answer.
Define yourself or be defined.
Poof.
Politics is based on choices.
Political communication therefore is heavily dependent on one bunch of people pointing out the differences between themselves and The Other Bunch.
The main challenge for Roger Grimes has been defining himself and his policies in the public mind. It's a problem that goes back to his time as Premier. How is he different from Brian or Danny?
Does that mean Roger is lame? Far from it. Craig rightly points out that Grimes is one of the most experienced political leaders around. He has handled some incredibly tough political issues with amazing success. People who have known Grimes for a long time are struck by his ability to grasp an issue and dissect it, by the ease with which he can relate to CEOs or EI recipients on their own terms.
But, for some reason, Grimes as Liberal leader has come to be defined by some mistaken popular ideas or by the politically inspired characterizations of Danny Williams when he was Leader of the Opposition (Leader Opp in pol-speak). Voisey's Bay was not another give-away.
Politicians must define themselves or face the risk of being defined by others. Grimes seems to have fallen into that second option and come off much the worse for it. Grimes last showing in the CRA poll is actually very odd. The Telly this week carried results of some CRA polls done for the provincial government last fall that show the provincial government actually didn't have very high approval ratings for its performance in a bunch of areas.
These are all points where Grimes should have been picking up and holding onto stronger support.
To be fair, it is really a mistake for me to lay this solely on Roger's shoulders. Yes, as leader the buck stops on his desk, but this lack of definition seems to beset the entire caucus.
And to really make the relevant point from my post asking why there is an Opposition here at all: if you look at Nova Scotia, the Opposition Liberals are very aggressive in presenting an alternative point of view. They are keen to dig away at the government like jackals, not some small blood-sucking insect. (Craig likened Roger to a tick burrowing under Danny's fur)
Look at the Opposition Tories here before 2003 and you will see the same pattern as the Nova Scotia Libs.
Both Stephen Harper and Roger Grimes should be making better headway in their work. That they don't seems to result from some problem with defining themselves and their parties and then hammering that home with the electorate.
As I finish this off, Roger Grimes is on Open Line making strong points and demonstrating that he has a firm grasp on the details of the issue around Abitibi and its mills in the province. He is making points - good points in clear language. And yes, Craig, when the House is open, Grimes is a high flyer. There are some other star individual performers when it comes to poking at some specific issues.
Think about it this way. Computers produce pictures from things call pixels. These are individual little spots of varying colours that when you step back and look at them reveal an image. Roger Grimes and the Liberals can be really good at producing pixels and bunches of pixels (specific issues and details) especially when the House is open, but when you step back, the picture doesn't have a coherent definition. It doesn't last in between House sessions.
The big difference between Harper and Grimes is that Roger Grimes does not have to deal with the fundamental differences of opinion and values within the party that beset the federal Conservatives.
If Roger was doing such a totally bad job as Leader Opp, the knives would already be out. He has the time and the room to define himself and his party and run a strong campaign in the next election.
He just has to do it.
Anne of Black Leathers
News today that Hell's Angels, the notorious motorcycle club is opening a retail store. The shop, called Route 81, will reportedly sell T-shirts, belt buckles and calendars.
Not sure what these calendars feature each month, but Quebec motorcycle club calendars have things like favourite sleeping bags of members doing time for homicide. How typically Canadian of them; in the U.S. their organized crime types use things like baseball bats to kill informants and enemies. In Canada, we wrap them in gear from the Canadian Tire. And drop them from a canoe into a lake in cottage country.
Some other retail possibilities for Canada's tourist mecca.
- An outlet for handicrafts by Al Queda terrorists holed up in some cave in north western Pakistan. Items for sale include lamps made from used artillery shell casings, decorative dishes made from deactivated landmines and Ossama's recently published instructional series "How to slaughter the Infidel Competitor for the profit".
Just wonder if the Angels are gonna have a license to sell brownies? PEI Public Health might just want to keep an eye on that one. Of course, a bad case of the munchies among all though tourists could cause a run on french frie sales. Hmmmm. Maybe that's the secret plot for those clever Gablers; The government has a piece of the action and Route 81 in PEI is just the first of a raft of these things to spread across the country.
Sell special brownies. Increase demand for roadside french fries. Create a shortage of the island's main product such that a bag of crinkle cuts at the supermarket rivals the price of oil.
Sharp people those spud diggers.
Not sure what these calendars feature each month, but Quebec motorcycle club calendars have things like favourite sleeping bags of members doing time for homicide. How typically Canadian of them; in the U.S. their organized crime types use things like baseball bats to kill informants and enemies. In Canada, we wrap them in gear from the Canadian Tire. And drop them from a canoe into a lake in cottage country.
Some other retail possibilities for Canada's tourist mecca.
- An outlet for handicrafts by Al Queda terrorists holed up in some cave in north western Pakistan. Items for sale include lamps made from used artillery shell casings, decorative dishes made from deactivated landmines and Ossama's recently published instructional series "How to slaughter the Infidel Competitor for the profit".
Just wonder if the Angels are gonna have a license to sell brownies? PEI Public Health might just want to keep an eye on that one. Of course, a bad case of the munchies among all though tourists could cause a run on french frie sales. Hmmmm. Maybe that's the secret plot for those clever Gablers; The government has a piece of the action and Route 81 in PEI is just the first of a raft of these things to spread across the country.
Sell special brownies. Increase demand for roadside french fries. Create a shortage of the island's main product such that a bag of crinkle cuts at the supermarket rivals the price of oil.
Sharp people those spud diggers.
16 March 2005
I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.....
In doing a google search, I came across this John F. Kennedy quote and felt a chill in my bones.
"It is time for a new generation of leadership, to cope with new problems and new opportunities. For there is a new world to be won." [That's the JFK quote]
"The time has come for new heroes to step forward: men, women, and young people who can build their community, grow our economy, foster cooperation, and inspire the confidence we need to pursue our dreams together." [That's the Danny version from yesterday's Throne Speech]
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Plagiarism is wrong. Bad paraphrasing is just pathetic.
["Short term pain for long term...; compare Crosbie's memorable line with the absolutely gruesome version of the stolen phrase some bureaucrat stuck into the January speech from last year.]
Of course, in Kennedy's case, he was riffing on the theme that he personified a change in generations among American leaders. Kennedy himself represented optimism and altruism if his and following generations.
In Danny's case, he was basically saying that it is now time for someone else to run the place.
Somebody look around on this day after the Ides of March to see which of the senators is rehearsing the lines: "Friends, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, countrymen and women. I come not to bury Danny but to praise him..."
"It is time for a new generation of leadership, to cope with new problems and new opportunities. For there is a new world to be won." [That's the JFK quote]
"The time has come for new heroes to step forward: men, women, and young people who can build their community, grow our economy, foster cooperation, and inspire the confidence we need to pursue our dreams together." [That's the Danny version from yesterday's Throne Speech]
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Plagiarism is wrong. Bad paraphrasing is just pathetic.
["Short term pain for long term...; compare Crosbie's memorable line with the absolutely gruesome version of the stolen phrase some bureaucrat stuck into the January speech from last year.]
Of course, in Kennedy's case, he was riffing on the theme that he personified a change in generations among American leaders. Kennedy himself represented optimism and altruism if his and following generations.
In Danny's case, he was basically saying that it is now time for someone else to run the place.
Somebody look around on this day after the Ides of March to see which of the senators is rehearsing the lines: "Friends, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, countrymen and women. I come not to bury Danny but to praise him..."
An ordinary day
How appropriate that the Premier chose to include the words "An ordinary day" to a Great Big Sea song in the Throne Speech yesterday.
The speech, which the Lieutenant Governor received only a few short minutes before reading it in the House of Assembly, was a decidedly ordinary document.
The simple, nearly amateurish rhymes of the song lyrics are certainly a good parallel to the speech. And the sentiment in the song' s opening stanza is hardly revolutionary:
"I've got a smile on my face, I've got four walls around me
The sun in the sky, the water surrounds me
I'll win now but sometimes I'll lose
I've been battered, but I'll never bruise, it's not so bad."
Let us all be happy that we are alive. Take pleasure in the ordinary and remember that for every success in life there is a failure.
Oddly enough, Brian Tobin used to like throwing bits of pop culture into his speeches. I guess he felt it connected him with the ordinary people - people like you and me.
My favourite Tobinite attempt at feigning a passing acquaintance with culture was his quote from The Great Gatsby that finished with the words which said more about being stuck in the a rut of old destructive behaviour than about working to meet a future challenge.
I can't help but think that what we have in yesterday's Throne Speech is picking a piece of art because it goes with the drapes rather than because it stirs emotions appropriate to a larger theme being explored.
Off the top of my head, I can think of other song lyrics or other quotes that would have been more appropriate to yesterday's Throne Speech:
- "It's the end of the world as we know it" - actually, use just the title and the chorus since the rest of the song is a bit hard to follow. But the title sounds kinda inspirational. Yes I know it is an REM song, but Great Big Sea blessed it with a local version.
- "Stubborn Man" - Awesome song by a local traditional band about, well, a stubborn man. Seems oddly appropriate. A Fine Crowd also have another line in another song that might more accurately describe the place if our debt gets to $17.0 billion: "misery looking up poverty's arse".
Geez (he said flipping down the Fine Crowd song list.) Here's another lyric that strikes the right timbre: "I can't get nothing done, cause I'm always on the go."
- "Feel it turn" - Another Great Big Sea tune. "I had a dream I was moving forward//Floating gently to the sun//I've come to see my world rewarded//A new day has begun".
Once upon a time... (yes I know it a shop-worn phrase but it seems fitting), speeches contained lines from classical works, since most people knew them. In this less literate age, pols seem to like more ephemeral things.
Joe Smallwood once tossed out a paraphrase of a stanza from Blake's Jerusalem:
"I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In this green and pleasant land."
I've been known to toss biblical quotes at people, but it gets a bit dodgy depending on the audience. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle" is obvious for someone in communications.
Well, I have exhausted this little riff.
Anybody have other suggestions for the next speech?
The speech, which the Lieutenant Governor received only a few short minutes before reading it in the House of Assembly, was a decidedly ordinary document.
The simple, nearly amateurish rhymes of the song lyrics are certainly a good parallel to the speech. And the sentiment in the song' s opening stanza is hardly revolutionary:
"I've got a smile on my face, I've got four walls around me
The sun in the sky, the water surrounds me
I'll win now but sometimes I'll lose
I've been battered, but I'll never bruise, it's not so bad."
Let us all be happy that we are alive. Take pleasure in the ordinary and remember that for every success in life there is a failure.
Oddly enough, Brian Tobin used to like throwing bits of pop culture into his speeches. I guess he felt it connected him with the ordinary people - people like you and me.
My favourite Tobinite attempt at feigning a passing acquaintance with culture was his quote from The Great Gatsby that finished with the words which said more about being stuck in the a rut of old destructive behaviour than about working to meet a future challenge.
I can't help but think that what we have in yesterday's Throne Speech is picking a piece of art because it goes with the drapes rather than because it stirs emotions appropriate to a larger theme being explored.
Off the top of my head, I can think of other song lyrics or other quotes that would have been more appropriate to yesterday's Throne Speech:
- "It's the end of the world as we know it" - actually, use just the title and the chorus since the rest of the song is a bit hard to follow. But the title sounds kinda inspirational. Yes I know it is an REM song, but Great Big Sea blessed it with a local version.
- "Stubborn Man" - Awesome song by a local traditional band about, well, a stubborn man. Seems oddly appropriate. A Fine Crowd also have another line in another song that might more accurately describe the place if our debt gets to $17.0 billion: "misery looking up poverty's arse".
Geez (he said flipping down the Fine Crowd song list.) Here's another lyric that strikes the right timbre: "I can't get nothing done, cause I'm always on the go."
- "Feel it turn" - Another Great Big Sea tune. "I had a dream I was moving forward//Floating gently to the sun//I've come to see my world rewarded//A new day has begun".
Once upon a time... (yes I know it a shop-worn phrase but it seems fitting), speeches contained lines from classical works, since most people knew them. In this less literate age, pols seem to like more ephemeral things.
Joe Smallwood once tossed out a paraphrase of a stanza from Blake's Jerusalem:
"I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In this green and pleasant land."
I've been known to toss biblical quotes at people, but it gets a bit dodgy depending on the audience. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle" is obvious for someone in communications.
Well, I have exhausted this little riff.
Anybody have other suggestions for the next speech?
15 March 2005
Res ipsa loquitur, once more
Throne Speeches have become dull creatures in some places that follow the British parliamentary tradition. Their words are to the ears and to the heart as paste is to the tongue and the bowels.
By contrast American presidential inaugural addresses are often profound expressions of the desire, of the aspirations of not only the president but of the nation. Sentences are crisp. The words themselves are carefully woven, often through successive drafts and revisions, to create a tapestry of images that still evoke intense emotion many decades after the speech was read.
Throne Speeches can be annual inaugurals. They can renew the commitment of an administration to core themes first introduced during a general election. They can inspire. They can serve as record of accomplishment and a pledge of definitive action that will be taken in the coming year.
Would that the Premier, or any politician, could hone the skill of a simple expression of the passions that move such humble people, as all we humans are, to achieve immortal purposes.
Would that the words of Throne Speeches were knives; blades with which to carve our rough-hewn minds into a weapon that, when wielded with such strength of conviction, we could never fail but to achieve a lasting victory against the demons Circumstance and Folly that have hobbled generations.
Sadly, in place of such a thing the second Williams administration Throne Speech yearns to have the soulfulness of an accountant’s ledger yet fails to attain even the bean counter’s numerical elegance with only 10 digits and a few bits of punctuation.
Amid its 7 200 words, there is the now obligatory 500 word recitation of the Saga of the Atlantic Accord. There is nearly 25% of the speech given to the importance of culture and cultural industries. It lists – yes lists – writers, comedians, musicians, actors and playwrights, as if nothing more than a recitation of WANL’s membership list and a photocopying of hoary platitudes does anything more than mock the talents of the very people to be praised.
We are promised a Strategic Cultural Plan, an Energy Plan and an Innovation Plan (both strangely not Strategic), a Rural Development Strategy (which somehow avoided being branded a Strategic Rural Development Plan) and a Northern Strategic Plan exclusively for Labrador.
There are to be other plans and planning for plans to the point where this government seems in need of an army of bureaucrats devoted solely to planning for the development of plans. This would surely be followed by creation of a new section that would integrate the planning for plan development, followed in turn by the inevitable creation of its cousin secretariat for integrating the actual plans developed by the other planning, planning development and planning integration secretariats.
Some bright soul has already seen the future: the Department of The Few Fish Left is expanding its planning department to accommodate the urgent need for plans.
This speech is a dark cloak of word-mail covering a spindly frame beneath.
I wish I were making this up.
"Now that our people have been reinvigorated by a renewed pride and hope for our future, we as a society must not allow that sense of self-confidence and optimism to fade."
This is a speech which claims credit for finding that which was not lost. It praises the lustre restored to that which had not been dulled. It lauds the cleansing of that which is not sullied. It remembers what was never forgotten. This speech sings hymns of praise to its authors unhindered by modesty or fact.
In this great desert of a speech, there are mysterious oases of action. A pilot program for single parent employment will be started. There is new money – federal money for children. Yet these are small fragrant shrubs, small patches of deep green grass in a limitless grey plain.
"In particular, My Government will create sources of capital to enable businesses to establish, grow, diversify, and prosper."
There are also white tips poking through the sand, portents of the bleached bones of Latvian dinosaurs from the days when another government brought back little more from its wanderings than the crushing weight of debt. It is not for government to create sources of private sector capital out of public money, Premier Williams. One shudders at what the winds of time will expose of that seemingly Smallwoodian tyrannosaur.
This speech evokes nothing except profound disappointment at a government of action turned to a legion preparing for future leaders.
"The time has come for new heroes to step forward: men, women, and young people who can build their community, grow our economy, foster cooperation, and inspire the confidence we need to pursue our dreams together."
In this speech, these things alone speak for themselves. It is a time for new leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This speech should do nothing except hasten their stride.
By contrast American presidential inaugural addresses are often profound expressions of the desire, of the aspirations of not only the president but of the nation. Sentences are crisp. The words themselves are carefully woven, often through successive drafts and revisions, to create a tapestry of images that still evoke intense emotion many decades after the speech was read.
Throne Speeches can be annual inaugurals. They can renew the commitment of an administration to core themes first introduced during a general election. They can inspire. They can serve as record of accomplishment and a pledge of definitive action that will be taken in the coming year.
Would that the Premier, or any politician, could hone the skill of a simple expression of the passions that move such humble people, as all we humans are, to achieve immortal purposes.
Would that the words of Throne Speeches were knives; blades with which to carve our rough-hewn minds into a weapon that, when wielded with such strength of conviction, we could never fail but to achieve a lasting victory against the demons Circumstance and Folly that have hobbled generations.
Sadly, in place of such a thing the second Williams administration Throne Speech yearns to have the soulfulness of an accountant’s ledger yet fails to attain even the bean counter’s numerical elegance with only 10 digits and a few bits of punctuation.
Amid its 7 200 words, there is the now obligatory 500 word recitation of the Saga of the Atlantic Accord. There is nearly 25% of the speech given to the importance of culture and cultural industries. It lists – yes lists – writers, comedians, musicians, actors and playwrights, as if nothing more than a recitation of WANL’s membership list and a photocopying of hoary platitudes does anything more than mock the talents of the very people to be praised.
We are promised a Strategic Cultural Plan, an Energy Plan and an Innovation Plan (both strangely not Strategic), a Rural Development Strategy (which somehow avoided being branded a Strategic Rural Development Plan) and a Northern Strategic Plan exclusively for Labrador.
There are to be other plans and planning for plans to the point where this government seems in need of an army of bureaucrats devoted solely to planning for the development of plans. This would surely be followed by creation of a new section that would integrate the planning for plan development, followed in turn by the inevitable creation of its cousin secretariat for integrating the actual plans developed by the other planning, planning development and planning integration secretariats.
Some bright soul has already seen the future: the Department of The Few Fish Left is expanding its planning department to accommodate the urgent need for plans.
This speech is a dark cloak of word-mail covering a spindly frame beneath.
I wish I were making this up.
"Now that our people have been reinvigorated by a renewed pride and hope for our future, we as a society must not allow that sense of self-confidence and optimism to fade."
This is a speech which claims credit for finding that which was not lost. It praises the lustre restored to that which had not been dulled. It lauds the cleansing of that which is not sullied. It remembers what was never forgotten. This speech sings hymns of praise to its authors unhindered by modesty or fact.
In this great desert of a speech, there are mysterious oases of action. A pilot program for single parent employment will be started. There is new money – federal money for children. Yet these are small fragrant shrubs, small patches of deep green grass in a limitless grey plain.
"In particular, My Government will create sources of capital to enable businesses to establish, grow, diversify, and prosper."
There are also white tips poking through the sand, portents of the bleached bones of Latvian dinosaurs from the days when another government brought back little more from its wanderings than the crushing weight of debt. It is not for government to create sources of private sector capital out of public money, Premier Williams. One shudders at what the winds of time will expose of that seemingly Smallwoodian tyrannosaur.
This speech evokes nothing except profound disappointment at a government of action turned to a legion preparing for future leaders.
"The time has come for new heroes to step forward: men, women, and young people who can build their community, grow our economy, foster cooperation, and inspire the confidence we need to pursue our dreams together."
In this speech, these things alone speak for themselves. It is a time for new leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This speech should do nothing except hasten their stride.
Spin Control: Locally owned news very predictable
This week is definitely the week when everyone should wait and get the Independent for free when it goes online Wednesday.
Yes, I know you hear that every time I write about the Indy, but this time I really mean it.
Page 1: A story about foreign overfishing and how critics say trade relations with the EU are more important than sending out the navy to shoot any foreigner daring to take fish we should rightly be driving into extinction ourselves. What's new: there isn't a quote from Gus "Highgrade" Etchegary. This time the anti-foreigner quotes are from Sheila Copps, since Sheila is in town plugging her own book and demonstrating - via John Crosbie - that not all Newfoundlanders have the talent of Rick Mercer.
Page 1: a story in which Leo Puddester promises a "racket" over treatment his members are getting from government . Yeah Leo. Right. We heard that one last year, when there actually was a fight and well, there was a fight. But that was last year, Leo.
Page 1: A story by Jeff Ducharme telling us that, surprise surprise, Alberta makes way more money of its oil and gas than we do from ours. Try to find a reason for running that story. I guess we need to hear that yet again in order to be a well-informed, thinking person.
Editorial: Condemning CBC for not running the Indy's arrogant, insulting and completely laughable TV spots. (Yes Ryan, they were produced in-house and rather cheaply; It shows.)
Running through most of the editorial are the predictable things: The Indy is the only locally owned paper in the province. Every other news organization is pure shite. Buy us and be a thinking person. Blah. Blah. Blah.
There's another column by Ivan Morgan saying stuff I swear he said to me over a beer at the Breezeway or Ben's 20 years ago.
There's a column by John Crosbie attacking Liberals for corruption. John ignores his colleagues from the old Tory party from Quebec who did hard time for political crimes in the Mulroney years, but I digress.
There's a short-I mean really short - article on the Radar for Goose campaign. Interviews with proponents only. No background. Obviously people who read this blog know more about X band radar than anyone who relies on the locally owned paper for thinking people.
There's a story on page 4 on a road in Quebec that might mean the Stunnel is a living breathing idea. Above that on the page are stories on the crab plan and complaints from Labrador about a lack of kidney dialysis.
Now think about that.
I mean really think.
A hot current story about the fishery that screams for background detail - why did Trevor Taylor cook up this particular crab scheme? - gets buried on page 4.
Ditto a story on health care shortfalls.
Recycled crap makes the front page where, typically one finds...
HOT CURRENT STORIES.
and the editorial? Well, let me just say this: the more Ryan slags everyone else and claims that his paper is somehow superior, the more I know it is just spin; pure unrefined shite. Every week, I look through the Indy and I have yet to see any story that isn't covered just as well if not better in any other news outlet in the province. Well, almost any. I don't read The Monitor any more.
And when I see recycled flatulent crap, as I did this week yet again, on the Indy front page, no less, I can explain to you why your circ sucks. It has nothing to do with CBC refusing your TV spots.
The basic problem is that you claim to be the newspaper for thinking people. You claim to be informative and a whole bunch of other things. Anybody who has looked at the paper knows that it isn't any of those things. Your ad campaign sets you up for a gigantic credibility gap when they hear the ad and then look at a paper that is more like the Spindependent or, this week, the Windependent than the newspaper for thoughtful people.
If you want to boost your circulation, Ryan, stop telling me how great you are. Try writing a story that proves it. Stop with the grandiose and go back to the basics. Give me solid research, a novel approach, some background and good writing. No one is really interested with the stuff they can get anywhere else, including Open Line. And they obviously aren't really interested in pseudo-nationalist rantings in place of well-researched stuff that draws its conclusions from the evidence, not picks evidence to fit the preconceived conclusions.
In the long run, you'll find that approach is actually less expensive than the in-house ad campaign and it will be more effective in boosting your audience. Boost the audience and you can sell enough advertising to pay the bills.
In the meantime, I'll just recycle my existing bank of quotes from Gus and Sue and Ivan and Ryan and John Fitz.
And I'll keep telling people to wait until Wednesday.
Nothing in the Spindy is so hot you have to read it on Sunday.
And on Wednesday, you can get the Spindy for what it is worth right now.
I sincerely wish it were otherwise.
Yes, I know you hear that every time I write about the Indy, but this time I really mean it.
Page 1: A story about foreign overfishing and how critics say trade relations with the EU are more important than sending out the navy to shoot any foreigner daring to take fish we should rightly be driving into extinction ourselves. What's new: there isn't a quote from Gus "Highgrade" Etchegary. This time the anti-foreigner quotes are from Sheila Copps, since Sheila is in town plugging her own book and demonstrating - via John Crosbie - that not all Newfoundlanders have the talent of Rick Mercer.
Page 1: a story in which Leo Puddester promises a "racket" over treatment his members are getting from government . Yeah Leo. Right. We heard that one last year, when there actually was a fight and well, there was a fight. But that was last year, Leo.
Page 1: A story by Jeff Ducharme telling us that, surprise surprise, Alberta makes way more money of its oil and gas than we do from ours. Try to find a reason for running that story. I guess we need to hear that yet again in order to be a well-informed, thinking person.
Editorial: Condemning CBC for not running the Indy's arrogant, insulting and completely laughable TV spots. (Yes Ryan, they were produced in-house and rather cheaply; It shows.)
Running through most of the editorial are the predictable things: The Indy is the only locally owned paper in the province. Every other news organization is pure shite. Buy us and be a thinking person. Blah. Blah. Blah.
There's another column by Ivan Morgan saying stuff I swear he said to me over a beer at the Breezeway or Ben's 20 years ago.
There's a column by John Crosbie attacking Liberals for corruption. John ignores his colleagues from the old Tory party from Quebec who did hard time for political crimes in the Mulroney years, but I digress.
There's a short-I mean really short - article on the Radar for Goose campaign. Interviews with proponents only. No background. Obviously people who read this blog know more about X band radar than anyone who relies on the locally owned paper for thinking people.
There's a story on page 4 on a road in Quebec that might mean the Stunnel is a living breathing idea. Above that on the page are stories on the crab plan and complaints from Labrador about a lack of kidney dialysis.
Now think about that.
I mean really think.
A hot current story about the fishery that screams for background detail - why did Trevor Taylor cook up this particular crab scheme? - gets buried on page 4.
Ditto a story on health care shortfalls.
Recycled crap makes the front page where, typically one finds...
HOT CURRENT STORIES.
and the editorial? Well, let me just say this: the more Ryan slags everyone else and claims that his paper is somehow superior, the more I know it is just spin; pure unrefined shite. Every week, I look through the Indy and I have yet to see any story that isn't covered just as well if not better in any other news outlet in the province. Well, almost any. I don't read The Monitor any more.
And when I see recycled flatulent crap, as I did this week yet again, on the Indy front page, no less, I can explain to you why your circ sucks. It has nothing to do with CBC refusing your TV spots.
The basic problem is that you claim to be the newspaper for thinking people. You claim to be informative and a whole bunch of other things. Anybody who has looked at the paper knows that it isn't any of those things. Your ad campaign sets you up for a gigantic credibility gap when they hear the ad and then look at a paper that is more like the Spindependent or, this week, the Windependent than the newspaper for thoughtful people.
If you want to boost your circulation, Ryan, stop telling me how great you are. Try writing a story that proves it. Stop with the grandiose and go back to the basics. Give me solid research, a novel approach, some background and good writing. No one is really interested with the stuff they can get anywhere else, including Open Line. And they obviously aren't really interested in pseudo-nationalist rantings in place of well-researched stuff that draws its conclusions from the evidence, not picks evidence to fit the preconceived conclusions.
In the long run, you'll find that approach is actually less expensive than the in-house ad campaign and it will be more effective in boosting your audience. Boost the audience and you can sell enough advertising to pay the bills.
In the meantime, I'll just recycle my existing bank of quotes from Gus and Sue and Ivan and Ryan and John Fitz.
And I'll keep telling people to wait until Wednesday.
Nothing in the Spindy is so hot you have to read it on Sunday.
And on Wednesday, you can get the Spindy for what it is worth right now.
I sincerely wish it were otherwise.
14 March 2005
Spin Control: NBC offers whine with the news
NBC Nightly news today offered up some whining to go with the rest of its coverage.
The story: "GOP under fire for producing news ‘reports’; Critics say it’s nothing but PR disguised as news" by Andrea Mitchell.
"Available on the Internet to TV stations across the country: Upbeat reports on Iraq. [...]But all these reports were written and distributed by the administration and its public relations firms — not by journalists."
The offensive Internet video pieces are all a form of video news releases (VNRs), a recent version of the standard type-written news release that is offered in either audio only or in video formats that, like their print relatives, follow the style of a news broadcast.
Mitchell's report suggests that these government-produced videos are being improperly distributed to the American public and are not being correctly identified as to the source. She refers to a recent Government Accountability Office report that appears to label all Bush administration VNRs as propaganda and therefore banned under a law dating back to the early 1950s.
There are a few problems with Ms. Mitchell's report that qualify her it as pure spin: blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
1. Take a trip to the State department site. Here's the link. You only get to this page after clicking on the Press and Public Affairs link (another word for public or media relations) and then clicking on a link called audio and video release. Start at www.state.gov to see my point.
Ms. Mitchell doesn't indicate anywhere how this is actually deceptive from the perspective of anyone visiting the website of a government department. The materials are clearly labeled and anyone navigating the State site will only get to the audio and video releases by the same route they would get to the print ones.
2. Ms. Mitchell does refer to a GAO opinion. What she doesn't state is that this opinion was rendered based on a 2003 appropriations amendment that provides "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.” Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). That is an extract from a specific decision by the GAO.
Now look more closely at the criteria the GAO used in its assessment to determine if a particular video news release violates the ban on publicity or propaganda not specifically authorized by Congress. To violate the ban, a video news release must:
- be self-aggrandizing;
- purely partisan in nature; or,
- covert as to source.
In my quick survey, the materials as presented on the departmental websites are neither self-agrandizing, purely partisan and they are clearly not covert.
What are the odds the "ban" was added by the Democrats as part of the ongoing partisan war with the Bush White House?
Personally, even if that weren't true, I'd consider the GOA decisions as essential information for Ms. Mitchell's report. Leaving out the context of the GAO decisions counts as deliberately misleading or misrepresenting matters of fact that would have the effect of advertently or inadvertently misleading her audience.
Ms. Mitchell's piece appears to condemn all VNRs; US federal law and the GAO opinions are about very specific pieces of work.
If anything, Ms. Mitchell has a problem with some of her colleagues in the world of TV news who, as her piece notes, use the VNRs and dub their own voices onto the audio track using exactly the same script to make it appear as though they were original.
Here are a couple of observations from the real world: that type of misrepresentation described by Ms. Mitchell - that is the presentation of someone else's work as one's own is utterly unethical - it is plagiarism. It's a firing offense. Redub an audio track verbatim; expect to get fired. If Andrea Mitchell wanted to do a story, she had one right there.
But it is equally improper for Ms. Mitchell and NBC to slag "public relations" people for the failings of her colleagues.
If she were to look at the "print" news releases it is very common for a significant chunk of the release content to make into print copy or into video and audio voice-overs by reporters. There is no substantive difference between the print and video versions of news releases nor in their subsequent use by reporters in that instance. That said, however, using upwards of 60% of my copy, for example, in a reporter's account makes me smile, but it is hardly the travesty Ms. Mitchell claims.
I label my stuff accurately and to the best of my knowledge my professional colleagues do likewise. However, NBC should not attack public relations professionals for doing their job in a similar manner. If Ms. Mitchell can demonstrate otherwise, then report the plain facts - don't use a limited GAO report or series of reports on specific incidents as a blanket condemnation of a useful information tool. Ms. Mitchell's report is akin to spearing all journalists because one guy invented quotes and even people.
To go a step farther, I would also question the validity of the GAO report cited above. It makes reference to government-prepared editorials and labels them as propaganda since they are "covert". Not exactly. If the news organization receiving them knows where they are coming from, then they are overt. If the news organization misrepresents the editorial copy then it is at fault.
So why is this whining?
Well, some news organizations dislike the Internet. Established electronic media - like CBC for example - thrive on being able to interpret the world for their audiences. They made their bread and butter and want to continue making it by being the filter through which the wider public gets its information.
In the old days, a news release only went to a news room where it could be dissected, plagiarised, attacked, ignored or whatevered at the whim of the news editors and the reporters.
Today, thanks to the Internet an organization can supply its perspective unfiltered to the audience. It's all usually clearly marked so no one gets fooled, but in a sense it cuts out the middle-man.
That's one of the reasons CBC took such a vehement, almost rabid stand against embedding reporters with military forces during the invasion of Iraq.
It's one of the reasons why a reporter like Andrea Mitchell would spin her report against video news releases and their distribution via the Internet. Go back and look at her lead again.
And the other piece of spin today? This story followed a report that the Bush administration has just appointed someone to help improve communications with the Middle East. What better time to lob some flak at the new flak-bait.
Well spun, Andrea.
As your close indicates, the best way to spin the news is spin it yourself.
Too bad none of piece was news you can trust.
The story: "GOP under fire for producing news ‘reports’; Critics say it’s nothing but PR disguised as news" by Andrea Mitchell.
"Available on the Internet to TV stations across the country: Upbeat reports on Iraq. [...]But all these reports were written and distributed by the administration and its public relations firms — not by journalists."
The offensive Internet video pieces are all a form of video news releases (VNRs), a recent version of the standard type-written news release that is offered in either audio only or in video formats that, like their print relatives, follow the style of a news broadcast.
Mitchell's report suggests that these government-produced videos are being improperly distributed to the American public and are not being correctly identified as to the source. She refers to a recent Government Accountability Office report that appears to label all Bush administration VNRs as propaganda and therefore banned under a law dating back to the early 1950s.
There are a few problems with Ms. Mitchell's report that qualify her it as pure spin: blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
1. Take a trip to the State department site. Here's the link. You only get to this page after clicking on the Press and Public Affairs link (another word for public or media relations) and then clicking on a link called audio and video release. Start at www.state.gov to see my point.
Ms. Mitchell doesn't indicate anywhere how this is actually deceptive from the perspective of anyone visiting the website of a government department. The materials are clearly labeled and anyone navigating the State site will only get to the audio and video releases by the same route they would get to the print ones.
2. Ms. Mitchell does refer to a GAO opinion. What she doesn't state is that this opinion was rendered based on a 2003 appropriations amendment that provides "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.” Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003). That is an extract from a specific decision by the GAO.
Now look more closely at the criteria the GAO used in its assessment to determine if a particular video news release violates the ban on publicity or propaganda not specifically authorized by Congress. To violate the ban, a video news release must:
- be self-aggrandizing;
- purely partisan in nature; or,
- covert as to source.
In my quick survey, the materials as presented on the departmental websites are neither self-agrandizing, purely partisan and they are clearly not covert.
What are the odds the "ban" was added by the Democrats as part of the ongoing partisan war with the Bush White House?
Personally, even if that weren't true, I'd consider the GOA decisions as essential information for Ms. Mitchell's report. Leaving out the context of the GAO decisions counts as deliberately misleading or misrepresenting matters of fact that would have the effect of advertently or inadvertently misleading her audience.
Ms. Mitchell's piece appears to condemn all VNRs; US federal law and the GAO opinions are about very specific pieces of work.
If anything, Ms. Mitchell has a problem with some of her colleagues in the world of TV news who, as her piece notes, use the VNRs and dub their own voices onto the audio track using exactly the same script to make it appear as though they were original.
Here are a couple of observations from the real world: that type of misrepresentation described by Ms. Mitchell - that is the presentation of someone else's work as one's own is utterly unethical - it is plagiarism. It's a firing offense. Redub an audio track verbatim; expect to get fired. If Andrea Mitchell wanted to do a story, she had one right there.
But it is equally improper for Ms. Mitchell and NBC to slag "public relations" people for the failings of her colleagues.
If she were to look at the "print" news releases it is very common for a significant chunk of the release content to make into print copy or into video and audio voice-overs by reporters. There is no substantive difference between the print and video versions of news releases nor in their subsequent use by reporters in that instance. That said, however, using upwards of 60% of my copy, for example, in a reporter's account makes me smile, but it is hardly the travesty Ms. Mitchell claims.
I label my stuff accurately and to the best of my knowledge my professional colleagues do likewise. However, NBC should not attack public relations professionals for doing their job in a similar manner. If Ms. Mitchell can demonstrate otherwise, then report the plain facts - don't use a limited GAO report or series of reports on specific incidents as a blanket condemnation of a useful information tool. Ms. Mitchell's report is akin to spearing all journalists because one guy invented quotes and even people.
To go a step farther, I would also question the validity of the GAO report cited above. It makes reference to government-prepared editorials and labels them as propaganda since they are "covert". Not exactly. If the news organization receiving them knows where they are coming from, then they are overt. If the news organization misrepresents the editorial copy then it is at fault.
So why is this whining?
Well, some news organizations dislike the Internet. Established electronic media - like CBC for example - thrive on being able to interpret the world for their audiences. They made their bread and butter and want to continue making it by being the filter through which the wider public gets its information.
In the old days, a news release only went to a news room where it could be dissected, plagiarised, attacked, ignored or whatevered at the whim of the news editors and the reporters.
Today, thanks to the Internet an organization can supply its perspective unfiltered to the audience. It's all usually clearly marked so no one gets fooled, but in a sense it cuts out the middle-man.
That's one of the reasons CBC took such a vehement, almost rabid stand against embedding reporters with military forces during the invasion of Iraq.
It's one of the reasons why a reporter like Andrea Mitchell would spin her report against video news releases and their distribution via the Internet. Go back and look at her lead again.
And the other piece of spin today? This story followed a report that the Bush administration has just appointed someone to help improve communications with the Middle East. What better time to lob some flak at the new flak-bait.
Well spun, Andrea.
As your close indicates, the best way to spin the news is spin it yourself.
Too bad none of piece was news you can trust.
Danny Deficit Billions?
If Loyola Sullivan's worst case scenario comes true, Danny Williams will increase the province's accrual debt by an amount that is 76% of the total direct debt since Confederation.
Loyola Sullivan never flings words around carelessly, especially when it comes to numbers. He has a love of numbers and decimals and fractions that even a mathematician or account would find perverse. So if Loyola actually told CBC Radio on Friday that the accrual debt could hit $17.0 billion then $17.0 billion is well within the range of possibilities.
Let's take another look at Loyola Sullivan's deficit and debt projections and put it in perspective.
He told CBC Radio that "We're going to have significantly more [debt] over the next number of years," he says.
"We're going to have [a] $14-, $15-, $16-, maybe $17-billion debt before we stop this. So, it's a huge problem. Our problem is still growing." That is a direct quote.
If government was able to reduce the accrual deficit from its current level of about $500 million down to zero (a completely balanced budget) in the next four years, the provincial government would add $2.0 billion to the debt. The total debt at the end would be around $14.0 billion, up from the current level of near $12.0 billion.
(Deficit is how much more we spend than we take in during any given year; debt is the accumulation of all the overspending and any other long term borrowing. Direct debt is what the government owes directly. Accrual debt is the total of everything owed by government and its agencies and any loan guarantees and other liabilities backed by the Crown.)
In order to hit that $17.0 billion figure we would have to increase the debt by $5.0 billion. In other words, we would have to incur annual deficits averaging $500 million for another decade.
Observation 1: In order to hit that number for the debt, it would be 2014 at the earliest before the provincial budget would be balanced.
The Commitments:
A. The Budget. In last year's budget, Loyola Sullivan was careful to commit to balancing the books on a cash basis only by 2007-08. He said that "[i]n March 2007, this government will present the people of this province with a budget that is balanced on a cash basis and that will be sustainable into the future."
B. The Blue Book. Loyola Sullivan made reference to the Blue Book commitments in that speech. Specifically, the commitment was to:
- Eliminate the total capital and current account deficit by 2008;
- [Achieve] a net debt to GDP ratio of 40% or less by 2008; and ,
- [Make] [a]nnual payments to the public sector pension funds that will achieve real year-over-year reductions in the unfunded liability of public sector pension plans.
PriceWaterHouse Coopers comments: The Gourley report made the claim that the province could not balance its current and capital account by the same period. These are not exactly the same thing. "Cash" is sometimes used interchangeably with "current" meaning the money spent for salaries and operations.
On that basis the budget is already balanced and should remain balanced if not in surplus for the next five to eight years. As PriceWaterHouseCoopers reports (p. 34):
"These projections show that even with an assumed level of restraint on expenditure growth and growth in oil related revenues from a forecast $160.1 million for 2003-04 to $491.9 million in 2007-08, it will not be possible to eliminate the Province’s cash or consolidated accrual deficits within the next four years."
Assessment 1: There are contradictions between the Blue Book and current government commitments.
The current account has been balanced already consistent with Blue Book and the last budget.
However, the budget speech only committed clearly to balancing current account. There is no commitment to balancing the capital account nor is there a clear commitment to carrying through on the Blue Book promise of tackling the unfunded pension liabilities.
Mr. Sullivan's comments to CBC suggest yet another set of fiscal commitments that do not resemble those made previously except in broad outline.
Based on Mr. Sullivan's comments, government does not intend to reduce the unfunded pension liability in the short- to medium- term. It will also not achieve its commitment to balance the current and capital accounts before the next election. In fact, government may take up to a decade to achieve a balanced budget despite a commitment to attain current and capital balance within four years and achieve "real" reductions in the accrual debt and deficit.
Observation 2: In 2014, there will be less revenue life left in the offshore than we have now. That means the province will balance the books and have all the debt servicing costs associated with that at the very point when provincial government offshore revenues will start to decline.
Go back and have a look at the offshore revenue projections Wade Locke made in his public presentation in February. Locke projected that in 2014, direct offshore revenue would be slightly more than $200 million and would decline annually until 2025. Compare that to 2007/08 when projections have oil revenue being between $600 million and $1.1 billion, depending on the price of oil per barrel.
Observation 3: The current provincial government direct debt is approximately $6.5 billion according to statements from the provincial department of Finance.
In Mr. Sullivan's' worst case scenario (accrual debt = $17.0 billion by 2014), the provincial government debt during the Williams administration would grow by an amount equal to 76% of the accumulated direct debt from 1949 to 2004.
I am still sitting here with mouth agape at the prospect that the provincial government might actually be that far away from its commitments last year.
Maybe Loyola didn't mean it.
But did he not mean what he said last Friday or what he said last year?
Loyola Sullivan never flings words around carelessly, especially when it comes to numbers. He has a love of numbers and decimals and fractions that even a mathematician or account would find perverse. So if Loyola actually told CBC Radio on Friday that the accrual debt could hit $17.0 billion then $17.0 billion is well within the range of possibilities.
Let's take another look at Loyola Sullivan's deficit and debt projections and put it in perspective.
He told CBC Radio that "We're going to have significantly more [debt] over the next number of years," he says.
"We're going to have [a] $14-, $15-, $16-, maybe $17-billion debt before we stop this. So, it's a huge problem. Our problem is still growing." That is a direct quote.
If government was able to reduce the accrual deficit from its current level of about $500 million down to zero (a completely balanced budget) in the next four years, the provincial government would add $2.0 billion to the debt. The total debt at the end would be around $14.0 billion, up from the current level of near $12.0 billion.
(Deficit is how much more we spend than we take in during any given year; debt is the accumulation of all the overspending and any other long term borrowing. Direct debt is what the government owes directly. Accrual debt is the total of everything owed by government and its agencies and any loan guarantees and other liabilities backed by the Crown.)
In order to hit that $17.0 billion figure we would have to increase the debt by $5.0 billion. In other words, we would have to incur annual deficits averaging $500 million for another decade.
Observation 1: In order to hit that number for the debt, it would be 2014 at the earliest before the provincial budget would be balanced.
The Commitments:
A. The Budget. In last year's budget, Loyola Sullivan was careful to commit to balancing the books on a cash basis only by 2007-08. He said that "[i]n March 2007, this government will present the people of this province with a budget that is balanced on a cash basis and that will be sustainable into the future."
B. The Blue Book. Loyola Sullivan made reference to the Blue Book commitments in that speech. Specifically, the commitment was to:
- Eliminate the total capital and current account deficit by 2008;
- [Achieve] a net debt to GDP ratio of 40% or less by 2008; and ,
- [Make] [a]nnual payments to the public sector pension funds that will achieve real year-over-year reductions in the unfunded liability of public sector pension plans.
PriceWaterHouse Coopers comments: The Gourley report made the claim that the province could not balance its current and capital account by the same period. These are not exactly the same thing. "Cash" is sometimes used interchangeably with "current" meaning the money spent for salaries and operations.
On that basis the budget is already balanced and should remain balanced if not in surplus for the next five to eight years. As PriceWaterHouseCoopers reports (p. 34):
"These projections show that even with an assumed level of restraint on expenditure growth and growth in oil related revenues from a forecast $160.1 million for 2003-04 to $491.9 million in 2007-08, it will not be possible to eliminate the Province’s cash or consolidated accrual deficits within the next four years."
Assessment 1: There are contradictions between the Blue Book and current government commitments.
The current account has been balanced already consistent with Blue Book and the last budget.
However, the budget speech only committed clearly to balancing current account. There is no commitment to balancing the capital account nor is there a clear commitment to carrying through on the Blue Book promise of tackling the unfunded pension liabilities.
Mr. Sullivan's comments to CBC suggest yet another set of fiscal commitments that do not resemble those made previously except in broad outline.
Based on Mr. Sullivan's comments, government does not intend to reduce the unfunded pension liability in the short- to medium- term. It will also not achieve its commitment to balance the current and capital accounts before the next election. In fact, government may take up to a decade to achieve a balanced budget despite a commitment to attain current and capital balance within four years and achieve "real" reductions in the accrual debt and deficit.
Observation 2: In 2014, there will be less revenue life left in the offshore than we have now. That means the province will balance the books and have all the debt servicing costs associated with that at the very point when provincial government offshore revenues will start to decline.
Go back and have a look at the offshore revenue projections Wade Locke made in his public presentation in February. Locke projected that in 2014, direct offshore revenue would be slightly more than $200 million and would decline annually until 2025. Compare that to 2007/08 when projections have oil revenue being between $600 million and $1.1 billion, depending on the price of oil per barrel.
Observation 3: The current provincial government direct debt is approximately $6.5 billion according to statements from the provincial department of Finance.
In Mr. Sullivan's' worst case scenario (accrual debt = $17.0 billion by 2014), the provincial government debt during the Williams administration would grow by an amount equal to 76% of the accumulated direct debt from 1949 to 2004.
I am still sitting here with mouth agape at the prospect that the provincial government might actually be that far away from its commitments last year.
Maybe Loyola didn't mean it.
But did he not mean what he said last Friday or what he said last year?
Loyola Sullivan's Credibility Gap: Welcome to the Grand Canyon
It is possible the CBC story actually misquotes Loyola, but I don't think so.
Let's compare the claims Loyola makes and compare them to the facts
Claim 1: "Starting with its first budget last March, the Williams government has changed the way it reckons its books.
Last year's projection, for instance, included the cash or current account deficit of $362 million, which traditionally has been the only figure governments have reported as its deficit.
However, the Tories now included all liabilities, including pension deficits."
This is CBC background but it reinforces the general tone of Loyola's comments. These aren't Loyola's errors directly but they increase the errors of Loyola's actual comments by putting them in a false context.
Fact: The provincial government switched to accrual accounting two fiscal years before the Williams administration took office. Those projections included all liabilities, including pension deficits.
Fact: There was nothing new in last year's budget figures.
Fact: The $362 million cash shortfall Loyola predicted was wiped out by economic growth including oil price windfalls.
Fact: The 2004 accrual deficit will be closer to $500 million, almost half the amount projected in March 2004.
Claim 2: "Sullivan says it would be impossible to balance the budget in the next three to four years without deep cuts to government spending.
Instead, he expects the deficit to hover at around $500 million for at least a few more years."
Fact: Provincial government revenues will increase annually for the foreseeable future.
Fact: The provincial government's own projections show oil revenues in Fiscal Year 2006 will be at least $600 million. That's three times current annual revenues.
Therefore, it should be possible to balance the province's books on an accrual basis without "massive cuts" to spending.
Claim 3: "That could change, he says, if oil prices soar and government revenues increase.
However, Sullivan says the debt will continue to grow, no matter what happens."
Fact: the ONLY way that the debt will continue to grow despite revenue increases will be if the provincial government fails to address the deficit and debt as it pledged in the Blue Print AND it increases spending in the meantime.
Fact: Oil prices are expected to remain at high levels, therefore increasing provincial government revenues beyond the projections used in the first six months of 2004.
Fact: The federal government has already announced increases to federal transfers in addition to the January offshore deal.
Fact: Voisey's Bay and White Rose will begin production within the next three years increasing government revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Fact: Hebron-Ben Nevis will likely be brought onstream before 2010, further increasing government revenue. Development spending will increase government revenue before the field comes on stream.
Claim 4: "In particular, he says the government needs to spend money on infrastructure to help the economy and to boost government revenue."
Fact: There is a need to spend money on infrastructure like roads and schools.
Fact: This spending is designed to correct previous neglect, not to help the economy. The economy is thriving largely due to resource developments that are not dependent on infrastructure spending.
Fact: Government spending on infrastructure will not boost government revenues. [Let's allow that this sentence is an error by the CBC webpage writer. Maybe the increased government revenues is something else the government needs to do besides spend on infrastructure. As anyone can see, though, government revenues will increase anyway.]
Let's compare the claims Loyola makes and compare them to the facts
Claim 1: "Starting with its first budget last March, the Williams government has changed the way it reckons its books.
Last year's projection, for instance, included the cash or current account deficit of $362 million, which traditionally has been the only figure governments have reported as its deficit.
However, the Tories now included all liabilities, including pension deficits."
This is CBC background but it reinforces the general tone of Loyola's comments. These aren't Loyola's errors directly but they increase the errors of Loyola's actual comments by putting them in a false context.
Fact: The provincial government switched to accrual accounting two fiscal years before the Williams administration took office. Those projections included all liabilities, including pension deficits.
Fact: There was nothing new in last year's budget figures.
Fact: The $362 million cash shortfall Loyola predicted was wiped out by economic growth including oil price windfalls.
Fact: The 2004 accrual deficit will be closer to $500 million, almost half the amount projected in March 2004.
Claim 2: "Sullivan says it would be impossible to balance the budget in the next three to four years without deep cuts to government spending.
Instead, he expects the deficit to hover at around $500 million for at least a few more years."
Fact: Provincial government revenues will increase annually for the foreseeable future.
Fact: The provincial government's own projections show oil revenues in Fiscal Year 2006 will be at least $600 million. That's three times current annual revenues.
Therefore, it should be possible to balance the province's books on an accrual basis without "massive cuts" to spending.
Claim 3: "That could change, he says, if oil prices soar and government revenues increase.
However, Sullivan says the debt will continue to grow, no matter what happens."
Fact: the ONLY way that the debt will continue to grow despite revenue increases will be if the provincial government fails to address the deficit and debt as it pledged in the Blue Print AND it increases spending in the meantime.
Fact: Oil prices are expected to remain at high levels, therefore increasing provincial government revenues beyond the projections used in the first six months of 2004.
Fact: The federal government has already announced increases to federal transfers in addition to the January offshore deal.
Fact: Voisey's Bay and White Rose will begin production within the next three years increasing government revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Fact: Hebron-Ben Nevis will likely be brought onstream before 2010, further increasing government revenue. Development spending will increase government revenue before the field comes on stream.
Claim 4: "In particular, he says the government needs to spend money on infrastructure to help the economy and to boost government revenue."
Fact: There is a need to spend money on infrastructure like roads and schools.
Fact: This spending is designed to correct previous neglect, not to help the economy. The economy is thriving largely due to resource developments that are not dependent on infrastructure spending.
Fact: Government spending on infrastructure will not boost government revenues. [Let's allow that this sentence is an error by the CBC webpage writer. Maybe the increased government revenues is something else the government needs to do besides spend on infrastructure. As anyone can see, though, government revenues will increase anyway.]
Loyola's Brush: Sullivan signals return to Tobinism
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
In a CBC Radio story this morning, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, newly stripped by the Premier of his spine - read Flo Delaney, is now warning the people of the province that the government's debt will continue to spiral unchecked under the Progressive Conservatives.
Sullivan is warning that the government's accrual deficit (the difference between revenue and spending) will hover around $500 million for each of the next three years. That adds another $1.5 billion to the province's debt and will eat up every single nickel of the money so lavishly worshipped in the recent Valentine's Day offshore deal celebrations.
Holy Cow.
Think about it this way:
- Sullivan predicted last year that the cash shortfall would be almost $400 million this year alone, with an all-inclusive deficit of a little over $900 million.
- Through a combination of spending restraint, economic growth and windfalls from increased oil prices, the provincial government is expected to post a modest surplus on a cash basis this year. The only thing seriously out of whack in the provincial government's budget will remain the unfunded pension liabilities found chiefly in the teacher's pension fund.
- These huge deficits are projected to come at a time when oil revenues will hit their peak - almost $1.0 billion by some projections - and at a time when the new oil deal will continue to ship federal transfers to the province.
- These huge deficits will occur despite added revenues from White Rose and Voisey's Bay, both of which come on stream within the next three years. The deficits will occur despite the likelihood Hebron Ben Nevis will start swelling government coffers before the decade is out.
In other words:
despite massive record-setting increases in the provincial government record-high revenue - even without the extra $2.0 billion from Ottawa - Loyola Sullivan is warning that we will continue to run record deficits and add to our already record-high debt load.
Sullivan's comments today signal an end to the restraint program announced last year in the Premier's hideous January 5 speech. A seeming long-term program to sort out the provincial government's eternal fiscal problems has been abandoned at the end of Year One.
Instead, there seems to be a return to Tobinesque spending on short-term projects designed primarily to boost the government's (read the Premier's) political popularity.
It sounds like the provincial government isn't going to expend a single penny on fighting the unfunded pension liabilities. Government could set aside an amount from the oil money in a pension fund which would progressively reduce the unfunded liability, even if it did not wipe it out altogether and even in the absence of an agreement with teachers. Make no mistake though teachers are going to have to ante up and help fix their pension problems. Danny Williams should be applying his considerable power to tackling those labour problems, as unpopular as that may make him.
That would be a start and would lower the projected deficit without consuming all the new money flowing.
This is unthinkable.
If Loyola Sullivan wants to be truly accountable, he would release some detailed financial projections with his new budget. We need to see all the figures he has access to. We need to see the basis on which government is making its projections. Then, during his next round of budget "consultations", he might get a rude shock.
The "consultations" might actual contain some concrete directions from his real boss - the voters - as to what he should be doing in order to keep his job.
If Loyola thinks people turned on Brian Tobin after they'd had a good look at thim, wait 'til they get a hard look at a bunch of guys that have more money than anybody else running the place ever had and still manage to spend more and more and more besides.
Be very afraid.
In a CBC Radio story this morning, finance minister Loyola Sullivan, newly stripped by the Premier of his spine - read Flo Delaney, is now warning the people of the province that the government's debt will continue to spiral unchecked under the Progressive Conservatives.
Sullivan is warning that the government's accrual deficit (the difference between revenue and spending) will hover around $500 million for each of the next three years. That adds another $1.5 billion to the province's debt and will eat up every single nickel of the money so lavishly worshipped in the recent Valentine's Day offshore deal celebrations.
Holy Cow.
Think about it this way:
- Sullivan predicted last year that the cash shortfall would be almost $400 million this year alone, with an all-inclusive deficit of a little over $900 million.
- Through a combination of spending restraint, economic growth and windfalls from increased oil prices, the provincial government is expected to post a modest surplus on a cash basis this year. The only thing seriously out of whack in the provincial government's budget will remain the unfunded pension liabilities found chiefly in the teacher's pension fund.
That represents a changed cash flow of almost $700 million, seemingly the largest error in provincial government budget calculations in more than 15 years.
- These huge deficits are projected to come at a time when oil revenues will hit their peak - almost $1.0 billion by some projections - and at a time when the new oil deal will continue to ship federal transfers to the province.
- These huge deficits will occur despite added revenues from White Rose and Voisey's Bay, both of which come on stream within the next three years. The deficits will occur despite the likelihood Hebron Ben Nevis will start swelling government coffers before the decade is out.
In other words:
despite massive record-setting increases in the provincial government record-high revenue - even without the extra $2.0 billion from Ottawa - Loyola Sullivan is warning that we will continue to run record deficits and add to our already record-high debt load.
Sullivan's comments today signal an end to the restraint program announced last year in the Premier's hideous January 5 speech. A seeming long-term program to sort out the provincial government's eternal fiscal problems has been abandoned at the end of Year One.
Instead, there seems to be a return to Tobinesque spending on short-term projects designed primarily to boost the government's (read the Premier's) political popularity.
It sounds like the provincial government isn't going to expend a single penny on fighting the unfunded pension liabilities. Government could set aside an amount from the oil money in a pension fund which would progressively reduce the unfunded liability, even if it did not wipe it out altogether and even in the absence of an agreement with teachers. Make no mistake though teachers are going to have to ante up and help fix their pension problems. Danny Williams should be applying his considerable power to tackling those labour problems, as unpopular as that may make him.
That would be a start and would lower the projected deficit without consuming all the new money flowing.
This is unthinkable.
If Loyola Sullivan wants to be truly accountable, he would release some detailed financial projections with his new budget. We need to see all the figures he has access to. We need to see the basis on which government is making its projections. Then, during his next round of budget "consultations", he might get a rude shock.
The "consultations" might actual contain some concrete directions from his real boss - the voters - as to what he should be doing in order to keep his job.
If Loyola thinks people turned on Brian Tobin after they'd had a good look at thim, wait 'til they get a hard look at a bunch of guys that have more money than anybody else running the place ever had and still manage to spend more and more and more besides.
11 March 2005
Buffing a TRD
On a snowy Friday in March, a few days before the House is due to re-open Danny Williams decides to shuffle around a couple of portfolios. Here's the release, in all its flatulent splendor.
Trevor Taylor gives up Labrador Affairs to Paul Shelley, who gains new responsibilities because, as the release says, Paul has "deep roots" in the Big Land.
Trevor apparently has big challenges in fisheries and aquaculture, meaning that he is taking flack for the recent crab business, the sideways shuffle of a policy that was an apt metaphor for the species it affected.
At the same time, the Minister of Justice gets to take Intergovernmental Affairs. Ostensibly meaning - the release claims - this change allows the Premier to devote more time to other things like the Department of Business.
This little creation, you may recall, has sat moribund for the entire time the Tories have been in office. It still exists without a deputy minister or assistant deputy and, as near as anyone can figure out, any defined purpose that is different from anything that has gone before.
The only major departmental initiative to date appears to have been handing over almost $100, 000 to a local marketing firm to do some baseline research on attitudes to the province. It was undoubtedly good work done by an excellent firm but one must look askance at the lack of productivity of this department.
Business as a department of its own (acronym DBus, pronounced "Dee Bus") duplicates the work of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - with the acronym InTRD - formerly Industry, Trade and Rural Development, with the acronym ITRD or as I preferred DITRD. [Wags out there will stick a "u" between the "t" and the "r" to get the full sound of both acronyms, but I digress. Sometimes acronyms are inadvertently meaningful.]
The DBus budget consists essentially of the money formerly allocated to the "Manufactured Right Here" promotion in InTRD. No surprise therefore that its major project in the coming months is likely to be... wait for it...a promotion campaign to "brand" the province in the investment sector on the mainland. For that, we need a minister (the Premier) and a whole departmental apparatus. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
If this shuffle is about productivity and focus, I'll make a simple observation that might produce a greater result than debussing the Premier from IGA.
My observation is even more substantial that having ministers and their staffs actually working rather than paying attention to Open Line and then calling in to comment on something. Surely to goodness the Premier can communicate more effectively with the people of the province than by calling an open line program like say...the Moon Man or Sue used to do. Surely there are better uses for political staff than sitting by their radios for upwards of six hours a day on the off chance Joe from Bung Hole Tickle will call and complain about the government.
People complain about government like they breathe. Government in this province started to get less productive after the arrival of Brian Tobin, when he and his crowd started spending more time working the phones to Bill and George rather than trying to get some work done. Danny and his crowd seem to be following suit.
That said, I am going to hang my blogger hat on a more substantial issue. If you take this release at face value, the DBus has been lagging because the Premier has been preoccupied with other things, like the offshore oil talks. That's an admission of what I have said before. The time-management and productivity problem of this government sits solely in the Premier's own lap. Danny Williams has injected himself into anything and everything he could whenever he could. As a consequence, the government has been dealing with issues in series rather than in parallel.
As I noted in the post "Ed Byrne Redux", the Premier needs to take his hands off files that properly belong to his ministers and let his ministers work them.
It is time for a New Approach, Danny. In fact, it's eighteen months past due. This minor shuffle can't fix one of the fundamental problems on The Hill. Even if Tom Marshall is the new IGA minister, everyone knows that the Premier will still be speaking on, acting on and otherwise working files that Tom would be capable of handling himself. Or Danny will be working stuff from Natural Resources, Fisheries, Aboriginal Affairs, Health or anything else that catches his or the media's attention.
The New Approach was supposed to be more than a novel use of the shift key.
Getting more productive activity out of this government will take more than changing the names of ministers on departmental letterhead.
There's an old saying in the public relations business that you can't buff a t*rd. It means that no amount of "spin" or flatulent writing can cover over what everone else can see. It's like murdering both your parents and then calling for mercy because you're an orphan.
Shuffling around a couple of portfolios doesn't get at the root of the productivity challenge.
This release seems to be applying some Kiwi and spit instead.
Trevor Taylor gives up Labrador Affairs to Paul Shelley, who gains new responsibilities because, as the release says, Paul has "deep roots" in the Big Land.
Trevor apparently has big challenges in fisheries and aquaculture, meaning that he is taking flack for the recent crab business, the sideways shuffle of a policy that was an apt metaphor for the species it affected.
At the same time, the Minister of Justice gets to take Intergovernmental Affairs. Ostensibly meaning - the release claims - this change allows the Premier to devote more time to other things like the Department of Business.
This little creation, you may recall, has sat moribund for the entire time the Tories have been in office. It still exists without a deputy minister or assistant deputy and, as near as anyone can figure out, any defined purpose that is different from anything that has gone before.
The only major departmental initiative to date appears to have been handing over almost $100, 000 to a local marketing firm to do some baseline research on attitudes to the province. It was undoubtedly good work done by an excellent firm but one must look askance at the lack of productivity of this department.
Business as a department of its own (acronym DBus, pronounced "Dee Bus") duplicates the work of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - with the acronym InTRD - formerly Industry, Trade and Rural Development, with the acronym ITRD or as I preferred DITRD. [Wags out there will stick a "u" between the "t" and the "r" to get the full sound of both acronyms, but I digress. Sometimes acronyms are inadvertently meaningful.]
The DBus budget consists essentially of the money formerly allocated to the "Manufactured Right Here" promotion in InTRD. No surprise therefore that its major project in the coming months is likely to be... wait for it...a promotion campaign to "brand" the province in the investment sector on the mainland. For that, we need a minister (the Premier) and a whole departmental apparatus. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
If this shuffle is about productivity and focus, I'll make a simple observation that might produce a greater result than debussing the Premier from IGA.
My observation is even more substantial that having ministers and their staffs actually working rather than paying attention to Open Line and then calling in to comment on something. Surely to goodness the Premier can communicate more effectively with the people of the province than by calling an open line program like say...the Moon Man or Sue used to do. Surely there are better uses for political staff than sitting by their radios for upwards of six hours a day on the off chance Joe from Bung Hole Tickle will call and complain about the government.
People complain about government like they breathe. Government in this province started to get less productive after the arrival of Brian Tobin, when he and his crowd started spending more time working the phones to Bill and George rather than trying to get some work done. Danny and his crowd seem to be following suit.
That said, I am going to hang my blogger hat on a more substantial issue. If you take this release at face value, the DBus has been lagging because the Premier has been preoccupied with other things, like the offshore oil talks. That's an admission of what I have said before. The time-management and productivity problem of this government sits solely in the Premier's own lap. Danny Williams has injected himself into anything and everything he could whenever he could. As a consequence, the government has been dealing with issues in series rather than in parallel.
As I noted in the post "Ed Byrne Redux", the Premier needs to take his hands off files that properly belong to his ministers and let his ministers work them.
It is time for a New Approach, Danny. In fact, it's eighteen months past due. This minor shuffle can't fix one of the fundamental problems on The Hill. Even if Tom Marshall is the new IGA minister, everyone knows that the Premier will still be speaking on, acting on and otherwise working files that Tom would be capable of handling himself. Or Danny will be working stuff from Natural Resources, Fisheries, Aboriginal Affairs, Health or anything else that catches his or the media's attention.
The New Approach was supposed to be more than a novel use of the shift key.
Getting more productive activity out of this government will take more than changing the names of ministers on departmental letterhead.
There's an old saying in the public relations business that you can't buff a t*rd. It means that no amount of "spin" or flatulent writing can cover over what everone else can see. It's like murdering both your parents and then calling for mercy because you're an orphan.
Shuffling around a couple of portfolios doesn't get at the root of the productivity challenge.
This release seems to be applying some Kiwi and spit instead.
10 March 2005
Paul Martin invests in Labrador, not Danny Williams
There was some reason behind Danny Williams' hastily organized road trip to Labrador this week involving the whole cabinet and a gigantic news conference of cash announcements.
There was a reason...
but damned if I can figure out what it was.
Nor, as I have discovered can anyone else I know offer a theoretically possible explanation that doesn't involve a misalignment of celestial bodies.
The best theory goes that it had something to do with the upcoming federal by-election. Problem for me on that one is that Danny Williams doesn't get any value of putting someone in the federal caucus of a party he doesn't support when he already holds sway over every MP from here save one and a good few of the senators from this province already.
Plus, Danny's man - which ever one gets the Tory nod - doesn't stand much of a chance of getting elected in Labrador anyway.
The story of the Labrador road trip gets ever stranger though, when you take into account Rob Antle's front page story in today's Telegram. I have linked to the Telly website but Miller didn't post Rob's story there today. Instead, I am reprinting it below.
It turns out that all but $3.0 million of the $56 million announced by Danny Williams comes courtesy of Ottawa.
And...
It seems most of the projects involved have been announced at least once before, some as recently as a couple of weeks ago.
D'0h!
Add this trip to your Homer Simpson file.
Before we get to the Antle piece, I'll toss out some observations:
1. John Efford needs to take a hard look around him and ask the great Dr. Phil question: "Is this working for you?" Every successful one of John's predecessors never let a nickel of federal money get spent anywhere in the province without the very coins themselves bearing a tag reading "Courtesy of Ottawa". If John wants to rebuild his image that he tarnished so badly during the recent Accord episode he need look no farther than these sorts of announcements.
Get a grip, John.
2. Danny Williams has evidently been listening to his long-time golfing buddy Brian Tobin. The current Premier's short-lived predecessor was fond of announcing an announcement that announced an announcement of something began to be announced originally a year beforehand. His record may be six news releases and news conferences on a single action, but I stand to be corrected on the exact number.
Incidentally, Tobin was once described as not knowing much about free trade, for example, but being able to smell a headline a mile away. See Greg Weston's account of the Turner tenure as Prime Minister and Leader Opp for the full story. Reign of error, (Toronto: MacGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1988), pp. 142-143
This Labrador trip has Brian Tobin's fingerprints all over it.
3. While this gaff isn't as damaging as some of the stuff we saw a year ago, it seems that Tobin...err...Williams and his political staff still have some fundamental difficulties with getting the basics right.
Surely someone knew that this money was old and Federal and previously announced. No one saw this coming? Who thought the public was that stupid? Hands up.
If the whole thing was one of The Boss' Manic Monday Moments, surely to heavens there is somebody on the Hill who can talk him in off the ledge.
I just shake my head sometimes in utter disbelief. Don't even get me started on the announcement today of a paltry sum to handle school renovations and repairs that appears to have been timed purely in reaction to the last flooding of a St. John's area school that has already flooded once already since January.
Anyway, here's the story by Rob Antle.
All I can say is that while we may have woken up to find ourselves in a one party state, but at least it is entertaining.
Now all we have to do is see if there is a matinee on Sunday.
Text begins...
"Old cash in Williams' speech"
by Rob Antle
The Telegram
Page A1
The Williams administration previously announced plans to spend most of the $56 million it portrayed as new money for Labrador this week.
And the vast majority of the money comes from federal, not provincial, sources.
"Today I am announcing a 2005-06 investment of $56 million to improve access to health services, strengthen aboriginal communities, build and repair infrastructure and expand economic opportunities," Premier Danny Williams said in a news release Tuesday.
"This is the strongest signal yet that government intends to see Labrador thrive and prosper, and to see Labradorians enjoy the same standard of living enjoyed by residents living on the island."
What Williams didn't say is that government previously announced $31 million of that $56-million total six months earlier.
In September 2004, the province said it would spend $35 million to kick-start Phase 3 of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay Tuesday, Williams announced $40 million in spending on Phase 3 of the highway - with, he acknowledged, some "carry-overs" from the previous year.
But those "carry-overs" amounted to $31 million, or 78 per cent of the $40-million total.
Department of Transportation officials confirmed Wednesday that new, unannounced, work will account for only $9 million of the money spent in 2005-06.
Elizabeth Matthews, a spokeswoman for Williams, downplayed the discrepancy.
"As the premier stated yesterday, some of these funds are carried from last year," she said in a statement late Wednesday.
Matthews instead highlighted the positive aspects of other funding announced by Williams, such as money for social programs and other infrastructure.
Some of those infrastructure projects have already seen the light of the government news wire as well.
On Feb. 22, the province announced millions in multi-year capital works funding for Wabush and Labrador City - totals that appeared to be included in the $56-million tally unveiled Tuesday.
And most of the money involved is actually federal cash.
Every dime of the $40 million announced for Labrador highway work is from Ottawa.
It is the remaining cash in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund - the $340-million, one-time buyout from Ottawa accepted in 1997 by the Tobin administration for taking over responsibility of the Labrador ferry system.
Some $13.3 million of the remaining $16 million comes from various infrastructure funds.
The province offered no specific breakdowns on what money will come from which fund. But most of the programs are cost-shared, with the province picking up anywhere from about 30 per cent to 70 per cent of the overall tab.
The remaining total of about $3 million is broken down into a number of smaller initiatives.
Those include $167,000 for Labrador West residents traveling to Goose Bay for medical care, $200,000 for a hospital infrastructure assessment, $500,000 for the 2006 Labrador Winter Games and $70,000 to reopen a group home.
The Opposition critic for Labrador affairs dismissed many of the funding announcements as recycled news.
"After reviewing the number of announcements yesterday, it appears many of these initiatives were already announced or are being supplemented by federal money," Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair MHA Yvonne Jones said in a statement.
"There seems to be very little in the way of new announcements and many of the pressing needs and priorities of Labradorians were completely ignored."
Jones pointed specifically at the roads funding as an example.
"Premier Williams is trying to convince people that he announced $40 million for the Trans Labrador Highway," Jones said. "In actual fact, this money was announced years ago and is coming directly from the Labrador transportation fund.
"This is nothing more than an attempt by the premier to be seen investing new money in Labrador, when in actual fact, he is bribing the people of Labrador with their own money."
Labrador could be the site of at least one provincial by-election within months.
Two MHAs - Jones and Wally Andersen of Torngat Mountains - are contesting the federal Liberal nomination for Labrador.
If either wins the nomination, they would have to resign their provincial seat.
Andersen has also been linked to a potential role in the new Inuit government of Nunatsiavut.
The potential for another Labrador by-election was averted this week when Labrador West MHA Randy Collins said he would not run federally for the New Democrats.
Collins said in an interview that many people in his district have a positive reaction to this week's funding announcements.
He pointed to health-care money targeted at Labrador West. "I'm pleased to see that (the premier) kept that commitment."
He added, "Always, you'd like to see more."
Text ends.
There was a reason...
but damned if I can figure out what it was.
Nor, as I have discovered can anyone else I know offer a theoretically possible explanation that doesn't involve a misalignment of celestial bodies.
The best theory goes that it had something to do with the upcoming federal by-election. Problem for me on that one is that Danny Williams doesn't get any value of putting someone in the federal caucus of a party he doesn't support when he already holds sway over every MP from here save one and a good few of the senators from this province already.
Plus, Danny's man - which ever one gets the Tory nod - doesn't stand much of a chance of getting elected in Labrador anyway.
The story of the Labrador road trip gets ever stranger though, when you take into account Rob Antle's front page story in today's Telegram. I have linked to the Telly website but Miller didn't post Rob's story there today. Instead, I am reprinting it below.
It turns out that all but $3.0 million of the $56 million announced by Danny Williams comes courtesy of Ottawa.
And...
It seems most of the projects involved have been announced at least once before, some as recently as a couple of weeks ago.
D'0h!
Add this trip to your Homer Simpson file.
Before we get to the Antle piece, I'll toss out some observations:
1. John Efford needs to take a hard look around him and ask the great Dr. Phil question: "Is this working for you?" Every successful one of John's predecessors never let a nickel of federal money get spent anywhere in the province without the very coins themselves bearing a tag reading "Courtesy of Ottawa". If John wants to rebuild his image that he tarnished so badly during the recent Accord episode he need look no farther than these sorts of announcements.
Get a grip, John.
2. Danny Williams has evidently been listening to his long-time golfing buddy Brian Tobin. The current Premier's short-lived predecessor was fond of announcing an announcement that announced an announcement of something began to be announced originally a year beforehand. His record may be six news releases and news conferences on a single action, but I stand to be corrected on the exact number.
Incidentally, Tobin was once described as not knowing much about free trade, for example, but being able to smell a headline a mile away. See Greg Weston's account of the Turner tenure as Prime Minister and Leader Opp for the full story. Reign of error, (Toronto: MacGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1988), pp. 142-143
This Labrador trip has Brian Tobin's fingerprints all over it.
3. While this gaff isn't as damaging as some of the stuff we saw a year ago, it seems that Tobin...err...Williams and his political staff still have some fundamental difficulties with getting the basics right.
Surely someone knew that this money was old and Federal and previously announced. No one saw this coming? Who thought the public was that stupid? Hands up.
If the whole thing was one of The Boss' Manic Monday Moments, surely to heavens there is somebody on the Hill who can talk him in off the ledge.
I just shake my head sometimes in utter disbelief. Don't even get me started on the announcement today of a paltry sum to handle school renovations and repairs that appears to have been timed purely in reaction to the last flooding of a St. John's area school that has already flooded once already since January.
Anyway, here's the story by Rob Antle.
All I can say is that while we may have woken up to find ourselves in a one party state, but at least it is entertaining.
Now all we have to do is see if there is a matinee on Sunday.
Text begins...
"Old cash in Williams' speech"
by Rob Antle
The Telegram
Page A1
The Williams administration previously announced plans to spend most of the $56 million it portrayed as new money for Labrador this week.
And the vast majority of the money comes from federal, not provincial, sources.
"Today I am announcing a 2005-06 investment of $56 million to improve access to health services, strengthen aboriginal communities, build and repair infrastructure and expand economic opportunities," Premier Danny Williams said in a news release Tuesday.
"This is the strongest signal yet that government intends to see Labrador thrive and prosper, and to see Labradorians enjoy the same standard of living enjoyed by residents living on the island."
What Williams didn't say is that government previously announced $31 million of that $56-million total six months earlier.
In September 2004, the province said it would spend $35 million to kick-start Phase 3 of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
In Happy Valley-Goose Bay Tuesday, Williams announced $40 million in spending on Phase 3 of the highway - with, he acknowledged, some "carry-overs" from the previous year.
But those "carry-overs" amounted to $31 million, or 78 per cent of the $40-million total.
Department of Transportation officials confirmed Wednesday that new, unannounced, work will account for only $9 million of the money spent in 2005-06.
Elizabeth Matthews, a spokeswoman for Williams, downplayed the discrepancy.
"As the premier stated yesterday, some of these funds are carried from last year," she said in a statement late Wednesday.
Matthews instead highlighted the positive aspects of other funding announced by Williams, such as money for social programs and other infrastructure.
Some of those infrastructure projects have already seen the light of the government news wire as well.
On Feb. 22, the province announced millions in multi-year capital works funding for Wabush and Labrador City - totals that appeared to be included in the $56-million tally unveiled Tuesday.
And most of the money involved is actually federal cash.
Every dime of the $40 million announced for Labrador highway work is from Ottawa.
It is the remaining cash in the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund - the $340-million, one-time buyout from Ottawa accepted in 1997 by the Tobin administration for taking over responsibility of the Labrador ferry system.
Some $13.3 million of the remaining $16 million comes from various infrastructure funds.
The province offered no specific breakdowns on what money will come from which fund. But most of the programs are cost-shared, with the province picking up anywhere from about 30 per cent to 70 per cent of the overall tab.
The remaining total of about $3 million is broken down into a number of smaller initiatives.
Those include $167,000 for Labrador West residents traveling to Goose Bay for medical care, $200,000 for a hospital infrastructure assessment, $500,000 for the 2006 Labrador Winter Games and $70,000 to reopen a group home.
The Opposition critic for Labrador affairs dismissed many of the funding announcements as recycled news.
"After reviewing the number of announcements yesterday, it appears many of these initiatives were already announced or are being supplemented by federal money," Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair MHA Yvonne Jones said in a statement.
"There seems to be very little in the way of new announcements and many of the pressing needs and priorities of Labradorians were completely ignored."
Jones pointed specifically at the roads funding as an example.
"Premier Williams is trying to convince people that he announced $40 million for the Trans Labrador Highway," Jones said. "In actual fact, this money was announced years ago and is coming directly from the Labrador transportation fund.
"This is nothing more than an attempt by the premier to be seen investing new money in Labrador, when in actual fact, he is bribing the people of Labrador with their own money."
Labrador could be the site of at least one provincial by-election within months.
Two MHAs - Jones and Wally Andersen of Torngat Mountains - are contesting the federal Liberal nomination for Labrador.
If either wins the nomination, they would have to resign their provincial seat.
Andersen has also been linked to a potential role in the new Inuit government of Nunatsiavut.
The potential for another Labrador by-election was averted this week when Labrador West MHA Randy Collins said he would not run federally for the New Democrats.
Collins said in an interview that many people in his district have a positive reaction to this week's funding announcements.
He pointed to health-care money targeted at Labrador West. "I'm pleased to see that (the premier) kept that commitment."
He added, "Always, you'd like to see more."
Text ends.
What was the frequency Kenneth?
Dan Rather is gone and all the mushy tributes have been paid to him.
See ya later buddy.
Personally, I never found him of much use either as a reporter or an anchor. His retort to Nixon, overplayed yesterday was the kind of snotty, rude comment that brought reporters into disrepute. Worse still, it didn't even make any sense. It was a stupid remark, devoid of any sign of intelligence.
Rather injected himself and artificial drama into his reporting to the point where, as many pointed out, he became the story. When he cried on Letterman, there went a moment that Letterman on another network would have ripped to shreds. Too bad Rather managed to hang on long enough to pass the "Icon" threshold. American media Icons are judged by age, not ability, obviously.
My favourite Dan Rather story is still the one from the mugging back in New York in the 80s. In his statement to police, Rather claimed his attackers yelled one of two things:
- Give us all your money? or
- What is the frequency, Kenneth?
I haven't figured it out yet, but that idiotic statement to police about Kenneth seems to epitomize Dan Rather as reporter and Dan Rather as anchor of a major network's nightly newscast for a quarter of a century. Ponder the weight and implication of that for a while. Think of all the poor sods who only listened to Rather.
Thank heavens CBS has put a solid journalist in the anchor chair full time for the first time in 25 years, in the person of Bob Schieffer.
But why do I think the permanent Rather replacement is gonna be John Roberts, known to Canadians by his real name, MuchMusic VJ J.D. Roberts?
Hmm.
If they want a woman, I hear Erica Ehm is looking for steady work.
-30-
Postscript -
Ok. So after I wrote this I decided to flip over to CBS.com and see what JD's bio actually says.
It is laughable.
"Prior to joining CBS News, Roberts had been co-anchor of "Canada A.M," CTV's top-rated morning news program (1990-92) and an anchor/correspondent at WCIX-TV (now WFOR-TV), the CBS Owned station in Miami (1989-90). He also served as an anchor and correspondent for several broadcasts of City TV in Toronto (1979-89)."
Several broadcasts???? As in one or two appearances over a 10 year period?
Here's a better link to J.D. when he wasn't the airbrushed, carefully coiffed virtual talking head he has become. Here's another picture of J.D. from the old days for good measure.
Be proud of your past, J.D. It could be the funky background that could open up the anchor desk to you on a network desperate to recover from the s***-knocking Rather gave to their credibility just before he bailed out.
Imagine handling the news like Much does from their open studio/office concept.
Wooooo.
Radical.
A job for J.D.
Not for John. (The No Anchor concept)
See ya later buddy.
Personally, I never found him of much use either as a reporter or an anchor. His retort to Nixon, overplayed yesterday was the kind of snotty, rude comment that brought reporters into disrepute. Worse still, it didn't even make any sense. It was a stupid remark, devoid of any sign of intelligence.
Rather injected himself and artificial drama into his reporting to the point where, as many pointed out, he became the story. When he cried on Letterman, there went a moment that Letterman on another network would have ripped to shreds. Too bad Rather managed to hang on long enough to pass the "Icon" threshold. American media Icons are judged by age, not ability, obviously.
My favourite Dan Rather story is still the one from the mugging back in New York in the 80s. In his statement to police, Rather claimed his attackers yelled one of two things:
- Give us all your money? or
- What is the frequency, Kenneth?
I haven't figured it out yet, but that idiotic statement to police about Kenneth seems to epitomize Dan Rather as reporter and Dan Rather as anchor of a major network's nightly newscast for a quarter of a century. Ponder the weight and implication of that for a while. Think of all the poor sods who only listened to Rather.
Thank heavens CBS has put a solid journalist in the anchor chair full time for the first time in 25 years, in the person of Bob Schieffer.
But why do I think the permanent Rather replacement is gonna be John Roberts, known to Canadians by his real name, MuchMusic VJ J.D. Roberts?
Hmm.
If they want a woman, I hear Erica Ehm is looking for steady work.
-30-
Postscript -
Ok. So after I wrote this I decided to flip over to CBS.com and see what JD's bio actually says.
It is laughable.
"Prior to joining CBS News, Roberts had been co-anchor of "Canada A.M," CTV's top-rated morning news program (1990-92) and an anchor/correspondent at WCIX-TV (now WFOR-TV), the CBS Owned station in Miami (1989-90). He also served as an anchor and correspondent for several broadcasts of City TV in Toronto (1979-89)."
Several broadcasts???? As in one or two appearances over a 10 year period?
Here's a better link to J.D. when he wasn't the airbrushed, carefully coiffed virtual talking head he has become. Here's another picture of J.D. from the old days for good measure.
Be proud of your past, J.D. It could be the funky background that could open up the anchor desk to you on a network desperate to recover from the s***-knocking Rather gave to their credibility just before he bailed out.
Imagine handling the news like Much does from their open studio/office concept.
Wooooo.
Radical.
A job for J.D.
Not for John. (The No Anchor concept)
09 March 2005
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
John Hamm is enjoying a bump from the offshore deal too. Here's the story on the CRA poll for Nova Scotia as reported by the Chronicle-Herald in Halifax. (Known to some as the Chronically Horrid)
But here's the difference:
Hamm's satisfaction level is around 69% - people are pretty happy with the job he is doing.
His voter support is 38%, just 8 percent ahead of the Nova Scotia Liberals.
The largest part of this discrepancy comes from the length of time Nova Scotians have been governed by Tories. Voters are a little tired of the Progressive Conservatives. Undoubtedly, there are other causes that would explain the problem John Hamm is obviously having in translating satisfaction with his performance into potential votes at the polls.
By contrast, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams is still popular enough to run the risk of obliterating the Opposition parties entirely in an election held today.
What would be lost if there were no Opposition parties in Newfoundland and Labrador?
For the Tories, a one party state would make it easier for Danny to get his way. His contemptuous attitude toward the legislature is well known and some of his officials have been known to ask out loud - maybe facetiously; I suspect seriously - why there has to be anything other than an election every once in a while. Shut the House. Save a bundle.
As for the other parties, I find myself asking more and more what exactly distinguishes Liberals from Tories or indeed New Democrats from Tories. On the Atlantic Accord, all three parties agreed on everything. Roger Grimes is smiling through the latest dismal poll claiming that it was just a comment on the Accord and that everyone supported Danny anyway.
I'll just say two words: graveyard. whistling. You work it out.
So what is the difference?
I don't believe there is one in the current incarnation of the parties.
Roger Grimes mused last year that the province needed all seven MPs in Ottawa to vote as a group on issues. Roger wants our own Block-Heads to match the Bloc Heads from Quebec. Well, he has his wish. In Ottawa, the only MP not voting with the herd is John Efford and that may be solely because he likes his car and driver more than because he has a philosophical difference of opinion with Matthews, Doyle and Hearn on the one hand or Scott Simms and Gerry Byrne on the other.
On the provincial level, things are much the same. The Tories are nationalist or sort of nationalist. Grimes is the guy who blew $2.0 million of public money funding Danny's election platform, otherwise known as the Vic Young Royal Commission. Try sliding a piece of paper between the policy manuals from the Liberals or the Tories from the last election. Try to find a major Liberal policy initiative that the Tories haven't implemented in their first 18 months in office, haven't continued or haven't got under serious consideration.
Try to figure out why the provincial Liberals put forward a motion in Ottawa last week seeking ownership of the offshore - a long-standing nationalist fantasy - even though the matter was settled legally and practically 20 years ago. We may not own it but we reap all the benefits anyways - yet Roger and his 40 fellows pushed a resolution that would do what exactly? I dare you to spot a difference between Brian Peckford and the guys who put the resolution together.
In the upcoming budget, I suspect you are going to see the Conservatives move in a direction reminiscent of the Tobin Liberals; at the very least, they'll be investing in social programs, while ramping down the chatter about budget cuts and freezes. Expect to see less of Loyola now that Flo has gone.
Danny Williams supports same sex marriage as a matter of principle. Grimes does and he doesn't all at the same time.
My own father, staunch Liberal that he is, asked me last night why I picked on Roger Grimes in yesterday's poll post.
Well, I am not.
I am simply making a point and Roger just happens to be the leader of a group of people who largely share the same views which just happen to be the same as pretty well every other party in Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
So now, I'll go a step farther and ask why we have three political parties if they all say the same thing?
Democracy is based on choices.
Our particular system of parliamentary democracy depends on having opposition parties that put forward reasoned alternatives to government policies and programs.
As far as I can see right now, Newfoundland and Labrador has become a one party state, by default.
Somehow, we wound up with DannyJackandRoger from the Block.
[Don't be fooled by the votes that we got/We're still DannyJackandRoger from the Block/We seem different, but then maybe not/Things are all the same here on the Rock]
Why exactly do we have three political parties all claiming cash from the public treasury?
Why do we have a legislature?
But here's the difference:
Hamm's satisfaction level is around 69% - people are pretty happy with the job he is doing.
His voter support is 38%, just 8 percent ahead of the Nova Scotia Liberals.
The largest part of this discrepancy comes from the length of time Nova Scotians have been governed by Tories. Voters are a little tired of the Progressive Conservatives. Undoubtedly, there are other causes that would explain the problem John Hamm is obviously having in translating satisfaction with his performance into potential votes at the polls.
By contrast, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams is still popular enough to run the risk of obliterating the Opposition parties entirely in an election held today.
What would be lost if there were no Opposition parties in Newfoundland and Labrador?
For the Tories, a one party state would make it easier for Danny to get his way. His contemptuous attitude toward the legislature is well known and some of his officials have been known to ask out loud - maybe facetiously; I suspect seriously - why there has to be anything other than an election every once in a while. Shut the House. Save a bundle.
As for the other parties, I find myself asking more and more what exactly distinguishes Liberals from Tories or indeed New Democrats from Tories. On the Atlantic Accord, all three parties agreed on everything. Roger Grimes is smiling through the latest dismal poll claiming that it was just a comment on the Accord and that everyone supported Danny anyway.
I'll just say two words: graveyard. whistling. You work it out.
So what is the difference?
I don't believe there is one in the current incarnation of the parties.
Roger Grimes mused last year that the province needed all seven MPs in Ottawa to vote as a group on issues. Roger wants our own Block-Heads to match the Bloc Heads from Quebec. Well, he has his wish. In Ottawa, the only MP not voting with the herd is John Efford and that may be solely because he likes his car and driver more than because he has a philosophical difference of opinion with Matthews, Doyle and Hearn on the one hand or Scott Simms and Gerry Byrne on the other.
On the provincial level, things are much the same. The Tories are nationalist or sort of nationalist. Grimes is the guy who blew $2.0 million of public money funding Danny's election platform, otherwise known as the Vic Young Royal Commission. Try sliding a piece of paper between the policy manuals from the Liberals or the Tories from the last election. Try to find a major Liberal policy initiative that the Tories haven't implemented in their first 18 months in office, haven't continued or haven't got under serious consideration.
Try to figure out why the provincial Liberals put forward a motion in Ottawa last week seeking ownership of the offshore - a long-standing nationalist fantasy - even though the matter was settled legally and practically 20 years ago. We may not own it but we reap all the benefits anyways - yet Roger and his 40 fellows pushed a resolution that would do what exactly? I dare you to spot a difference between Brian Peckford and the guys who put the resolution together.
In the upcoming budget, I suspect you are going to see the Conservatives move in a direction reminiscent of the Tobin Liberals; at the very least, they'll be investing in social programs, while ramping down the chatter about budget cuts and freezes. Expect to see less of Loyola now that Flo has gone.
Danny Williams supports same sex marriage as a matter of principle. Grimes does and he doesn't all at the same time.
My own father, staunch Liberal that he is, asked me last night why I picked on Roger Grimes in yesterday's poll post.
Well, I am not.
I am simply making a point and Roger just happens to be the leader of a group of people who largely share the same views which just happen to be the same as pretty well every other party in Newfoundland and Labrador politics.
So now, I'll go a step farther and ask why we have three political parties if they all say the same thing?
Democracy is based on choices.
Our particular system of parliamentary democracy depends on having opposition parties that put forward reasoned alternatives to government policies and programs.
As far as I can see right now, Newfoundland and Labrador has become a one party state, by default.
Somehow, we wound up with DannyJackandRoger from the Block.
[Don't be fooled by the votes that we got/We're still DannyJackandRoger from the Block/We seem different, but then maybe not/Things are all the same here on the Rock]
Why exactly do we have three political parties all claiming cash from the public treasury?
Why do we have a legislature?
08 March 2005
Polls and the stuff they tell you - amended
Undoubtedly there will be much comment today on the latest quarterly survey by Corporate Research Associates showing the Williams government with support of 86% of those surveyed.
The CBC radio story is already up, but there isn't anything on the CRA website [as of the original posting] which is a shame. There's a story on VOCM and another in the Telly. CRA's original news release actually shows the detailed responses compared over the past four quarters, which can be useful. [You can find the CRA release linked from the CBC story.]
That said, here are some early morning observations on the CBC report. I'll update this if something more interesting emerges from the CRA release itself.
1. The high approval rating for the Williams administration is hardly surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if the government's own private polling shows numbers much higher between November and January. They had a popular issue driving public support and virtually no opposition or critical comment coming from anywhere, including the opposition parties.
2. The rating reflects an upward trend for the past three quarters as reaction to the budget faded away. The budget and the government's early poor performance was something that wasn't likely to last anyway. As with Tobin and the school reform issue, the Williams administration capitalized on an issue that was framed to appeal to a wide segment of the public. They handled the file well politically and the CRA polling numbers reflect that.
Let's see what the numbers are like after the budget and let's see how government handles the budget in a couple of weeks. I suspect we will not be seeing a continuation of the budget restraint promised last spring. Politicians like big positive polling numbers.
3. Williams personal numbers are back up in the range he has enjoyed for most of his time in politics. Again, the drops last year were linked to another specific issue - namely the budget. It isn't surprising that his personal numbers are back up in the wake of the offshore deal.
4. The PC gains have come primarily at the expense of the Liberals. PC voter preference is at 74%. NDP support is down three points, well within the poll's margin of error; Liberals dropped from 28% to 17%.
5. The poll should be a wake-up call for Roger Grimes personally and for the Liberal Party. For the party, their overall lacklustre performance is reflected in the CRA polls over time. Their jump last year was not linked to their performance as much as it was to dissatisfaction with the government. If the Liberals wanted to hang on to those numbers then thy needed to earn them. They could have earned them by presenting a credible alternative government and by mounting sharp focused attacks on the Williams administration.
If any political opposition waits around for a government to self-destruct, they are in for a long wait. Just ask Danny Williams and the Tories. The Liberals have been working 11 individual districts strategies instead of an integrated strategy designed to present themselves as a credible alternative to the government. They have also been working a strategy based entirely on "rural" Newfoundland and Labrador based on some vague theory of the local electorate. The theory doesn't hold water, especially since it ignores where the majority of the people in the province actually reside physically and philosophically.
For Grimes himself, it is time to exit gracefully from the political stage. I have known Roger for almost 20 years and while I respect him a great deal, I have to give him that advice publicly and honestly.
The trending in the CRA polls (and in other polling) is bad; there's no up-side. There is virtually no chance Grimes can achieve ratings numbers as high as the ones he got last year short of seeing the Premier parading down Water Street in a bra and panties and babbling about the voices in his head. Even then, in the absence of a credible alternative, voters will still pick the raving loonie. Even then, Roger's numbers will be determined by someone else's actions, not his own. No politician can win anything when his support depends on other people's failures.
Pick a moment, Roger. Move on and hand the party over to a new leader, preferably one outside the ranks of the caucus.
6. For Williams, he needs to look beyond the polling peaks and troughs. He who lives solely by the polls, like Brian Tobin, dies by them as well. Lasting political support comes from principle, consistency and accountability.
Let's look at some of the numbers a bit more closely. CBC compares Williams to the Clyde Wells high rating (86% approval) achieved after the 1993 election. The Wells' number is party support; the Williams' one is satisfaction.
The Wells Liberals hit that number after four years in office, ongoing budget restraint, long after Meech Lake and after a hard-fought election campaign. In fact if you look closely you'll see the number was in November 1993, when the general election took place the previous spring! Even at this point, Williams' Tories are 12 points shy of that mark when comparing party support to party support.
I don't have the records in front of me, but I do recall that Wells personally hit a high number in the same range during Meech, but apparently CRA doesn't have personal approval numbers before 1992. Williams personal approval is the highest for CRA's data set.
More importantly, though, over the course of his administration, public support grew and remained at relatively high levels for an incumbent government in hard times.
Wells didn't get there on his own. He consistently emphasised the real team of Liberals in government. The Liberals also didn't get there with staged events and mounting campaigns with messaging framed on the basis of polling. That's Tobinesque.
Wells followed his principles. He articulated his principles. He stuck to his principles. He communicated openly and thoroughly, telling people frankly what was going on: he was accountable.
In 1990, the provincial government signed the landmark Hibernia deal but there was a simple ceremony at the hotel based on the premise that the story didn't need hype to be sold convincingly. Res ipsa loquitor. He would never have sanctioned any advertising for it.
I won't draw a bigger trend out of it but it is important to look at the Williams' administration campaign "events after the January deal was signed. Look even more closely at the reaction of Williams supporters in places like the Fair Deal website to the $200, 000 ad campaign. That's the kernel of the consistency and accountability thing. The ad campaign was hype on top of hype and ran counter to the messages of restraint government has been carrying. The public was consistent in their acceptance of keeping a tight reign on spending; Williams was interested in something else and a gap opened up.
It's not a big gap, but it could be indicative of how this government might begin reacting more to the sprinting needed to boost opinion polls rather than running the marathon called governing.
Any idiot can pop an opinion poll through the roof once or maybe twice.
Try keeping strong support over a long haul, in hard times and then popping the numbers up to the sky.
7. CRA polls can be skewed. CRA has been in the public eye for a long time and has a well-deserved reputation for reliability.
But...
Everyone knows when they are in the field. Therefore governments tend to position their good news to occur when the pollsters are calling. ( Could it be that the timing of the signing and the advertising campaign were designed to skew CRA's polling?)
And...
this poll took place over a three week period, compared to say the two or three days used by national polling firms. This tends to give numbers that are more reliable snapshots of opinion since they are focused in time. It's easier to relate the polling numbers to events in the public at the time. It is also possible to ask questions designed to probe deeper than the three questions CRA uses.
For news media, they could use that type of polling to increase the sophistication of their reporting. It is available and at a competitive cost from several polling companies, but for some reason, local media have preferred to stick with the tried or with the tried and crude than take research that holds up.
SES Research , for example, keeps talking about starting a quarterly survey in Atlantic Canada. When they do, let's hope it gets wide coverage in detail. I suspect you will find it much more useful, much more informative than what you have been getting.
The CBC radio story is already up, but there isn't anything on the CRA website [as of the original posting] which is a shame. There's a story on VOCM and another in the Telly. CRA's original news release actually shows the detailed responses compared over the past four quarters, which can be useful. [You can find the CRA release linked from the CBC story.]
That said, here are some early morning observations on the CBC report. I'll update this if something more interesting emerges from the CRA release itself.
1. The high approval rating for the Williams administration is hardly surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if the government's own private polling shows numbers much higher between November and January. They had a popular issue driving public support and virtually no opposition or critical comment coming from anywhere, including the opposition parties.
2. The rating reflects an upward trend for the past three quarters as reaction to the budget faded away. The budget and the government's early poor performance was something that wasn't likely to last anyway. As with Tobin and the school reform issue, the Williams administration capitalized on an issue that was framed to appeal to a wide segment of the public. They handled the file well politically and the CRA polling numbers reflect that.
Let's see what the numbers are like after the budget and let's see how government handles the budget in a couple of weeks. I suspect we will not be seeing a continuation of the budget restraint promised last spring. Politicians like big positive polling numbers.
3. Williams personal numbers are back up in the range he has enjoyed for most of his time in politics. Again, the drops last year were linked to another specific issue - namely the budget. It isn't surprising that his personal numbers are back up in the wake of the offshore deal.
4. The PC gains have come primarily at the expense of the Liberals. PC voter preference is at 74%. NDP support is down three points, well within the poll's margin of error; Liberals dropped from 28% to 17%.
5. The poll should be a wake-up call for Roger Grimes personally and for the Liberal Party. For the party, their overall lacklustre performance is reflected in the CRA polls over time. Their jump last year was not linked to their performance as much as it was to dissatisfaction with the government. If the Liberals wanted to hang on to those numbers then thy needed to earn them. They could have earned them by presenting a credible alternative government and by mounting sharp focused attacks on the Williams administration.
If any political opposition waits around for a government to self-destruct, they are in for a long wait. Just ask Danny Williams and the Tories. The Liberals have been working 11 individual districts strategies instead of an integrated strategy designed to present themselves as a credible alternative to the government. They have also been working a strategy based entirely on "rural" Newfoundland and Labrador based on some vague theory of the local electorate. The theory doesn't hold water, especially since it ignores where the majority of the people in the province actually reside physically and philosophically.
For Grimes himself, it is time to exit gracefully from the political stage. I have known Roger for almost 20 years and while I respect him a great deal, I have to give him that advice publicly and honestly.
The trending in the CRA polls (and in other polling) is bad; there's no up-side. There is virtually no chance Grimes can achieve ratings numbers as high as the ones he got last year short of seeing the Premier parading down Water Street in a bra and panties and babbling about the voices in his head. Even then, in the absence of a credible alternative, voters will still pick the raving loonie. Even then, Roger's numbers will be determined by someone else's actions, not his own. No politician can win anything when his support depends on other people's failures.
Pick a moment, Roger. Move on and hand the party over to a new leader, preferably one outside the ranks of the caucus.
6. For Williams, he needs to look beyond the polling peaks and troughs. He who lives solely by the polls, like Brian Tobin, dies by them as well. Lasting political support comes from principle, consistency and accountability.
Let's look at some of the numbers a bit more closely. CBC compares Williams to the Clyde Wells high rating (86% approval) achieved after the 1993 election. The Wells' number is party support; the Williams' one is satisfaction.
The Wells Liberals hit that number after four years in office, ongoing budget restraint, long after Meech Lake and after a hard-fought election campaign. In fact if you look closely you'll see the number was in November 1993, when the general election took place the previous spring! Even at this point, Williams' Tories are 12 points shy of that mark when comparing party support to party support.
I don't have the records in front of me, but I do recall that Wells personally hit a high number in the same range during Meech, but apparently CRA doesn't have personal approval numbers before 1992. Williams personal approval is the highest for CRA's data set.
More importantly, though, over the course of his administration, public support grew and remained at relatively high levels for an incumbent government in hard times.
Wells didn't get there on his own. He consistently emphasised the real team of Liberals in government. The Liberals also didn't get there with staged events and mounting campaigns with messaging framed on the basis of polling. That's Tobinesque.
Wells followed his principles. He articulated his principles. He stuck to his principles. He communicated openly and thoroughly, telling people frankly what was going on: he was accountable.
In 1990, the provincial government signed the landmark Hibernia deal but there was a simple ceremony at the hotel based on the premise that the story didn't need hype to be sold convincingly. Res ipsa loquitor. He would never have sanctioned any advertising for it.
I won't draw a bigger trend out of it but it is important to look at the Williams' administration campaign "events after the January deal was signed. Look even more closely at the reaction of Williams supporters in places like the Fair Deal website to the $200, 000 ad campaign. That's the kernel of the consistency and accountability thing. The ad campaign was hype on top of hype and ran counter to the messages of restraint government has been carrying. The public was consistent in their acceptance of keeping a tight reign on spending; Williams was interested in something else and a gap opened up.
It's not a big gap, but it could be indicative of how this government might begin reacting more to the sprinting needed to boost opinion polls rather than running the marathon called governing.
Any idiot can pop an opinion poll through the roof once or maybe twice.
Try keeping strong support over a long haul, in hard times and then popping the numbers up to the sky.
7. CRA polls can be skewed. CRA has been in the public eye for a long time and has a well-deserved reputation for reliability.
But...
Everyone knows when they are in the field. Therefore governments tend to position their good news to occur when the pollsters are calling. ( Could it be that the timing of the signing and the advertising campaign were designed to skew CRA's polling?)
And...
this poll took place over a three week period, compared to say the two or three days used by national polling firms. This tends to give numbers that are more reliable snapshots of opinion since they are focused in time. It's easier to relate the polling numbers to events in the public at the time. It is also possible to ask questions designed to probe deeper than the three questions CRA uses.
For news media, they could use that type of polling to increase the sophistication of their reporting. It is available and at a competitive cost from several polling companies, but for some reason, local media have preferred to stick with the tried or with the tried and crude than take research that holds up.
SES Research , for example, keeps talking about starting a quarterly survey in Atlantic Canada. When they do, let's hope it gets wide coverage in detail. I suspect you will find it much more useful, much more informative than what you have been getting.
Trashing a crash test story
If you think news media never accept news release copy almost verbatim, then check out this little piece from Associated Press, carried on the Globe website.
According to AP, in a series of tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit consumer group,
Quote: Eleven of 13 cars involved in new side-impact crash tests performed by an independent, nonprofit organization earned a “poor,” the lowest of four ratings, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said.
The Chevrolet Cobalt and the Toyota Corolla earned the second-highest rating of “acceptable” when tested with their optional side air bags. Without them, they earned “poor” ratings.
The vehicles that earned a “poor” rating were the Dodge Neon, Ford Focus and Volkswagen's New Beetle, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mazda 3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Sentra, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Aerio. The results were released Sunday.: end quote.
Now flip over to the IIHS site and see what their release and crash results said.
Quote: Most small car designs earned poor ratings in side impact crash tests recently conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Only the Chevrolet Cobalt and Toyota Corolla, both equipped with optional side airbags with head protection, performed well enough to earn the Institute's second highest rating of acceptable. Without the optional airbags, the Cobalt and Corolla are rated poor for side impact protection.: end quote.
See that second sentence - "Only the"? It's almost identical in both the release and the AP piece and the general thrust of the lead is the same in both the release and the story.
Here's the catch. Unfortunately, the release doesn't accurately report the results of the tests overall.
Yes, it is true that almost all the vehicles failed the side impact tests without having option side airbags installed - most cars and trucks would fail the test - as they did in this test. Even worse, IIHS did not say in the release that they did not test all models with side airbags. Some had standard side airbags; some had none even though they were available as an option. Therefore any comparisons are completely invalid.
IIHS also didn't point out in the lead (the opening bit) that in fact almost all the cars they tested scored well (acceptable to good) in front-on collisions. Results varied for rear impacts and, again, not all models had been thoroughly tested at the time of the news release.
Inaccurate or incomplete data seriously skews the test results and hence the accuracy of any conclusions drawn from the data. The problem for consumers only gets worse when the public relations people for the IIHS spin their news release.
The whole thing ends up in a major roll-over when Associated Press takes the release and paraphrases it without apparently bothering to check the IIHS website and the data tables. In the old days before the Internet, reporters on a tight deadline could be forgiven for not having time to follow through on every single release they take and turn into a news story.
It only took me about 30 minutes to see the crap from IIHS and generate this little comment. It wouldn't take much longer to write up a more accurate story for the AP wire. For that matter I might have even uncovered another story altogether: consumer watchdog agencies that report their own data unreliably.
According to AP, in a series of tests conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit consumer group,
Quote: Eleven of 13 cars involved in new side-impact crash tests performed by an independent, nonprofit organization earned a “poor,” the lowest of four ratings, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said.
The Chevrolet Cobalt and the Toyota Corolla earned the second-highest rating of “acceptable” when tested with their optional side air bags. Without them, they earned “poor” ratings.
The vehicles that earned a “poor” rating were the Dodge Neon, Ford Focus and Volkswagen's New Beetle, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Spectra, Mazda 3, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Sentra, Saturn Ion, Suzuki Forenza and Suzuki Aerio. The results were released Sunday.: end quote.
Now flip over to the IIHS site and see what their release and crash results said.
Quote: Most small car designs earned poor ratings in side impact crash tests recently conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Only the Chevrolet Cobalt and Toyota Corolla, both equipped with optional side airbags with head protection, performed well enough to earn the Institute's second highest rating of acceptable. Without the optional airbags, the Cobalt and Corolla are rated poor for side impact protection.: end quote.
See that second sentence - "Only the"? It's almost identical in both the release and the AP piece and the general thrust of the lead is the same in both the release and the story.
Here's the catch. Unfortunately, the release doesn't accurately report the results of the tests overall.
Yes, it is true that almost all the vehicles failed the side impact tests without having option side airbags installed - most cars and trucks would fail the test - as they did in this test. Even worse, IIHS did not say in the release that they did not test all models with side airbags. Some had standard side airbags; some had none even though they were available as an option. Therefore any comparisons are completely invalid.
IIHS also didn't point out in the lead (the opening bit) that in fact almost all the cars they tested scored well (acceptable to good) in front-on collisions. Results varied for rear impacts and, again, not all models had been thoroughly tested at the time of the news release.
Inaccurate or incomplete data seriously skews the test results and hence the accuracy of any conclusions drawn from the data. The problem for consumers only gets worse when the public relations people for the IIHS spin their news release.
The whole thing ends up in a major roll-over when Associated Press takes the release and paraphrases it without apparently bothering to check the IIHS website and the data tables. In the old days before the Internet, reporters on a tight deadline could be forgiven for not having time to follow through on every single release they take and turn into a news story.
It only took me about 30 minutes to see the crap from IIHS and generate this little comment. It wouldn't take much longer to write up a more accurate story for the AP wire. For that matter I might have even uncovered another story altogether: consumer watchdog agencies that report their own data unreliably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)