For those who may not be familiar with the issues involved in Danny Williams' attempt to foist Andy Wells on the offshore board, just take a look at the qualifications description Danny Williams approved for the ad Robertson Surette placed for the offshore board job.
It's really important to notice too that what Danny Williams called a mainland company is actually the local office of an internationally respected head-hunting firm.
It's the firm he approved.
Here's the list of qualifications:
"Candidates will have an in-depth knowledge of Newfoundland and LabradorÂ’s offshore oil and gas activities, along with a demonstrated ability to manage an organization with diverse technical and regulatory responsibilities, and to work effectively with senior industry and government officials. Qualified individuals will also have a good understanding of the structure and operation of the Canadian and international petroleum industry. Applicants will have extensive experience in the operational aspects of offshore petroleum activities, including full knowledge of related business, financial, safety and environmental matters, and of federal and provincial government legislation and operations. In addition, candidates will have experience in dealing with industry associations and a wide range of non-government organizations. This position requires exceptional communication skills."
Ok. Leave Andy Wells out of this for a second.
nowheree does the description say the person should have extensive experience in negotiating benefits for the province. It doesn't even hint at that. That's because the chairman and chief executive officer doesn't do that job. Danny Williams does.
As for Williams' comments about the existing list being "too close to the industry", I'd like to know how anyone would acquire the skills to run a regulatory body as described above and not actually know some people in the oil business. Again, the Prem's claim about "too close" is bogus: it isn't the real issue.
Now think of Andy Wells and see if you can see which of the above qualities Mr. Wells possesses.
Personally, I can think of a few other jobs related to the offshore where he might be better suited than asCEOo of the offshore board.
If Danny is so amazed by Andy Wells abilities, maybe Danny would appoint him minister of energy and let Andy actually handle the negotiations on Hebron.
What this all comes down to is credibility and while local media have been avoiding asking the Premier any tough questions on the Wells issue, I think this is another matter where a little caution is merited before we climb back on any bandwagons.
Go back and see what the Prem wanted from the offshore in January 2004 and see what he accepted in 2005 while proclaiming it "100%". The Prem will be quite happy to retell the war story again and again, but here's the kicker:
Compare the claim against the facts.
Notice the huge gap.
Now ponder the Premier's most recent offshore foray.
Ponder that until tomorrow's megapost which will wrap the whole thing up in a neat package.
Showing posts sorted by date for query credibility gap. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query credibility gap. Sort by relevance Show all posts
20 July 2005
27 May 2005
The Parable of the Trees
"Two trees stood on a cliff, both buffeted by fierce winds. One remained rigid and cracked under the strain. The other moved as the winds grew strong or ebbed.
This tree grew to great height."
Don't be too surprised if you start hearing rumours that Stephen Harper is about to retire from politics.
After all, those rumours started originally back in March, not coincidentally just before the Conservatives decided to reject the budget, disrupt the House and ultimately force a confidence show-down in the House of Commons. Bear in mind that this whole thing came about despite polling that showed the Conservatives well behind the Liberals everywhere except Alberta and that Paul Martin remained the overwhelming choice of Canadians to be prime minister.
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist once advised that where one is weak, one should appear strong. The Conservative push toward an election can be seen as little more than offensive action designed primarily to avoid dealing with a number of internal party problems including divisions over substantial policy matters and the lingering doubts about Harper's ability or willingness to leader the party into the next election.
Questions of leadership were evident in the way Harper treated Belinda Stronach. His own account of the dressing down he gave her is littered with signs of an internal struggle for control of the party. Faced too with the weaknesses that still exist within his party, Harper's solution was to attack the Liberals and thereby force his supporters to rally around the Conservative flag.
Closer to home, Premier Danny Williams used the same approach last October. His polling numbers were strong on the surface but underneath lurked some weaknesses, as revealed by Corporate Research Associates polling obtained by The Telegram under the new Access to Information Act. The premier also had alienated a number of provincial premiers immediately before a major national conference that would discuss, among other things, federal-provincial financing arrangements. Their resentment of the offshore proposal - what appeared to them as a major dodge around the current equitable but imperfect Equalization program - would have led to a nasty confrontation behind closed doors.
Williams' solution was to storm out of the meeting, claiming that the federal government's offshore offer was an insult. His polling numbers shot through the roof and any doubts about him and his leadership disappeared both in public or in the privacy of the pollsters' telephone calls.
Sometimes the approach works, as with Danny Williams. Sometimes it fails, as with Stephen Harper.
The Labrador by-election and two recent polls give clues as to why the Conservative Party's - really Stephen Harper's - push for the writ didn't work.
Successful national Canadian political parties are coalitions. Both the Liberal Party for most of its history and the Mulroney Conservatives did not have an immovable ideological core. They could embrace diverse views of social, economic and constitutional policy. Political parties learn to manage the disputes that erupt between members, between factions or among members from different regions. The bargaining and horse-trading that people decry are actually the mechanisms by which people can advance their particular causes without resorting to violence.
It may not be pretty but it is democracy.
Unsuccessful national parties, like the New Democrats and the Reform parties either represent a particular region or, most typically, reflect some ideological yardstick used to measure the purity of their members. There is no small irony, therefore that the initials of two Canadian ideological parties are the same, even if they represent polar opposite political views. The Communist Party of Canada, the Moscow-oriented clan and the Conservatives both go by the initials CPC.
The Unite the Right movement held at its core a belief that Canada needed a political party which represented what are called right of centre views, but which was essentially able to embrace both the substantial differences between the red Tories - the Progressive Conservatives - and the Reform cum Alliance Party. This was an effort to create another coalition party which, truthfully, is the only type of political party that could hope to win an election in a country as diverse as Canada.
On the surface, the recent CPC losses in the House and in Labrador can be seen as communications failures; the party used messages about corruption which were not heard by anyone outside their own ranks. This is revealed in the Leger poll. In Labrador, the CPC hammered on issues that did not address the views of the constituents they were trying to court. They talked about defence spending, that would benefit one portion of the riding, even though that was by no means a core issue for the majority of voters. At the same time, the CPC
talked about defeating the government's budget that included money for community infrastructure.
By the same token, Stephen Harper pledged not to force an election if the public didn't want it. When poll after poll revealed no one wanted an election, the CPC merely shifted gears. Peter MacKay likened elections to root canal - painful but necessary.
Make no mistake: these were monstrous communications failures. They represent massive political failures.
Look closer to home, in eastern Newfoundland and you can easily see the effects of the charge of the political light brigade that go beyond the national polling numbers like the ones from Leger or these from Ekos.
Two stalwart Conservatives, one of them an architect of the new party have destroyed their political base in what ought to be safe Conservative territory. Loyola Hearn is now openly talking of quitting politics. His reputation is battered. He is alienated from the local Conservatives both by the actions of his party and by the workings of his own jawbone.
This poses a problem, however. The CPC is supposedly a coalition party. Its leader is reputedly a master political strategist. Some of its key people - like Hearn and MacKay have fought successful campaigns provincially and federally or at least have the political savvy to know how to run a coalition team.
How is it possible for this combination to make such glaring errors?
The answer is that the CPC is dominated by ideologues that come not from only the old Reform Party. This is not to give into the temptation to dismiss the views held by Reformers; rather it acknowledges them for what they are - a group with strong views that is more likely to look for purity of belief, to exclude those seen as impure, to look inward rather than outward.
Consider the language used to describe Liberals. The enemy - even that word suggest the depth of their feeling - is corrupt and immoral. They and their supporters are criminal - mafia and whores. They lack principle. Voters are cowered by the dastardly villains. One need only listen to Stephen Harper's language or browse the blogs of CPC supporters to find this singularity of perspective. The use of moral judgments is striking.
How does one legitimately compromise with - even live with - untermenschen?
Added to that ideological singularity is a leader who is also apparently unyielding. His dressing down of Stronach suggests a man with little tolerance for opposition. This is hardly the stuff of a coalition builder. Harper's detractors all point to his unshakeable belief in his own correctness. Comments by Preston Manning ring in one's ears. According to Manning, Harper saw no value in holding town hall meetings to discuss fiscal policy with people lacking the education to comprehend the sophisticated concepts involved.
One of the finest examples of Harper's inflexibility came at the end of the last federal election. His national headquarters issued a news release that accused Paul Martin of supporting child molesters. When he faced reporters, Harper refused to disown the release. Leading a party that spoke of integrity, Harper refused to admit that someone had made an error and by doing so made the focus of the story the obvious gap between words and deeds. Credibility suffered and with it went Harper's hopes for a majority government.
Stephen Harper appears to have surrounded himself with old friends who share his outlook. Some have brought their game theory approaches, and with it, the unshakeable belief that their numbers not merely model reality - they are reality. Game theorists in Vietnam fiddled with individual variables and got lost in the tactical movements at the expense of the strategic. Stephen Harper opposed C-43, then supported it, then opposed it and then supported it - all tactical manoeuvering. The CPC voted for one part of the budget and against another - more transparent manoeuvering. One suspects that the game theory scenarios suggested that these were the optimum tactical approaches at each point.
Genuine strategy would see that each step is part of a longer journey and that the optimum step at each discrete moment on the road may lead ultimately to the wrong destination. Strategy understands the need to give with the wind sometimes.
On the surface, the Conservatives have committed some readily apparent political blunders.
The question that must be asked is why this is so.
The answer lies in the leader and in the party itself.
For the future, the Conservative Party faces the challenge of having a leader who is a four- or five-time failure. Many may feel the need to find a new leader.
But consider the timelines.
The prime minister has committed to an election in January.
By the time the House closes next month, and even if Stephen Harper resigned immediately, the party could not hold a leadership convention and begin the process of internal revitalization that it would need to win.
The only way the Conservative Party could win in January is for the Liberal Party to collapse.
Consider that the tree which grew strong did not depend on the other tree for its success.
20 May 2005
The Why Incision
Over the past few months, readers of The Sir Robert Bond Papers have been treated to jabs aimed at Conservative members of parliament (MP) Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn.
They have heard about cases of pinocchiosis inflicting one or the other and of both of them scoring zero on the Cred-o-Meter (r) on several occasions.
All fine, humourous and undoubtedly as annoying as those comments were to Hearn and Doyle supporters, they are rooted not so much in partisanship as in an acknowledgement of the fundamental gap between what these gentlemen have said in the past and what they have done in the present.
The entire Fair Deal for Newfoundland campaign to pressure Hearn and Doyle, the calls to call-in radio shows, all have their origins in the vocal chords of the two MP.
Here are some samples of what they said on the issue of the offshore revenue deal and how a member of parliament should vote:
"I'’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’'t be there."
- – Loyola Hearn, July 4, 2004
"We're sent to do a job; we'll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who's for us or who's against us."
- – Loyola Hearn, November 13, 2004
"Never again do I expect to see the members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all."
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
"Why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?"
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
These two gentlemen never hesitated for one second to conjure the spirits of nationalism and populism when they could be directed against their target: John Efford. They reveled in the damage the demons inflicted inflicted, making a very difficult issue intensely personal.
Mr. Hearn, in particular, proved that perceptions of him as a kind and decent fellow were utterly false. His deeply personal remarks, at times, were nothing short of scurrilous. They were hardly becoming of a former provincial cabinet minister, let alone a member of our national parliament and a potential federal cabinet minister in waiting.
It should be no surprise therefore that some people took delight in his predicament over bills C-43 and C-48. No surprise, therefore that the populist was hoist with his own petard.
The problem for Hearn and Doyle, however, is not a partisan one.
The tragedy of Doyle and Hearn is that they represent an old-fashioned approach to politics which has past. These men learned their politics in the 1960s and 1970s, practiced it through the Peckford insanity and then stumbled into Opposition in the 1990s. They slipped back behind the scenes only to re-emerge in the federal legislature where they sat largely unnoticed until recently.
Events of the past six months have shown both Doyle and Hearn to be mere relics of a style of politics that took voters for granted, that treated them as ignorant, that saw no problem with saying one thing and doing another.
Consider Hearn's recent post office nonsense.
Consider Hearn issuing a constituency flyer before the last election saying that Equalization clawbacks were contrary to the Atlantic Accord, while the clawbacks that existed were exactly the ones he voted to support in 1985.
Consider Hearn's attack on a fisheries matter in another jurisdiction that did not affect this province at all, yet was whipped into an Open Line Crisis. The ship in question, leased from a foreign owner was subsequently bought by the Canadian company thus giving the lie to Hearn's accusation that a Liberal government in Ottawa was letting foreigners take our fish.
Consider Hearn lately explaining how one bill must go through six stages before cash could flow (there are actually seven) taking upwards of a year while another bill could seemingly float magically through the same process in mere weeks.
Consider just within the past week, Hearn and Doyle flanking their Leader as he explained that they had developed a confidence two-step which, as Stephen Harper admitted, was merely a device to prevent Hearn and Doyle from being accused of voting against their province. This sham did not last to see the light of the next day.
Did they really think people were so gullible, so completely stupid?
To be fair, parliamentarians serve many masters with different interests. It is unreasonable to expect that they always side with their constituents, their party or their leader. Our democratic system is built on the expectation that parliamentarians will learn to balance the competing interests and ultimately exercise their best judgment on our behalf.
But here is where the modern democracy differs from the version that Hearn and Doyle practice. Modern democracy is a dialogue. Voters expect that politicians will speak frankly and reasonably. They expect to have discussion and disagreement. They expect that a politician will tell them what he or she plans to do and explain why in plain English.
The jibes to one side, the main reason why these electronic scribbles have poked at Hearn and Doyle is because they failed to measure up, not to their self-imposed standard of populist nonsense but to the baseline for modern democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hearn and Doyle had ample opportunity to state exactly what they were going to do on Thursday and explain why they thought it best for the country and the province. Let their Leader be hysterical and angry. Seasoned politicians can be strong-minded but relentless in their explanations.
What we got instead from Hearn and Doyle was spin - misrepresentations, half-truths and in some cases contradictory answers from one question to another.
What we got from Hearn and Doyle was weak through and through and relentless only to the extent they both regurgitated their talking points over and over.
Not once did they even pretend to hold an intelligent conversation with their constituents.
To make matters worse, Hearn in particular picked fights - needless fights - with Premier Williams. His "neophyte" crack, if said in the heat of the moment could have been easily forgiven with an apology. Instead, Hearn made the matter worse with further insults, backed, a few days ago by the ever-charming Mr. Harper. To his credit, the Premier displayed restraint when asked to reply.
Hearn and Doyle together persisted in their implausible positions to the point where even their own supporters in the provincial Tory caucus were openly talking of deserting them. Whatever shred of credibility they had even with the most stalwart of Tory supporters, must surely be stripped from them by now. As some have said, how can they go door to door with these guys and sincerely ask voters to support them?
Taken all together, it would be very surprising if either Hearn or Doyle survived to the next election.
Both Hearn and Doyle barely won their seats in the last election. Hearn, in particular, had counted on an easy win in a safe seat; instead he found that a neophyte came within a hair's breadth of defeating him. His weak position in the riding has grown steadily weaker since the last election and in the past several days, one can see that whatever pillars served as his support have been demolished with his own jawbone.
When they stood to vote against the federal government's budget, Hearn and Doyle were seen as voting against their own province and their own people. Neither Doyle nor Hearn bothered to explain themselves to the very people whose support they needed. They left that perception to become reality and it has been their undoing.
Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn represent a style of politics long since mouldering in the ground.
It remains now for someone else to write the epitaph.
This has been merely a political autopsy.
They have heard about cases of pinocchiosis inflicting one or the other and of both of them scoring zero on the Cred-o-Meter (r) on several occasions.
All fine, humourous and undoubtedly as annoying as those comments were to Hearn and Doyle supporters, they are rooted not so much in partisanship as in an acknowledgement of the fundamental gap between what these gentlemen have said in the past and what they have done in the present.
The entire Fair Deal for Newfoundland campaign to pressure Hearn and Doyle, the calls to call-in radio shows, all have their origins in the vocal chords of the two MP.
Here are some samples of what they said on the issue of the offshore revenue deal and how a member of parliament should vote:
"I'’m there to look after Newfoundland, and the six other MPs also, and if we’re not we shouldn’'t be there."
- – Loyola Hearn, July 4, 2004
"We're sent to do a job; we'll stand up for Newfoundland regardless of who's for us or who's against us."
- – Loyola Hearn, November 13, 2004
"Never again do I expect to see the members from our province in such a position of clout. It would be a terrible shame if that clout were squandered by not using it at all."
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
"Why can we not, just once, stand united for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Why can we not, just once, stand on guard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?"
–- Norm Doyle, October 26, 2004
These two gentlemen never hesitated for one second to conjure the spirits of nationalism and populism when they could be directed against their target: John Efford. They reveled in the damage the demons inflicted inflicted, making a very difficult issue intensely personal.
Mr. Hearn, in particular, proved that perceptions of him as a kind and decent fellow were utterly false. His deeply personal remarks, at times, were nothing short of scurrilous. They were hardly becoming of a former provincial cabinet minister, let alone a member of our national parliament and a potential federal cabinet minister in waiting.
It should be no surprise therefore that some people took delight in his predicament over bills C-43 and C-48. No surprise, therefore that the populist was hoist with his own petard.
The problem for Hearn and Doyle, however, is not a partisan one.
The tragedy of Doyle and Hearn is that they represent an old-fashioned approach to politics which has past. These men learned their politics in the 1960s and 1970s, practiced it through the Peckford insanity and then stumbled into Opposition in the 1990s. They slipped back behind the scenes only to re-emerge in the federal legislature where they sat largely unnoticed until recently.
Events of the past six months have shown both Doyle and Hearn to be mere relics of a style of politics that took voters for granted, that treated them as ignorant, that saw no problem with saying one thing and doing another.
Consider Hearn's recent post office nonsense.
Consider Hearn issuing a constituency flyer before the last election saying that Equalization clawbacks were contrary to the Atlantic Accord, while the clawbacks that existed were exactly the ones he voted to support in 1985.
Consider Hearn's attack on a fisheries matter in another jurisdiction that did not affect this province at all, yet was whipped into an Open Line Crisis. The ship in question, leased from a foreign owner was subsequently bought by the Canadian company thus giving the lie to Hearn's accusation that a Liberal government in Ottawa was letting foreigners take our fish.
Consider Hearn lately explaining how one bill must go through six stages before cash could flow (there are actually seven) taking upwards of a year while another bill could seemingly float magically through the same process in mere weeks.
Consider just within the past week, Hearn and Doyle flanking their Leader as he explained that they had developed a confidence two-step which, as Stephen Harper admitted, was merely a device to prevent Hearn and Doyle from being accused of voting against their province. This sham did not last to see the light of the next day.
Did they really think people were so gullible, so completely stupid?
To be fair, parliamentarians serve many masters with different interests. It is unreasonable to expect that they always side with their constituents, their party or their leader. Our democratic system is built on the expectation that parliamentarians will learn to balance the competing interests and ultimately exercise their best judgment on our behalf.
But here is where the modern democracy differs from the version that Hearn and Doyle practice. Modern democracy is a dialogue. Voters expect that politicians will speak frankly and reasonably. They expect to have discussion and disagreement. They expect that a politician will tell them what he or she plans to do and explain why in plain English.
The jibes to one side, the main reason why these electronic scribbles have poked at Hearn and Doyle is because they failed to measure up, not to their self-imposed standard of populist nonsense but to the baseline for modern democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hearn and Doyle had ample opportunity to state exactly what they were going to do on Thursday and explain why they thought it best for the country and the province. Let their Leader be hysterical and angry. Seasoned politicians can be strong-minded but relentless in their explanations.
What we got instead from Hearn and Doyle was spin - misrepresentations, half-truths and in some cases contradictory answers from one question to another.
What we got from Hearn and Doyle was weak through and through and relentless only to the extent they both regurgitated their talking points over and over.
Not once did they even pretend to hold an intelligent conversation with their constituents.
To make matters worse, Hearn in particular picked fights - needless fights - with Premier Williams. His "neophyte" crack, if said in the heat of the moment could have been easily forgiven with an apology. Instead, Hearn made the matter worse with further insults, backed, a few days ago by the ever-charming Mr. Harper. To his credit, the Premier displayed restraint when asked to reply.
Hearn and Doyle together persisted in their implausible positions to the point where even their own supporters in the provincial Tory caucus were openly talking of deserting them. Whatever shred of credibility they had even with the most stalwart of Tory supporters, must surely be stripped from them by now. As some have said, how can they go door to door with these guys and sincerely ask voters to support them?
Taken all together, it would be very surprising if either Hearn or Doyle survived to the next election.
Both Hearn and Doyle barely won their seats in the last election. Hearn, in particular, had counted on an easy win in a safe seat; instead he found that a neophyte came within a hair's breadth of defeating him. His weak position in the riding has grown steadily weaker since the last election and in the past several days, one can see that whatever pillars served as his support have been demolished with his own jawbone.
When they stood to vote against the federal government's budget, Hearn and Doyle were seen as voting against their own province and their own people. Neither Doyle nor Hearn bothered to explain themselves to the very people whose support they needed. They left that perception to become reality and it has been their undoing.
Norman Doyle and Loyola Hearn represent a style of politics long since mouldering in the ground.
It remains now for someone else to write the epitaph.
This has been merely a political autopsy.
15 May 2005
A little perspective would be nice
On Day Two of the revamped Fair Deal campaign, over 7, 000 e-mails have been sent to Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn pressing them to vote for the offshore money on Thursday - put province above party.
I just caught Loyola Hearn desperately trying to avoid dealing with that core issue.
It is everyone else's fault, says Loyola, not mine that I must put party above province.
Let's take a little time out for perspective.
A few short months ago, a motion cam before the House - from Loyola I believe - condemning the Prime Minister in strong language and pressing the government to sign a deal on the offshore.
Some Liberal MPs voted for the motion, something I don't mind telling you I thought was despicable given that the Pm was obviously trying to conclude some sort of deal. I even went so far as to e-mail one of them saying that he should resign.
Well, in hindsight, I will say that I was wrong. Those Liberal members of parliament actually took a stronger stand since they voted on a mere motion which, even though it criticized the prime minister, had little weight. It still took guts to do that.
By contrast, now when the cash is on the line, when it is meaningful and serious, it is clear that both Doyle and Hearn are putting party before province.
A few months ago those Liberal MPs could have sided with the prime minister and voted against the motion knowing full well a deal would be done and the vote would come before the House. The difference between the two positions could not be any more stark.
As a closing point, here is what Stephen Harper said in the Commons last week when he failed to get unanimous consent to split the offshore deals from the rest of the budget bill:
"The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year."
Now what exactly did Mr. Harper mean by that, in light of Mr. Hearn's assurances that a Conservative government would bring the bill before the House shortly after the next federal election?
Credibility gap?
Rampant pinocchiosis?
Take your pick.
I just caught Loyola Hearn desperately trying to avoid dealing with that core issue.
It is everyone else's fault, says Loyola, not mine that I must put party above province.
Let's take a little time out for perspective.
A few short months ago, a motion cam before the House - from Loyola I believe - condemning the Prime Minister in strong language and pressing the government to sign a deal on the offshore.
Some Liberal MPs voted for the motion, something I don't mind telling you I thought was despicable given that the Pm was obviously trying to conclude some sort of deal. I even went so far as to e-mail one of them saying that he should resign.
Well, in hindsight, I will say that I was wrong. Those Liberal members of parliament actually took a stronger stand since they voted on a mere motion which, even though it criticized the prime minister, had little weight. It still took guts to do that.
By contrast, now when the cash is on the line, when it is meaningful and serious, it is clear that both Doyle and Hearn are putting party before province.
A few months ago those Liberal MPs could have sided with the prime minister and voted against the motion knowing full well a deal would be done and the vote would come before the House. The difference between the two positions could not be any more stark.
As a closing point, here is what Stephen Harper said in the Commons last week when he failed to get unanimous consent to split the offshore deals from the rest of the budget bill:
"The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year."
Now what exactly did Mr. Harper mean by that, in light of Mr. Hearn's assurances that a Conservative government would bring the bill before the House shortly after the next federal election?
Credibility gap?
Rampant pinocchiosis?
Take your pick.
15 March 2005
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
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)