When the budget comes… #nlpoli

We’ve got a provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador that has been budgeting for years to spend more than it brought in.

Way back in the beginning, way before the oil money cut in suddenly and largely unexpectedly,  Loyola Sullivan said that people should expect the Conservatives to run deficits annually of half a billion dollars or more.  The logical implication of what he’d said in 2005 was that it might have been 2014 until the Conservatives balanced the budget.

Now to be fair,  Sullivan was speaking about the magnitude of the provincial government;s financial problem as he and his colleagues found it in 2004.  But at the same time,  by 2005,  we were also talking about how the Conservatives intended to run things themselves. 

They were clearly not as concerned about public debt as they had been in 2003.  Part of that might have had something to do with this idea they had of making a killing selling cheap electricity into the United States, but frankly,  Sullivan’s forecast of a debt of about $17 billion – which the Conservatives delivered on – suggests they really had something else in mind. 

Budget basics: Dealing with the Debt #nlpoli

Public sector pensions in Newfoundland and Labrador are underfunded.  There’s not enough money in the fund account to cover all the likely money they’d have to pay out to people when they retire.

But make no mistake, the province’s public sector pensioners are not in any real danger of losing their pensions as a result.  That’s because the Pension Fund Act guarantees that the provincial government will make up any difference between the money owed to pensioners annually and the money available from the fund.  Unless some provincial government in the years ahead changes the law governing the pensions, people will get the money and benefits they’ve been promised.

The provincial government isn’t going to default on pensions any more than they are likely to take the completely irresponsible advice some might give them to change all the plans immediately - unilaterally if necessary - to make them defined contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans.

It’s important that people remember that because there is a concerted effort going on at the moment to mislead people about public sector spending generally, and pensions in particular.

The Whizzo Quality Assortment #nlpoli

On the outside, the spring budget for 2014 looks like a delicious assortment of goodies for everyone.  You can tell it is delectable because everyone is shouting for joy and drooling over their good fortune.

There is not a single group who have had their hands out for government money that did not get something. And they are telling anyone who will listen just how happy they are. 

Once you bite into one of sweetmeats in the Conservative Quality Assortment budget,  though, the result might be a wee bit less tasteful.

How do they run things? Budget Lead-Up #nlpoli

Finance minister Charlene Johnson will read the new provincial budget speech on Thursday.

In keeping with the provincial Conservative tradition, though, they’ve been announcing bits and pieces of the budget already.  On Monday, for example, justice minister Darin King announced that the new budget would contain money for 20 new sheriff’s officer to provide court security and new lawyers and staff for the legal aid division. 

Both news releases specifically indicated that the money was from Budget 2014, that is, money that isn’t supposed to be announced until Thursday.  Reporters asked King if the finance minister would have money for these announcements.

The 2013 SRBP Themes (Part 3) #nlpoli

Government is about making decisions.

In trying to understand what is going on,  how governments make decisions is sometimes more important than what decisions get made.

That’s why SRBP has highlighted things about the structure and organization of government.  The past year was no exception.

Jerome leaves at last #nlpoli

For anyone even halfway clued in to local politics, the rumours have been thick for months that Jerome Kennedy was about to bail from provincial politics.

Now it seems the time has come.  The latest media reports have him going as early as today (Wednesday) while the versions reported Monday had the departure coming next week.

There are three things about Kennedy’s resignation that stand out.

House of Cards (Part A) #nlpoli

_______________________________________________

This is the third in a four part series on the current financial crisis the provincial government is facing.  The first instalment – “The origins of rentierism in Newfoundland and Labrador” – appeared on Tuesday and the second – “Other People’s Money”  - appeared on Wednesday.  The third instalment – “Rentierism at the national and sub-national level” -  appeared on Thursday.

_______________________________________________

Finance minister Jerome Kennedy told the Telegram’s James McLeod on Wednesday that the provincial government had a structural deficit problem.

His proof was that government spent 60% or so of its total outlay each year on the social sector.  That includes health, social services, justice, and education.  If that’s what Jerome is worried about then he and his cabinet colleagues should know that in 2005, they spent 67% of their budget on the social sector.  In 2003,  the last year the Liberals ran the place, they spent about 64% of the budget on the social sector.

Before he goes all Grim Reaper, Jerome should know spending that kind of percentage on the social sector isn’t unusual for governments across Canada.  That’s been pretty much the norm since the late 1960s when governments introduce publicly-funded health care. In Ontario in 2012, for example, all but about $30 billion of the government’s $126 billion budget went to social program spending.

That doesn’t mean the provincial government doesn’t have a huge financial problem. They do. It just means that Jerome is looking in the wrong place to find a sign of it.

Time to Break the Cycle #nlpoli

Jerome Kennedy told reporters on Wednesday that  he and his officials are forecasting that the provincial government will rack up almost $4.0 billion in deficits over the next three years.

That consists of about $725 million this year, followed by two years in which the government will spend $1.6 billion each year than it will take in.

None of that should come as a surprise to any regular SRBP readers.  This corner has been warning about the current administration’s spending practices since 2006. 

So now what?

A Manufactured. Right. Here Mess #nlpoli

The Premier, the finance minister, and their favourite economist are talking about tax increases, layoffs, and spending cuts.

They are talking about cuts and layoffs at a time when the provincial government has more money coming into its accounts than any government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador before 2003.

The provincial government finances are in a mess.

Loyola Sullivan and conflict of interest #nlpoli

From the report by federal conflict of interest and ethics commission into certain actions by former fisheries ambassador Loyola Sullivan:

In June 2011, after consulting with my Office about whether he could take the position, Mr. Sullivan took up the position of Vice President of Resource Management and Sustainability at Ocean Choice International (Ocean Choice). In that position he had several interactions with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada related to matters of interest to Ocean Choice during his one-year post-employment cooling-off period. He also attended a consultation organized by Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council.

During my examination I found that several of these interactions were made in order to persuade federal government officials to make a decision to the advantage of Ocean Choice and, in one case, to change a policy in accordance with the position of the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council. In my view, these interactions involved making representations. I have therefore found that Mr. Sullivan contravened subsection 35(2) of the [Conflict of Interest] Act.

-srbp-

The Budget-Spending Disconnection #nlpoli

The provincial government announced on Wednesday that they will spend $2.0 million to fund new child care spaces across the province.

Through Budget 2012, the Provincial Government remains committed to providing affordable, accessible and quality child care services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, the Honourable Charlene Johnson, Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, announced $2 million for the second year of the Family Child Care Initiative, one of several key investments to be included in Budget 2012 to support child care.

Sounds like good news and it is.

But this announcement is peculiar.

For one thing, we won’t get Budget 2012 until next week. Traditionally. that’s when you get budget announcements like this one. You’d get it after the finance minister delivers the budget speech. Sometimes you get announcements before-hand but those used to be rare.

Now what makes this announcement a wee bit more peculiar is that this news release and news conference was really about spending commitments continued from 2011. It’s really cash you would anticipate they would spend so getting it this year wouldn’t be a big deal.  There’s no sign they plan to spend more than originally announced, so if you look at this big production, you are left wondering why they bothered.

Quotas of happy news, someone is yelling from the cheap seats.  That’s likely part of it.  If you look at the list of news releases for the week, they issued four on Monday and three on Tuesday.  On Wednesday, there were seven, not counting the two notes sent to editors that there would be two spending announcements later in the day. They made four spending announcements on Wednesday, incidentally.

There’s no polling that we know of. There’s no major controversy at the moment so yeah, quotas of happy news would seem to be a likely explanation.

Let’s look at something else, though.  One local reporter tweeted on Wednesday questioning the announcement of funding already announced, in effect, last year. If they funded it last year “of course” there’d be funding in 2012.

He garnered a comment from the Premier’s communications director:

There are no 'of courses' when it comes to budgeting. Multiple variables at play-affordability being a primary one.

Can’t take anything for granted, even government priorities.  Many things can change from year to year.

Now puhleeze.  These guys have had more cash than any previous government in the province’s history.  They have more in cash in the bank today than most governments ever had in any given year.  In fact, they might even have more than they did in 2003.

These guys have billions in cash earning interest while they wait to spend it on Muskrat Falls. A fraction of the interest on that $4.0 billion or so would cover way more than the chump change for this child care program. Affordability was never an issue in this case.  There were no variables at play at all.

As for the rest of it what the Premier’s comms director seems to be saying is simply unbelievable.  Not a good spot for a communications person to be in, mind you, but there it is.

But while she seemed to making a very general statement, those words  - the many variables – sounds rather like something else.  And there seems to be more to this release and others of its type than just quotas of happy news.  One of the bigger things we are seeing in this child care announcement is the growing disconnection between government communications and government operations.

It’s functionally the same as all those other announcements they make for projects that don’t actually happen until months or years later.  These days, the government budget speech is less about government’s spending program for the year than it is about the show for the news.

Not so very long ago, the budget itself was part of an annual process that had a great deal to do with keeping a very keen eye on spending.  By the early fall, departments were already talking to cabinet’s most powerful committee – Treasury Board – to find out the gross spending limits for the next year. 

As the weeks and months of the fall passed, Treasury Board would sharpen their focus line by line until you basically could get the budget done by February or so.  That allowed the government to put the budget in the House by March and get it approved before the new fiscal year started on April 1.

You could set your watch by it, the process was so well timed.  And you could map your year for spending and accomplishment by it.  Treasury Board could tell you within fractions of a percentage point how much cash they would have and how much they would spend.

Some time after 2003, that all went to crap.  At first, it looked like maybe Loyola Sullivan was just copying the Paul Martin formula for success: tell them the worst case predictions, no matter how implausible.  When things turn out better, you look like a genius.

The serial government always seemed to have trouble doing more than one thing at a time.  By early 2009, though, the “stimulus” announcements bundled the examples into a convenient pile for anyone interested in looking.  Later that year, Paul Oram started a huge political controversy by making budget announcements in run up to polling month.

No one announces budget cuts in August.

Period.

What the Oram-initiated debacle made plain was the extent to which things inside the upper reaches of government had grown increasingly nebulous as time went by.  Some time after 2003, the usual seasonal markers people inside government could use to keep things on track - start and end of the fiscal year, for example  – just disappeared.  Rather than forecasting actual government activity, the budget was just a general statement of intentions that might or might not turn out to be true.

There were no longer any “of courses” for government.

Just think about that.  The Premier’s communications director may have meant something else in her tweet but this alternative interpretation would explain an awful lot about a government that seems to have a chronic problem with getting stuff done on time and on budget.

-srbp-

How stupid are voters, anyway? #nlpoli

Poke around some political websites over the past couple of months and you’ll find a few columns on the question of how much voters are paying attention to politics in the run-up to the American presidential election.

These will give you a good sample:

• Politico:  “Dylan Byers on Media” -  CNN’s John King suggests Americans are uniformed of world events
• Politico:  How much do voters know?
• The American Prospect – Most voters aren’t stupid

Take a few minutes and read those articles.  One of the things you’ll appreciate when you get to the last one is that, as Matt Corley points out, voters aren’t stupid. That is, they don’t lack the intellectual ability to figure something out and make a decision.  What they lack is information about some subjects.

The issue that those three articles all mention is gasoline prices.  American presidents can’t do much to change gasoline prices.  Most Americans apparently think he can. Not surprisingly, therefore, Republican candidates spend a chunk of their time bashing Barack Obama over American gasoline prices.

We’ve had the same issue here within the last decade.  The incumbent Liberals introduced something called Petroleum Products Pricing, a system that supposedly regulates the price of gasoline and other fuels and ensures they are “reasonable”.  The whole thing was a charade, of course, but the system stays partly because it is popular and partly because it has proven to be a cash cow for government. 

That’s not the finest example of public ignorance and the politicians who preyed on it, though.  To find that one, you’d have to look at the claim that the federal government took oil royalties from the provincial government through the federal government’s Equalization program.  The federal government never did any such thing but that didn’t stop a provincial royal commission and two successive Premiers from going to war with Ottawa to try and right the imaginary wrong.

The second premier started his administration with a jihad over the royalties.  They talked about cracking open the 1985 Atlantic Accord and renegotiating it.  Finance minister Loyola Sullivan held a news conference in which he announced the shocking news that as provincial government revenues from its own sources went up, Equalization went down.  He never bothered to mention that this was exactly how the system was supposed to work.

In the end, he and his boss settled for a $2.0 billion cheque.

And that was the end of it.

Still that didn’t stop a raft of politicians and a few other informed commentators like Wade Locke from suggesting it was much more than that.  Some people still believe that the cash windfalls that swelled the provincial treasury from 2006 onward all came from that deal.  They didn’t.  They came from the oil royalty regimes dating back to 1990 and oil prices that have skyrocketed to historic heights due to international political and economic uncertainty.

People in the province  - like people in any part of North America – don’t spend a lot of time thinking about politics.  And there are a great many things, like the inner workings of Equalization or how oil royalties make money for the province, that they simply leave to other people to figure out.

Voters aren’t stupid.  They just leave those things to others, like politicians.

Voters expect those politicians to understand the details of complicated issues.  They expect them to look after things while the voters get on with taking the kids to school and hockey practice and all the other stuff that occupies a normal life.

They just don’t expect politicians to tell them things that aren’t true.  Sad to say, politicians sometimes seem to have a problem with that one. 

- srbp -

Fishery reform: the deeper story #nlpoli

NTV’s Thursday report on Loyola Sullivan focused on the union protests and accusations of a conflict of interest from Liberal Jim Bennett.

But the more interesting news on Thursday came from Michael Connors’ tweets about Sullivan’s speech to the employer’s council.

Sullivan is now talking about the economic problems in Europe. He says world's faltering economies are a result of living beyond means.

He's veering back to the debt issue now.

Sullivan talks about governments spending irresponsibly so they could get re-elected.

Sullivan now talking about his own tenure as finance minister. Proud that he brought down first balanced budget in 2006.

Now talking about how province can bring down per capita debt. Dunderdale wants to cut that number in half in 10 years

Sullivan raising concerns about province's debt to GDP ratio.

Sullivan says government should commit to balanced budgets and debt reduction.

Connors called it surreal but what he was really seeing here is a clue to some pretty big political backstories.

Go back in time and it doesn’t take too much imagination to think that Sullivan left the Tory cabinet abruptly in 2006 as a result of a huge disagreement over financial policy.  The 2007 budget – an election year budget  - that they would have been discussing when Sullivan quit saw a huge increase in pork-barrel spending and set the tone for the rest of Danny Williams’ tenure.

Sullivan wasn’t any great shakes when it came to sound fiscal [planning but his couple of years as finance minister are a model of tight-fistedness compared to the Dipper-esque spending sprees of the Danny Williams/Tom Marshall era.

There was something serious on the go at the time.  Danny Williams announced his resignation around the same time. In the months after Sullivan left, Williams got increasingly testier.  That’s when the Old man tossed a public threat at your humble e-scribbler and started musing about getting rid of free speech in the legislature.

Slide forward in time to the current day and you can see signs of a pretty big split in the local Tory party that just got a whole lot wider.  This OCI versus the government story is about more than the fishery.  The Sullivans are a crowd of Big Tories. The family has lots of friends and supporters across the province. Loyola’s a former leader of the party.

When Sullivan made some pointed comments about the current crowd’s lack of financial prowess, he was likely speaking for a large number of local Tories.  His comment about the debt was a very clear shot at Tom Marshall and Kathy Dunderdale.  You could also add a poke at the Muskrat Falls plan into Sullivan’s comment about the public debt.  Muskrat Falls, after all, is about increasing the public debt.

Things are not sunshine and roses inside Tory circles and they haven’t been for some time.

Loyola Sullivan’s speech on Thursday is a sign of how big a rift there is

- srbp -

Connies pork-up offshore board #nlpoli #cdnpoli

The federal Conservatives took a leaf from the provincial Conservatives’ book on Thursday and added a political pork appointee to the board that regulates the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Long-time Tory Reg Bowers was intergovernmental affairs minister Peter Penashue’s campaign manager in the last federal election. He’ll serve for a six-year term, subject to re-appointment.

The official announcement of his appointment is pretty vague on the details of Bowers’ background that make him an appropriate appointment.  All the release says is that Bowers has “30 years of experience in developing regional business prospects in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has worked on numerous projects creating opportunities for communities in his home province.”

Before he left politics abruptly in late 2010, Danny Williams set the wheels in motion to appoint his communications director to a provincial seat on the joint federal-provincial board.  Williams’ successor Kathy Dunderdale carried on with the appointment. Dunderdale and her natural resources minister word of Matthews’ new job secret until word of it leaked early in 2011. 

The botched appointment died in a ball of flames amid public condemnation of the blatant patronage it represented. 

The furor included a now famous attack on Dunderdale by Williams:

In my opinion, Elizabeth Matthews – of all the women I have met in politics including my ministers – was the most competent woman I had come across.

Bowers joins another federal appointee with no relevant background in the offshore oil and gas business:  Conrad Sullivan, brother of former Conservative fisheries ambassador Loyola Sullivan,

The two provincial appointees on the board - retired labour union boss Reg Anstey and Ed Drover – also lacked any relevant experience in dealing with offshore oil and gas issues prior to their appointment to the board.

- srbp -

Suck it up, buttercup #nlpoli

Ocean Choice international is a local fishing company.  The key players in the company are from the Sullivan family.

You will recall one member of the family -  Loyola  - was a key cabinet minister in the Tory administration that started in office in 2003.  He is now used to be a federal fisheries ambassador.

Another offshoot of the family served as chief of staff to Tom Rideout – right, exactly as illustrated -  for the 43 days the fellow was premier.

Ocean Choice International, as a company, profited hugely while Tom was fisheries minister under Danny Williams.  The provincial government interfered left, right and centre in the fishing industry.  Rideout seemed to have it as a personal mission to torture one company - Fishery Products International  - to death. 

Rideout ranted about the company in every venue he could find .  Danny Williams joined in the assault.  Rideout started a prosecution against the company for supposed illegal export of fish from its Marystown plant for processing overseas. 

Williams and Rideout pushed changes to the law governing FPI through the House of Assembly to make running the company much more difficult than it already was given the unwarranted political attacks Williams, Rideout and the rest of the Tory administration waged against the locally-based international fishing company.

Ultimately, Rideout and Williams succeeded in smashing FPI to bits.

The profitable stuff, like the FPI brands, the marketing arm and an overseas subsidiary wound up going to fishing companies outside the province.

OCI scooped up a bunch of fish plants, some other odds and ends and the FPI headquarters Building in St. John’s with its large, beautiful boardroom.  OCI sold the building very shortly afterward. 

As the Telegram reported at the time:

According to a conveyance filed at the registry, OCI got $3.335 million for the building, located at 70 O'Leary Ave. in St. John's.

The buyer is Deacon Investments Ltd., whose sole director is local businessman Dean MacDonald.

OCI’s Martin Sullivan spoke to a board of trade luncheon on Tuesday.  Sullivan whined and moaned about the state of the province’s fisheries.  He bawled especially big tears over the heavy hand of government interference.

According to the Telegram’s account of the speech, “Sullivan pointed to yellowtail as an example” of the problems with government interference in processing and marketing.

This is an especially rich moment.  processing yellowtail flounder in China was a key part of Rideout’s ongoing persecution of FPI.  Ocean Choice and the Sullivans swooped in to take up the bits of FPI Rideout shook loose. 

A couple of years later Sullivan and OCI found themselves in exactly the same place FPI was. The provincial government is shagging around with the company over the exports yet again. 

No one should shed any tears over OCI’s current predicament.   They who live by the unholy sword of government interference can’t really expect sympathy when they start getting the same shaft right up to the hilt.

People like Sullivan who represent the fishery of the past ought not to have any say in determining the fishery of the future.  That is, not unless Martin and his friends are willing to compensate the public treasury for the occasions when they profited from the interference he now bitches about.

Otherwise, Sullivan and his compatriots and just suck it up and leave the future of the fishery to other people who have an ounce of credibility.

- srbp -

Related:  Liberal fisheries critic Jim Bennett wants equal time at the board of trade to rebut Sullivan largely with a dose of the same thinking that helped create the current mess.

What the crowd at the board of trade – proponents of the Maximum Government Interference school of free enterprise thinking – have already heard it all before.

What the board of trade could use is a dose of some original ideas, even if they wouldn’t like them.  That’s the only way we might build a successful fishery of the future.

For the world is hollow…

Okay so a bunch of people are spilling ink or pixels or whatever over a bunch of new members of parliament elected in Quebec as if they were somehow a special breed of politicians significantly different from any others anywhere else in the country.

Bar managers who have never visited their ridings and don’t speak the dominant language of the riding.

Four university students.

All New Democrats elected in Quebec.

You know the story.

And now a bunch of other people are pointing out that they really aren’t such an odd bunch after all.

Lysiane Gagnon has a column in the Globe that Bill Rowe would crib if he was still column-writing.  She rattles off the rather impressive credentials of some of the newly minted politicians.

Susan Delacourt has a blog post over at the Star that is a wee bit more cynical:

Forgive me for dashing any lingering  illusions, but the CV has almost nothing to do with winning and losing elections. And it has even less to do with how well MPs fare once they arrive on Parliament Hill.

Geography and gender are equal, if not more important considerations in choosing cabinet.  Good looks and an ability to repeat party talking points  will score MPs  those  sought-after spots in Question Period and on TV panels. Doing what you're told counts more than talking about what you know.

Gagnon and Delacourt and all the people who are gobsmacked at the greenness of some of the new MPs are each correct, in their own way.

Anyone out there who thought politicians have all been budding Nobel laureates are basically as full of crap as the cynics who dismiss them all as the progeny of several successive generations of first cousin intermarriage.

Hello, Canadians, these are the sorts of people you’ve been electing to represent you since at least 1867.

They are – not surprisingly  - no better than the rest of us. 

Nor are they any worse.

Bit of a shocker, eh?

They also aren’t necessarily any different from the politicians we’ve been electing at the provincial or federal level in the past decade or so, at least.  Since 2003 in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, we’ve had a steady stream of politicians whose previous interest in or knowledge of major issues affecting the province has been a bit sketchy.  Former cabinet minister Paul Oram demonstrated that pretty clearly in a couple of interviews during a trip to Georgia. 

He really isn’t alone.  You can find similar displays of fundamental ignorance from former finance minister Loyola Sullivan talking about Equalization or Danny Williams and Charlene Johnson discussing Abitibi’s history in the province or any of a number of pols talking about hydro-electric development in Labrador.

This is not like missing a question on Jeopardy. Politicians get to vote on the laws that govern our lives. Government spending. Criminal code.  Access to information.  If these politicians don’t really know how things work in the world, then you can figure out that – at least for a while – they are going to make a few mistakes.

Big mistakes, maybe.

Or they’ll be more likely to go with the flow rather than challenge dodgy ideas, like say spending public money without any accountability.

Like in the infamous House of Assembly spending scandal.  How many of the newbie politicians took to the improper spending like ducks to the proverbial water only to claim that the rules they found didn’t say you couldn’t do those sorts of things?  Pretty much all of them.

Now the people just elected to the House of Commons are, for the most part, a clever bunch.  Odds are that they’ll learn.  Odds are that many of them will successful politicians.

And in four years time, many of them will be ex-politicians looking for a new job. 

Just as they reach the point they should have been at when they started.

- srbp -

St. John’s South-Mount Pearl: Vote Results Commentary

Take a look at the vote results in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl in the last four federal general elections and you can see the dramatic switch of Conservative votes to New Democrat votes.

Let’s start with the advance poll turn-out.  This is really just to remind everyone of the first sign something big was on the way.

The 2011 advance turn-out was 91% above the next highest, in 2006.  The advance vote turn-out in 2008  - the year of the Conservative civil war called ABC - was slightly below the range for the two previous elections but there was actually nothing radically out of line with it.

Now look at the results for the three major parties for the same elections.

First of all, the total vote for all three parties ranges from 33,137 in 2008 to 38,567 in 2011.  Leaving 2008 aside, total vote for the three parties in 2011 is only 4.2% higher than it was in 2006.

The Liberal 2011 vote total is 550 below the 2004 result and 3799 below the 2008 tally. On the whole, it is consistent with Liberal vote in the riding going back more than a decade. The 1997 Liberal vote in the old riding configuration, for example, was roughly 12,500. 

On the face of it, Siobhan Coady appears to have managed to capture and hold most of the usual Liberal vote in the riding over the four elections.  She gained about 2600 votes during the Conservative civil war, commonly known as the ABC campaign in 2008.

The most striking changes are in the Conservative and New Democrat vote.  Basically the two parties have traded places.

In 2004, when the provincial Conservatives held back from completely supporting the federal party, Loyal Hearn held the seat for the Conservatives.  Hearn increased his vote total in 2006 when the provincial Conservatives openly supported their federal cousins. In 2008, the civil war destroyed the connection between the two almost completely.

Take a look at the New Democrat number in that election and you can tell where the homeless Conservatives went. The bulk of them went to Cleary.  Some others stayed home.  A few went to Coady, likely the result of direct appeals by provincial Conservative cabinet ministers and members of the provincial legislature.

The 2008 vote total is the lowest of the four elections and the total for the four elections is actually fairly consistent over time. That strongly suggests that new voters didn’t enter the field suddenly in 2008.  Rather, existing Conservative voters opted for the New Democrats instead of the Liberals.

That same trend continued into 2011. The other part of the change was Loyola Sullivan who appears to have attracted old Conservatives back or pulled them away from Coady.  The new voters into the system were either old Conservatives who came back or some new voting from people who had not voted in the preceding four elections.

In 2011, the NDP vote increased by 4684.  Conservative vote increased by 4539.  That’s a combined total of  9,223. Liberal vote dropped by 3,799.  Total vote for all three parties increased by 5,430.  That’s a total of 9,229. 

There are a couple of things one can say about all this:

First, there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty which voters moved where and whether the increased total in 2011 came from new voters, old voters coming back or a combination of the two.  There just isn’t any information that would let anyone figure it out conclusively.

Second,  given the overall consistency in the total votes for the three parties, it is more likely that the changes in NDP support came from vote moving from the Conservatives to the New Democrats than from Liberals or from new voters.

Third, the result in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl isn’t part of any national trend toward the New Democrats. The 2011 result came from a trend that began before the 2011 campaign.

Fourth,  since the federal NDP voters in 2011 appear to be coming predominantly from provincial Conservatives, it is highly unlikely the New Democrats can translate their federal success into significant changes at the provincial level.

The party may have a good cadre of workers. They simply don’t have a reliable pool of voters who consistently vote for the same party federally and provincially.  The NDP won St. John’s South-Mount pearl by appealing to swing voters.  By definition, they are liable to swing in the future.  What could make them swing would be a good subject for further, detailed research.

- srbp -

St. John’s South-Mount Pearl: some first observations #elxn41

1. Jack Layton is the new member of parliament for St. John’s South-Mount Pearl.  Remember those signs?  It wasn’t an accident the most visible sign was Jack Layton four bys.
2. Strategic plan.  Well-executed.  The NDP targeted this riding at a national level and drove the local plan according to the national need.  Their local communications materials played down the local candidate and played up the key messages that nationally targeted the issues research showed were important.  The local radio spots were classic local NDP:  top quality in every respect, right down to only mentioning the candidate when they had to.  otherwise they were right on the strategic point.
3. Warning:  Steep learning curve ahead.  Ryan Cleary may be the guy in the seat but there is no guarantee he understands how he got there.  His first media comments – talking about a provincial orange tide in October – tells you he has no idea who voted for him and why.  His second comments about priorities – fisheries inquiry – shows he really doesn’t have a clue as to how he got there.  This guy could be an accident waiting to happen.
4. You can’t hide him forever.  The follow-on to that is a warning to New Democrats that they can’t keep Ryan under wraps forever. In the run-up to the election, he didn’t have a platform to give him a high profile and with it his characteristic propensity to say things he inevitably would regret. That was a key to winning the seat.  The NDP brain trust better work hard on Number Three and hope it works before Number Four cuts in.  Go back and watch him during any of the debates during the campaign and you’ll see what an up-hill fight someone will have to get this guy ready for the Big Time.
5. Everyone missed it.  Outside of the campaigns, no one likely had a clue on voter trending in the riding.  Your humble e-scribbler ran with the pack on this one, labelling it a race that was too close to call.  We all got it wrong. 
6. The Blue Goes Orange.  What we all missed was the extent to which people who usually voted Conservative in the riding headed off to the NDP.  Not only did the Liberals lose votes, another block of voters who sat out in 2008 came back with a vengeance and headed for the NDP and Conservatives.   But it is important to know that Coady held the core Liberal vote over time.  What she lost were obviously the blue people who, especially in 2008 followed orders and went for the Liberals.  Left to their own devices they flooded to the Orange Team.
7. The NDH Play was a bust.  Remember what your humble e-scribbler said about provincial Tories not playing the Dunderdale game?  Well, here’s your proof.  If the awesome Tory machine in SJSMP had really backed the federal Cons with the vengeance some people would have you believe they did, then they could have elected the lead from Weekend at Bernies.  As it is, Loyola Sullivan tanked badly.
8. Look what happened last time.  Siobhan Coady was as organized as she has ever been and as aggressive as she could get.  Her campaign team deserves kudos for their efforts on the ground.  Unfortunately, Siobhan doesn’t seem to have figured out who she was really running against, ever.  Her messaging made that pretty clear what with the recycled 2008 talking points.  It’s really too bad.  Siobhan could have made a significant mark.

- srbp -

Change is in the air… or maybe not #elxn41

In Election 2011, perhaps more so than any other recent election, people can see the shortcomings of national opinion polls.

They may capture an overall national picture but with horrendous margins of error and often limited information about voting behaviour they are all but useless in trying to project seat counts and even party standings. It’s not a problem facing one pollster;  it’s across the board.

You can also see the shortcomings of media commentary, especially as the electronic media seems to rely almost exclusively on reporters interviewing other reporters. There was a fine example of that last Friday on the CBC Radio Morning Show. There were penetrating insights into the fairly obvious: Avalon and St. John’s South-Mount Pearl might change hands.

And even some true head-scratchers like a version of the threehundredeight.blogspot.com seat projection that had Random-Burin-St. Goerges going Tory. John Ottenheimer coming on strong?  We’ll see.

There were also coments about “splits” and generalizations about how it all comes down to the “ground game”. That’s politico speak for getting vote to the polls. Again, it’s a bit like describing the intricacies of brain surgery by referring to a copy of Gray’s Anatomy of the human body.

What would have distinguished Friday’s commentary from the run-of-the-mill fare was any concrete information on what the campaigns actually look like on the ground.

And that’s where the local story starts to get interesting.  Anyone who believes that  Kathy Dunderdale’s people will be turning out en masse for the federal Conservatives, it just ain’t so. Some provincial Tory members of the House of Assembly have been working hard personally. Some have been doing only the minimum they had to in order to get by. A few more than Ed Buckingham have done exactly shag-all.

Now that may not be what you hear if you ask a Tory insider directly but the evidence of what actually happened will be clear once polling is done.

And as for the rank and file workers, that’s a whole other story. Kathy Dunderdale cannot direct them any more than Danny could actually get the blue people to vote Liberal in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl last time.  She quite obviously couldn’t lure them back from the New Democratic Party in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, let alone brow-beat them threaten them or otherwise produce the outcome some people might have been expecting.

This will NOT be a reverse ABC.

This very much will be a referendum on Kathy Dunderdale.  If Fabian Manning wins Avalon, it is a seat he won largely on his own.  If no other seats turn blue, the Dunderdale failed.  And if the Tory vote doesn’t shoot up to levels along the lines of what they saw in 2004 or 2006, then Dunderdale failed.  Monday could be a very bad night for Kathy Dunderdale.

Knowing what is happening on the ground will also tell you what odds there might be that some sort of NDP surge might have a wider effect on ridings in this province.  The national New Democrats have targeted the South.  It is getting money and bodies. They appear to have taken a strategy of minimising their candidate’s profile and played up Jack Layton very strongly.  If they are half as organized on voting day as they appear heading into the last day,  Ryan Cleary will give incumbent Siobhan Coady a very hard run for her money.  He might win.  It is close.

One potential factor to cross off your list:  Loyola Sullivan.  His angry old Rain Man routine simply turned people off.  His ego campaign – big round Loyola heads in front of a flag – simply looked ridiculous. 

Outside of St. John’s,  the Avalon is likely the only riding that will go blue and the NDP have resorted to names on ballots in every other riding other than the South. Miracles do happen but with no money and no organization, the orange people don;t stand much of a chance. 

As for the Tories, they will come in second in every seat off the Avalon. Certainly in Labrador, John Hickey has been campaigning hard for a senate seat, errr his federal friends, but odds are that Peter Penashue won’t be the new Tory member of parliament for Labrador.  Stay tuned on the senate seat.

Take that sort of stuff as a good indicator of what could be happening elsewhere.  In Quebec, people are telling pollsters they love the NDP. Problem is that the NDP only had the resources and committed the resources to Quebec that reflected their earlier appraisal that they could maybe hang on to one seat. Unless they have suddenly turned up hordes of volunteers in the past few weeks, they will have a devil of time turning those stated intentions into actual marks on a ballot. 

Again, stranger things have happened, but don’t be surprised if election results tonight coming out of Quebec don’t live up to advance billing.

The two places to watch nationally outside Quebec are the Greater Toronto Area and British Columbia. The Conservatives have targeted their energy into ridings  where they can turn them over and they could wind up squeaking out a comfortable minority or even a slim majority.

Change could be in the air.

But then again, it might not be.

You’ll only know for sure once the whole thing is done.

- srbp -

Attack of the Fluffy Bunnies #elxn41

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

The attack ads are out.

Everybody has one.

Some people are whining about them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay people.

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

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

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

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

3%.

That’s not a typo.

That’s all.

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

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

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

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

Bizarro.

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

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

- srbp -