Muskrats have small eyes that are positioned on top of their heads that allow them to be secretive in the water.
Problem is: the water is drying up and the Muskrat is coming under close scrutiny.
The Muskrat tried feverishly to protect itself by trying to drown us in waterlogged access to information - however that failed.
The polls are a reflection of both the arrogance and secrecy of the Dunderdale/Williams administration.
The people are NOT sold on the Emera deal and a significant number are obviously very concerned.
Here is a list of what I think Dunderdale's problems are:
1. Muskrat Falls Deal
2. Access to Information Changes
3. Continued Arrogance
4. Support for Harper
5. Loss of federal jobs and services
6. Mess of the Fishery
7. Mess of rural Newfoundland and Labrador
8. Loss of forestry industry
9. Incompetence of Ministers and backbenchers
10. Health (cuts, nurses, doctors, pharmacies - mismanagement)
11. Partisan appointments
The most important - the loss of Burton Winter's Life - we Demand an Inquiry
The arrogant list:
Premier Dunderdale
Minister Jerome Kennedy
Minister Susan Sullivan
Minister Joan Burke
Minister Darin King
Minister Kevin O'Brien
Minister Tom Marshall
Minister Charlene Johnson
MHA Sandy Collins
MHA David Brazil
MHA Steve Kent
By the way the continued childish attacks on Dale Kirby are NOT working.
The continued attempt to control open line programs is NOT working.
So - Kathy Dunderdale and fellow vainglorious PC members - don't get that the fix is in or they are aware and are not planning to run again - or they are hoping to see some personal gain/favour.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador must stop the Muskrat deal - we cannot afford it.
It is NOT enough to fire them out of office - we must stop the deal.
Showing posts with label environics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Has the NL Media unwittingly interfered with our Election? Polls should be Investigated?
Just listening to a VOCM report on the latest poll this one done by Environics - reportedly for the Canadian Press.
What was reported was that this was a poll done with a group of people selected from a panel and who were compensated for it.
Further they properly stated that these types of polls do not have a predictable level of accuracy - therefore they do not ascribe a + - percentage to it.
This is exactly what should have been done by MQO and their two polls. If one reads the standards for polling stated by the MRIA an association for pollsters - one should conclude that the MQO polls should not have stated an accuracy +-.
Now let's look at what the cost is to the people, our election, and the outcome.
In the case of many reputable media giants like the New York Times and others - simply do not report these polls because of the potential for significant inaccuracies and thereby possibility of improperly swaying opinions during an election campaign.
It's one thing to report these types of polls when talking about choosing between Crest and Colgate or Pepsi and Coke - it's quite another thing to upset election impartiality.
So why are the media stations in Newfoundland and Labrador even reporting these types of polls and what is the rolling impact of them?
Please remember this statement by Stanford University Researchers on these types of polls:
The inconsistency is a challenge because it means the accuracy of one measure from an opt-in panel survey can’t reliably be taken to mean that other measures are accurate, the researchers noted. And there are other problems: While results of one of the seven opt-in online panels was “strikingly and unusually inaccurate,” they said, “the rest were roughly equivalently inaccurate,”
This means that the polls by MQO and Environics can be equivalently strikingly and unusually inaccurate. So once again why is our media reporting them? Now that we have a CRA poll which may be based on random sampling meaning an accuracy percentage can be applied - have the other polls now interfered with peoples opinions prior to a "random sampling" poll being done?
Have they been lined up this way?
One thing we should all be - is very mad at companies conducting "innovative" polling in the middle of an election and also that our media has broadly reported it.
Although the Environics poll has fully explained that their poll cannot attach itself to an accuracy percentage - why has the Canadian Press released it and why is our media reporting it?
This should all be investigated after the election.
What was reported was that this was a poll done with a group of people selected from a panel and who were compensated for it.
Further they properly stated that these types of polls do not have a predictable level of accuracy - therefore they do not ascribe a + - percentage to it.
This is exactly what should have been done by MQO and their two polls. If one reads the standards for polling stated by the MRIA an association for pollsters - one should conclude that the MQO polls should not have stated an accuracy +-.
Now let's look at what the cost is to the people, our election, and the outcome.
In the case of many reputable media giants like the New York Times and others - simply do not report these polls because of the potential for significant inaccuracies and thereby possibility of improperly swaying opinions during an election campaign.
It's one thing to report these types of polls when talking about choosing between Crest and Colgate or Pepsi and Coke - it's quite another thing to upset election impartiality.
So why are the media stations in Newfoundland and Labrador even reporting these types of polls and what is the rolling impact of them?
Please remember this statement by Stanford University Researchers on these types of polls:
The inconsistency is a challenge because it means the accuracy of one measure from an opt-in panel survey can’t reliably be taken to mean that other measures are accurate, the researchers noted. And there are other problems: While results of one of the seven opt-in online panels was “strikingly and unusually inaccurate,” they said, “the rest were roughly equivalently inaccurate,”
This means that the polls by MQO and Environics can be equivalently strikingly and unusually inaccurate. So once again why is our media reporting them? Now that we have a CRA poll which may be based on random sampling meaning an accuracy percentage can be applied - have the other polls now interfered with peoples opinions prior to a "random sampling" poll being done?
Have they been lined up this way?
One thing we should all be - is very mad at companies conducting "innovative" polling in the middle of an election and also that our media has broadly reported it.
Although the Environics poll has fully explained that their poll cannot attach itself to an accuracy percentage - why has the Canadian Press released it and why is our media reporting it?
This should all be investigated after the election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)