CBC News Newfoundland and Labrador ran a clip on their late night broadcast of Premier Kathy Dunderdale commenting on the latest CRA poll results.
The quote from Dunderdale was:
"When you take on stewardship you have to be prepared to make difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular but it's always nice when you have support of the majority of people, we have that and I'm grateful for it."
First of all the Premier and her government do not have support of the majority of people - they are governing because in "a snapshot in time" in October the majority of people who voted supported them.
Now considering the Premier claims she does not govern based on polls - I suggest she does not use popularity as a reason.
The "difficult decisions sometimes that aren't popular" piece as Dunderdale and her colleagues would phrase it - leaves me very perplexed. The erosion of support is based on difficult and unpopular decisions?
Let's see - so the Muskrat Falls fiasco is a difficult decision that is unpopular?
Decisions on what?
Is this a confirmation that polls are taking place internally on the Emera deal and they are not showing favourably?
There is no doubt that this proposed energy project is causing a significant drop in the popularity of the Premier and her government. Now come the tough questions versus the tough decisions.
1. British Columbia forced a referendum on HST through a tool in their democracy chest and the government had to live with the consequences. The harmonized sales tax policy is similar to the Muskrat Falls development deal in that it involves changes that affect consumers on mass and revenue streams for government. Will this government allow democracy to govern and call a referendum on this deal?
2. What can be done to force a referendum on this issue?
3. Considering this one project could amass a debt load equivalent to our entire debt now - is it not appropriate for the Premier and her government to seek permission over and above a "snapshot in time" result in October?
4. Considering very significant information on this deal and financial consequences were not known at the time of the last provincial election - how does the Premier feel she has vetted the public on it?
5. Will former PC and Liberal Cabinet Ministers step to the plate as former Premier Bill Vander Zalm did in British Columbia and rally the people to demand a referendum?
The Muskrat Chill refuses to thaw and the relationship between people and the government is getting frosty. The Premier can choose to pile on parkas or warm up to the people she is "humbled" to represent.
Showing posts with label MQO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MQO. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, September 07, 2012
Dunderdale Come Clean on Polling!
Premier Dunderdale says:
“Polls provide a snapshot in time. Responsible leaders do not govern based on polls.”
“We will continue to govern according to the vision, principles and platform on which we were elected.”
A few questions for our Premier:
1. Does or has her party or government engaged any polling?
2. Why did her party or government engage polling?
3. Do any of her party members or political staffers involve themselves in non-scientific polling such as VOCM's question of the day or CBC NL's online questions or NTV's occasional viewer polls, or the Tely Polls?
4. Has there been any polls conducted on the Muskrat Falls proposed development - between Emera and Nalcor - by her government or party?
5. During the last provincial election did the PC Party of which Dunderdale is the leader engage or use any results of "non-solicited" polls?
6. Considering the election is a poll and a "snapshot in time" is Dunderdale prepared to go to the people by referendum on the Muskrat Falls proposed development?
7. Has the Premier, or her Party or staff ever used the results of polling to publicly state that support is with them?
8. What does Dunderdale attribute the latest "snapshot in time" result to?
9. What singular issue has garnered the most public debate over the past 10 months?
10. Considering the "snapshots in time" results continue to show loss of support for her and her government - does Dunderdale believe this is as a result of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
“Polls provide a snapshot in time. Responsible leaders do not govern based on polls.”
“We will continue to govern according to the vision, principles and platform on which we were elected.”
A few questions for our Premier:
1. Does or has her party or government engaged any polling?
2. Why did her party or government engage polling?
3. Do any of her party members or political staffers involve themselves in non-scientific polling such as VOCM's question of the day or CBC NL's online questions or NTV's occasional viewer polls, or the Tely Polls?
4. Has there been any polls conducted on the Muskrat Falls proposed development - between Emera and Nalcor - by her government or party?
5. During the last provincial election did the PC Party of which Dunderdale is the leader engage or use any results of "non-solicited" polls?
6. Considering the election is a poll and a "snapshot in time" is Dunderdale prepared to go to the people by referendum on the Muskrat Falls proposed development?
7. Has the Premier, or her Party or staff ever used the results of polling to publicly state that support is with them?
8. What does Dunderdale attribute the latest "snapshot in time" result to?
9. What singular issue has garnered the most public debate over the past 10 months?
10. Considering the "snapshots in time" results continue to show loss of support for her and her government - does Dunderdale believe this is as a result of the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
A Day in the House of Assembly - no longer for the People
For those of you who have not been in the House of Assembly for awhile - now might be the time to check on your employees.
I know many of you watch on television and see bits and pieces on the news but you need to sit in the public gallery.
When the House is televised you generally get a view of a person asking or answering a question. When you are in the House you get the full scope of the behavior.
The government members - who are your employees - would not last a day in any other workplace. They would be summarily dismissed and would soon not be hired by any employer.
The rancor of debate is normal and you might see that in a particularly feisty case in court but you would never see the rest of the behavior in any workplace.
As the government members stood on their feet last night you seen their face in the camera and you heard the words they were told to say. You would have listened to protestations of "we are only here to serve the people and do what's best for the people".
The people who were not on camera were laughing and giggling, making faces, showing pictures on their iPads, texting, reading the paper, moving from seat to seat, whispering and pointing to their employers in the gallery and generally attempting to bully anybody they could.
The job they were doing - passing legislation - was the furthest thing from their minds - in fact most - based on their commentary - knew nothing about the legislation they were passing, and less than that about the subject area and potential impacts.
Joan Burke's job apparently - apart from distributing candy for their late night party - is to constantly say kirby.com giggle giggle kirby.com hehehehe. Then when she had a spare moment she became Darin King's BFF and the two delighted in sliding their fingers across the iPad. At one point the Premier, Joan, Darin, and Charlene were holding their bellies with laughter. What were they laughing at? Well - just like bullies - they were whispering and pointing - using hand gestures - and trying their hardest to make somebody feel unwelcome or unimportant.
Tom Marshall's job appears to require a better chair - perhaps a La-Z-Boy - where he can really stretch out and disengage.
Kevin O'Brien was the man of the hour last night - sitting stoically next to the Minister of Health - as the two displayed ignorance I have never witnessed in my life time. The Opposition members both NDP and Liberal would say something and then Susan would lean her ear into Kevin and await the hasty explanations put forth from the guru of pharmacy. He kept looking into the gallery - to watch the responses from actual pharmacy owners as he mislead the camera and caucus colleagues.
Squeaking from the back bench was this obscure person - who seems desperate to want to make the starting line-up and acts like he would do anything to get there. He went so far as to put his own prescription requirements out for the public to assess - so be it.
Practically all of them felt comfortable in attacking people in the public gallery - knowing they were not allowed to respond. They pointed to the people in the gallery and called them names, attacked their character, belittled their accomplishments, and generally attempted to intimidate them. This was all under the protection of the rules of the House of Assembly.
Finally there are the muted head-bobbers - who as if they understood a pecking order - contributed nothing more than literally nodding their head up and down in approval for 10 hours.
Terry French and Clyde Jackman are an unfortunate duo - who have reduced themselves to making personal attacks on people who cannot respond; both are also competant campaigners who know how to praise enough people to keep them elected.
It is safe to say that Dale Kirby and Yvonne Jones are the MHA's who are targeted most on the floor - by government members who behave like bullies. You see the bullies cannot stand on brain power - they stand on intimidation by numbers.
These MHA's in the House of Assembly looked up to the public gallery and advised their employers what they should or should not do and what they are allowed and not allowed to do - as if they had the power to control them.
Make no mistake about the following conclusion. Democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador means that you elected the Dunderdale government and as such they believe you gave them absolute power to do as they wish - when they wish. The government will dictate what public discourse is appropriate - when and how many times - on all issues.
Their one line of debate is; they are elected. They were elected - in their view - to proceed unimpeded by any opposition - legislative or public and any interference to that by anybody will be met with the full force of their governmental power.
They feel free to advise legitimate corporate entities on who they should employ and who they should not. They feel free to instruct the number of times one might appear on a talk-show - before they determine it is unacceptable. They have no problem advising experts in one field or another that despite their expertise - it is the government that has the power and really facts or knowledge don't enter into it. They feel they have a right to dictate what a group can or cannot do to express their position to government. They feel free to tell business owners in Newfoundland and Labrador that the owners have no right to speak but they will negotiate with the companies employees. (more on this in a separate post)
Simply put - these are people who do not understand or do not care about a democratic process which is open and accountable. The people report to them - they do not answer to the people. The only time this government and its members will answer to the people is 12 hours every 4 years. The Ross Reid led strategic political plan - can be and should be likened to strategies employed in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosova, and the Ukraine. Ross spent much time moving these regions along - is it possible he learned more from them than he taught about political systems and the power of a government?
I add that many of the people I sat with in the public gallery until 1 o'clock last night and over the past two days - left - shaking their heads, disgusted, disappointed, and with a resolve to share what they experienced. Were they disappointed with a decision that impacted their business, their communities, and most importantly the people they serve? Yes - but that they can deal with that. What they will not accept are insults, mistreatment, disrespect, innuendo, and lies. In this the government made it's largest mistake.
P.S has MQO put out any "gratis" polls of late?
Over the next week or two I will be posting on the events in the House, the fallout, how you will be impacted, and the erroneous and/or false statements made by government members and Ministers.
I know many of you watch on television and see bits and pieces on the news but you need to sit in the public gallery.
When the House is televised you generally get a view of a person asking or answering a question. When you are in the House you get the full scope of the behavior.
The government members - who are your employees - would not last a day in any other workplace. They would be summarily dismissed and would soon not be hired by any employer.
The rancor of debate is normal and you might see that in a particularly feisty case in court but you would never see the rest of the behavior in any workplace.
As the government members stood on their feet last night you seen their face in the camera and you heard the words they were told to say. You would have listened to protestations of "we are only here to serve the people and do what's best for the people".
The people who were not on camera were laughing and giggling, making faces, showing pictures on their iPads, texting, reading the paper, moving from seat to seat, whispering and pointing to their employers in the gallery and generally attempting to bully anybody they could.
The job they were doing - passing legislation - was the furthest thing from their minds - in fact most - based on their commentary - knew nothing about the legislation they were passing, and less than that about the subject area and potential impacts.
Joan Burke's job apparently - apart from distributing candy for their late night party - is to constantly say kirby.com giggle giggle kirby.com hehehehe. Then when she had a spare moment she became Darin King's BFF and the two delighted in sliding their fingers across the iPad. At one point the Premier, Joan, Darin, and Charlene were holding their bellies with laughter. What were they laughing at? Well - just like bullies - they were whispering and pointing - using hand gestures - and trying their hardest to make somebody feel unwelcome or unimportant.
Tom Marshall's job appears to require a better chair - perhaps a La-Z-Boy - where he can really stretch out and disengage.
Kevin O'Brien was the man of the hour last night - sitting stoically next to the Minister of Health - as the two displayed ignorance I have never witnessed in my life time. The Opposition members both NDP and Liberal would say something and then Susan would lean her ear into Kevin and await the hasty explanations put forth from the guru of pharmacy. He kept looking into the gallery - to watch the responses from actual pharmacy owners as he mislead the camera and caucus colleagues.
Squeaking from the back bench was this obscure person - who seems desperate to want to make the starting line-up and acts like he would do anything to get there. He went so far as to put his own prescription requirements out for the public to assess - so be it.
Practically all of them felt comfortable in attacking people in the public gallery - knowing they were not allowed to respond. They pointed to the people in the gallery and called them names, attacked their character, belittled their accomplishments, and generally attempted to intimidate them. This was all under the protection of the rules of the House of Assembly.
Finally there are the muted head-bobbers - who as if they understood a pecking order - contributed nothing more than literally nodding their head up and down in approval for 10 hours.
Terry French and Clyde Jackman are an unfortunate duo - who have reduced themselves to making personal attacks on people who cannot respond; both are also competant campaigners who know how to praise enough people to keep them elected.
It is safe to say that Dale Kirby and Yvonne Jones are the MHA's who are targeted most on the floor - by government members who behave like bullies. You see the bullies cannot stand on brain power - they stand on intimidation by numbers.
These MHA's in the House of Assembly looked up to the public gallery and advised their employers what they should or should not do and what they are allowed and not allowed to do - as if they had the power to control them.
Make no mistake about the following conclusion. Democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador means that you elected the Dunderdale government and as such they believe you gave them absolute power to do as they wish - when they wish. The government will dictate what public discourse is appropriate - when and how many times - on all issues.
Their one line of debate is; they are elected. They were elected - in their view - to proceed unimpeded by any opposition - legislative or public and any interference to that by anybody will be met with the full force of their governmental power.
They feel free to advise legitimate corporate entities on who they should employ and who they should not. They feel free to instruct the number of times one might appear on a talk-show - before they determine it is unacceptable. They have no problem advising experts in one field or another that despite their expertise - it is the government that has the power and really facts or knowledge don't enter into it. They feel they have a right to dictate what a group can or cannot do to express their position to government. They feel free to tell business owners in Newfoundland and Labrador that the owners have no right to speak but they will negotiate with the companies employees. (more on this in a separate post)
Simply put - these are people who do not understand or do not care about a democratic process which is open and accountable. The people report to them - they do not answer to the people. The only time this government and its members will answer to the people is 12 hours every 4 years. The Ross Reid led strategic political plan - can be and should be likened to strategies employed in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosova, and the Ukraine. Ross spent much time moving these regions along - is it possible he learned more from them than he taught about political systems and the power of a government?
I add that many of the people I sat with in the public gallery until 1 o'clock last night and over the past two days - left - shaking their heads, disgusted, disappointed, and with a resolve to share what they experienced. Were they disappointed with a decision that impacted their business, their communities, and most importantly the people they serve? Yes - but that they can deal with that. What they will not accept are insults, mistreatment, disrespect, innuendo, and lies. In this the government made it's largest mistake.
P.S has MQO put out any "gratis" polls of late?
Over the next week or two I will be posting on the events in the House, the fallout, how you will be impacted, and the erroneous and/or false statements made by government members and Ministers.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Is Emera deal based on a False diagnosis and Limited treatment options?
In today's Telegram - Russell Wangersky addresses an important point. "Covering all the bases" deals with assumptions and reviews.
Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?
"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"
Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.
I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.
If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.
Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.
Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.
Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.
From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.
The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.
The following problems exist:
1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.
2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.
3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.
This is exactly the problem we have here.
Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.
Last week Sue's Blog asked the following question?
"Why are all independent reviews guided by Nalcor's numbers and projections?"
Be it Manitoba Hydro or Navigant - in completing an "independent" review - they were restricted by defined options and defined assumptions.
I have no doubt that I and many other interested individuals - if tasked with the same body of work - would come back with the same conclusions.
If you have inaccurate assumptions going in you may have an inaccurate finding coming out.
Then based on the possible inaccurate conclusions you then present two possible options for resolving what may be non-existent problem.
Wangersky's column starts to deal with this mess.
Let's compare this to a health issue. A patient presents to a physician with a distended stomach. The physician proceeds to measure the stomach - touch the affected area - and question the patient on how they are feeling.
From there the physician says you have a tumor and here are your two options. We can cut it out - or we can radiate. The physician then spends significant time explaining the potential risks and side-affects of each treatment. From there the patient is asked to make a decision.
The patient instead asks the doctor to get a second opinion. The physician sends to a second and third physician the conclusions and treatment options. The other doctors are advised that no other treatment options can be considered and the original findings of a tumor have to be accepted based on the tests of the original physician.
The following problems exist:
1. The diagnosis was based on a limited number of tests and therefore may not be sufficient to determine the real cause of the distended stomach.
2. The treatment may be inappropriate as the problem and causes were incorrectly diagnosed.
3. Even if the diagnosis of a tumor was accurate - limiting the choice of treatment options does not allow another doctor to recommend a treatment that may be superior to the other two and may in fact cause less distress and provide a better health outcome for the patient.
This is exactly the problem we have here.
Sue's Blog - does have a recommendation for an independent review - Stay tuned for next post.
Monday, February 06, 2012
What's the One Thing Missing from Muskrat Discussion?
From the day Kathy Dunderdale inherited the Premiership what has been missing in the Muskrat discussion?
Scientific Polls - At least those that have been released publicly.
This government is poll crazy - I believe they have been conducting polls; so where are they?
Scientific Polls - At least those that have been released publicly.
This government is poll crazy - I believe they have been conducting polls; so where are they?
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Talk with Sue Second Show - Electoral Reform - the Sleeping Democracy - Dunderdale's arrogance!
Join us tonight at 8 pm - Talk with Sue - Second Show deals with electoral reform.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?
42% of people did not vote. Why?
The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?
Why type of electoral system would you like to see?
Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?
What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.
I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.
We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.
Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!
Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.
Friday, November 04, 2011
What do you think about the Len Simms - Ross Reid scandalous Reappointments?
Let's talk about our electoral system - do you think it represents you?
Let's talk about "innovative" polling - particularly during election campaigns.
Let's talk about intimidation during elections. Call with your stories!
How about the rights enjoyed by Len Simms and Ross Reid - what about all other "public" servants?
First past the post system - is it our best choice?
What do you think about proportional representation?
Do you think a Minister like Kevin O'Brien can deal with this type of debate and policy debate instead of painstakingly explaining how we now change our clocks at two in the morning?
Do you believe a referendum should be held on electoral reform?
"Talk with Sue" Sunday night and 8pm
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talkwithsue
This show is a real peoples program - where politicians do not rule - you do.
Let's talk about "innovative" polling - particularly during election campaigns.
Let's talk about intimidation during elections. Call with your stories!
How about the rights enjoyed by Len Simms and Ross Reid - what about all other "public" servants?
First past the post system - is it our best choice?
What do you think about proportional representation?
Do you think a Minister like Kevin O'Brien can deal with this type of debate and policy debate instead of painstakingly explaining how we now change our clocks at two in the morning?
Do you believe a referendum should be held on electoral reform?
"Talk with Sue" Sunday night and 8pm
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talkwithsue
This show is a real peoples program - where politicians do not rule - you do.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
The Cabinet that Kathy Built
Ms. Dunderdale has built her cabinet.
The cabinet is wooden not steel.
The cabinet has hardware.
The cabinet has knobs.
The cabinet has a door but it won`t open.
The cabinet responds to a clapper.
The cabinet is made of bleached white wood - most of it reclaimed.
The cabinet looks masculine but sounds childlike as it squeaks.
The cabinet is a smaller copy of the one Danny built.
The cabinet holds no files.
The cabinet does not come with a warranty.
The cabinet is not accessible but can be viewed through an opaque window.
The cabinet has no known purpose.
The cabinet may have been co-designed by up and comer Stephen Harper in consultation with re-hire Ross Reid.
The cabinet foreman is Len Simms to make sure it fits the house.
The cabinet will travel throughout the world, country, and province first-class and with security.
The cabinet has been rearranged with some parts removed and other parts left out.
The cabinet is not pleasing to the City of St. John`s - surprising - since it is N ew D underdale and P artisan driven.
The cabinet did not include building materials from Kent - is not of Perryod and did not require a Hunter.
The cabinet is bullet proof particularly resistant to the Tommy gun.
The cabinet appears to have a lazy-susan, sagging drawers, yet it is fit for a king if not a wise-man.
The cabinet is well oiled but may be penetrable by running water.
The cabinet was assembled at the defunct mill in Grand Falls-Windsor by people who were promised or threatened during the election.
The cabinet is getting good reviews from a panel polled yesterday.
The cabinet also received significant media attention - particularly from one David who was favourable to a conservative building plan.
The cabinet was not liberal with colour and reports claim that one tainted with a red origin was rejected to sit in the chair.
The cabinet was built with resources found in Labrador but not by Labradorians with the exception of a nick in the wood.
The cabinet smells of muskrat despite being sprayed with a french cologne.
The cabinet may become unhinged if dragged into the House.
The cabinet will be carefully and slowly installed in the House and then may suffer catastrophic failure.
The cabinet is likely to cause long-term damage to people who are exposed to the green wood.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
After the Fact - Let the Moaning Begin - too Late Now
So the election is over and the moaning begins.
Examples of this are everywhere!
1. Don Mills of Corporate Research - says that polling may be a problem and the industry must meet and will be meeting on this.
2. Dean MacDonald has problems with Kathy Dunderdale - now - but where during the election.
3. Mayor Bill Hogan - Placentia - full force rural complaints - but only after the election.
4. Protests and disgust relative to the House of Assembly not opening in the fall. Dunderdale said this before the election.
5. Fogo Island and Change Islands complaints on ferry - after the election.
6. Labrador City residents protest lack of Obstetrics services - after the election. Have petition to the House of Assembly but its not open.
7. The Telegram editorial today talking about the hypocrisy of the Dunderdale squad on not debating the Muskrat deal in the House of Assembly - when they demanded it on Voisey's Bay when in Opposition. Sue's Blog and others have been saying this for months. Only after the election do they speak about it.
It's amazing how concerned everybody becomes after the vote. What's more important here is that these issues were known prior to the election - nothing new.
I guess Kathy Dunderdale's dictatorial statements to the plant workers and fishers on the Burin Peninsula - that these issues would not be dealt with during the election was real. Oh well!
Examples of this are everywhere!
1. Don Mills of Corporate Research - says that polling may be a problem and the industry must meet and will be meeting on this.
2. Dean MacDonald has problems with Kathy Dunderdale - now - but where during the election.
3. Mayor Bill Hogan - Placentia - full force rural complaints - but only after the election.
4. Protests and disgust relative to the House of Assembly not opening in the fall. Dunderdale said this before the election.
5. Fogo Island and Change Islands complaints on ferry - after the election.
6. Labrador City residents protest lack of Obstetrics services - after the election. Have petition to the House of Assembly but its not open.
7. The Telegram editorial today talking about the hypocrisy of the Dunderdale squad on not debating the Muskrat deal in the House of Assembly - when they demanded it on Voisey's Bay when in Opposition. Sue's Blog and others have been saying this for months. Only after the election do they speak about it.
It's amazing how concerned everybody becomes after the vote. What's more important here is that these issues were known prior to the election - nothing new.
I guess Kathy Dunderdale's dictatorial statements to the plant workers and fishers on the Burin Peninsula - that these issues would not be dealt with during the election was real. Oh well!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Tom Marshall - Continues to speak down to Media and Public. Disgrace!
Tom Marshall continued election style rhetoric today on VOCM. The talk-show appearance lacked relevance - but rather a pathetic performance of a man whose leader just arrogantly determined she was not going to open the House of Assembly. He certainly praised the Premier and vowed to serve her in whatever capacity she wanted - but no such guarantee to the people who employ and elect politicians.
Marshall carried on with some subtle media warnings about writing anything that might criticize the government. I think he was also telling people not to question politicians and to stop being cynical.
Marshall'sjeans genes might be blue but the moxy of denim cut in his forefathers cloth was not evident.
This man has no courage and certainly has no respect for the people of the province. He wants to ensure that his leader answers no real questions on any public issue - but he was generous enough to tell people - they should have some opposition members.
Where next Tom?
Tom - Minister of Natural Resources
Joan - Minister of Health
Jerome - Minister of Finance
But what's most important is - who will the speaker be? Who cares? The People's House is being held up by politicians without integrity and who have no respect for the electorate.
Tom says, everything is under control - dont' worry - be happy.
I'm wondering the stories of people getting telephone calls if the right political sign was not on their lawn - or community leaders warned of repercussions if they did not support their master - or people who were frightened to death for their job if they stuffed an envelope will come to light?
Speaking of which - why is Len Simms still on the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing website? This remained throughout the election. It is bad enough that this form of what could be perceived as intimidation was permitted to happen without media questions - it is worse that it carries on today.
So during the campaign - although Mr. Simms said he had resigned - people who rely on housing could very well think - he's still the boss. Is this what Tom Marshall is so proud of?
Proud of inaccurate and damaging polls by a company that works for agencies or departments of government?
Proud of bullying tactics toward people who critique government?
Proud of the loss of the fishery, forestry, and whole communities?
Proud of giving away resources so that millionaire shareholders make more and Nova Scotians have access to cheaper power while our people pay the price?
You Sir and your government would stop at nothing to get re-elected. It was and is a disgrace. 42% of our people did not vote. New Energy? No - same old - same old.
Marshall carried on with some subtle media warnings about writing anything that might criticize the government. I think he was also telling people not to question politicians and to stop being cynical.
Marshall's
This man has no courage and certainly has no respect for the people of the province. He wants to ensure that his leader answers no real questions on any public issue - but he was generous enough to tell people - they should have some opposition members.
Where next Tom?
Tom - Minister of Natural Resources
Joan - Minister of Health
Jerome - Minister of Finance
But what's most important is - who will the speaker be? Who cares? The People's House is being held up by politicians without integrity and who have no respect for the electorate.
Tom says, everything is under control - dont' worry - be happy.
I'm wondering the stories of people getting telephone calls if the right political sign was not on their lawn - or community leaders warned of repercussions if they did not support their master - or people who were frightened to death for their job if they stuffed an envelope will come to light?
Speaking of which - why is Len Simms still on the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing website? This remained throughout the election. It is bad enough that this form of what could be perceived as intimidation was permitted to happen without media questions - it is worse that it carries on today.
So during the campaign - although Mr. Simms said he had resigned - people who rely on housing could very well think - he's still the boss. Is this what Tom Marshall is so proud of?
Proud of inaccurate and damaging polls by a company that works for agencies or departments of government?
Proud of bullying tactics toward people who critique government?
Proud of the loss of the fishery, forestry, and whole communities?
Proud of giving away resources so that millionaire shareholders make more and Nova Scotians have access to cheaper power while our people pay the price?
You Sir and your government would stop at nothing to get re-elected. It was and is a disgrace. 42% of our people did not vote. New Energy? No - same old - same old.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Real Numbers mean something now! Pollsters and Media fail democracy
So 57.7 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted in this years election.
That tells us quite a bit. 42 per cent of us are not voting. This at a time of "New Energy" - quite a joke if it was funny.
The Premier managed to get 1/3 of the population to vote for her and under our system - that works to form government.
It was 73 per cent in 2003 and dropped to 60 per cent in 2007 and now 58 per cent.
This is not an energized population and all parties are to blame.
Further the PC's had 70 per cent of the popular vote in 2007 up from 59 per cent in 2003 and in 2011 dropped down to lowest levels during this time to 56 per cent.
So not only did the PC's lose significant popular vote from 2007 but additionally the number of eligible voters - who actually voted went down.
So Madame Premier you have 1/3 of us on your "New Energy".
Now let's talk about notable exceptions.
The two I am most familiar with are the two where pharmacy owners tackled Cabinet Ministers.
Todd Squires - Liberal - in Placentia - St. Mary's that district's voter turnout was 68.55%
Wayne Morris - Liberal - in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans that district's was 65.35%
Todd Squires actually raised the Liberal vote by 1000 and Wayne Morris by 1300 - this demonstration of both increased turnout plus significant growth says that new faces and quality candidates do make a difference and is what it's going to take to rebuild our democracy.
These two gentlemen accomplished this in only three short weeks.
Continuing on with the polls - and the media that embraced them. They were wrong. The MQO inaccuracies were significant and certainly played a role in voter disgust and disinterest. Elections are about people not companies - particularly polling companies using "innovative" techniques.
The Liberal Party at 13% that MQO predicted a just over a week before an election - was obviously damaging and did not represent - within a margin of error - even though such a margin of error should not have even been used for an "opt-in" poll.
The Liberals have about 20 per cent support which meant they lost about 2 points since the last election.
The NDP about 24 per cent support up 16 points since the last election.
The PC's about 56 per cent support down from 70 per cent meaning they have lost 14 points since last election.
The NDP gained 4 seats - the Liberals gained 2 - and the PC's lost 6 seats.
So the pollsters and the media could honestly have said - the Liberal vote and support is stagnant overall - with major shifts downward on the Avalon and shifts upward in about 25 per cent of districts.
They could have said the NDP vote was growing substantially in the Avalon and making gains with shifting Liberal vote and some PC drain.
The only support collapsing is the PC support. The fact they hung on to government is one thing - but 1/3 supporting this Premier is quite another.
The polls were wrong and the media exasperated the error. This does not help democracy. The media will take no responsibility as one important tenet of our democracy. The media will get as annoyed as any PC hack when anybody dares critique their work.
Now let's look at some Districts
Baie Verte - Springdale
2007
4509 cast votes out of 8083 eligible to vote 55.78%
Popular vote - 18 per cent Liberal 7 per cent NDP 75 per cent PC
2011
4836 cast votes out of 8067 eligible to vote 59.95%
Popular Vote - 38 per cent Liberal 9 per cent NDP 53 per cent PC
Clearly this represents significant Liberal gain - a new face, quality candidate caused improved results in voter turnout and clearly the PC vote collapsed from the 2007 numbers.
Bay of Islands
2007
5464 cast votes out of 7439 eligible to vote 73.45%
Popular Vote - 46 percent Liberal 2 per cent NDP 52 per cent PC
2011
5388 cast votes out of 7668 eligible to vote 70.27%
Popular Vote - 51 per cent Liberal 12 percent NDP 37 per cent PC
Clearly this represents the return of the Liberal vote, significant gains by the NDP and a collapse of the PC vote. The NDP gains were from traditional PC vote.
Bonavista North
2007
4295 cast votes out of 7258 eligible to vote 59.2%
Popular Vote - 30 per cent Liberal 2 per cent NDP 68 per cent PC
2011
3708 cast votes out of 6956 eligible to vote 53.3%
Popular Vote - 41 per cent Liberal 13 per cent NDP 46 per cent PC
Sadly the worst of these numbers is the loss of population. However one can clearly see the collapse of the PC vote, the significant recovery of the Liberal vote and I would say on this one; an increase in NDP vote due in part to inaccurate polls. This served the Tories to eliminate this loss of a seat. The polls did not represent this district did they? The return of the Liberal base can once again be attributed to a quality candidate and new face.
St. Barbe
2007
4247 cast votes out of 7340 eligible to vote 57.9%
Popular Vote - 37 per cent Liberal 4 per cent NDP 59 per cent PC
2011
4031 cast votes out of 7064 eligible to vote 57.1%
Popular Vote - 45 per cent Liberal 11 per cent NDP 44 per cent PC
The collapse of the PC vote here is obvious and is another area losing population and youth. There was a virtual split between the Liberals and the NDP with the gain. This is yet another example of how the pollsters did nothing to reflect this area of the province.
Torngat Mountains
2007
1480 cast votes out of 2079 eligible to vote 71.2%
Popular Vote - 5 per cent Labrador Party 42 per cent Liberal 53 per cent PC
2011
1516 cast votes out of 2130 eligible to vote 71.2%
Popular Vote - 49 per cent Liberal 12 per cent NDP 39 per cent PC
Once again the only vote that collapsed was the PC vote. This contrary to all polling and media pundits.
Now let's turn to St. John's and see what happened to the vote.
St. John's Centre
2007
4382 cast votes out of 7569 eligible to vote 57.9%
Popular Vote - 9 per cent Liberal 15 per cent NDP 76 per cent PC
2011
4719 cast votes out of 7846 eligible to vote 60.1%
Popular Vote - 2 per cent Liberal 55 per cent NDP 43 per cent PC
Clearly the vote that collapsed here was the Tory vote a 43.4% collapse. The Liberals were not in the park in 2007 and with the polling and media siege of democracy many Libs stayed home or switched to the NDP to take out Shawn Skinner.
Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi
2007
5371 cast votes out of 7517 eligible to vote 71.5%
Popular Vote - 3 per cent Liberal 57 per cent NDP 40 per cent PC
2011
4962 cast votes out of 8137 eligible to vote 61%
Popular Vote - 4 per cent Liberal 65 per cent NDP 31 per cent PC
Wow the Liberal vote actually went up - but the vote that collapsed was clearly the PC vote. Further the voter turnout dropped significantly. A 22.5% collapse for the Tories - with a star candidate.
As the weeks go on I will show the results in more of the ridings - particularly as it relates to the MQO polls and the media spin of those polls.
How about this:
1. The Tories went down in votes in 42 ridings,
2. 15 of those 42 ridings the losses exceeded 1000 votes,
3. Meanwhile the Liberals increased votes in 17 ridings while decreasing in only 9 districts off the Avalon.
The medias' coverage of the inaccurate polls and the spin of the collapsing Liberal vote is a myth. While the Liberals did lose votes in the St. John's Metro area - there was not much there to start with. The polls and the media coverage did - in my assessment cause losses for the Liberals. It also artificially and I would suggest temporarily cause inflated NDP vote outside St. John's Metro - with the exception of a couple of unionized towns.
The coverage by the media was at best reckless and at worst willingly partisan. It was not pro-government - it was anti-liberal and it should be investigated.
I have kept copies of the media headlines and predictions during this election and I will roll those out with commentary over the coming weeks.
Further I will post the latest response from MQO and I await still information from CRA on its poll.
As Sue's blog pointed out on October 3rd a full week before the election - the MQO polls were severely flawed, inaccurate and misleading. Now this past weekend please note that Don Mills of Corporate Research made essentially the same points as was made in this blog on October 3rd.
What a disgrace for all hands - and as for our government - the new energy did not materialize as only 30% of the voting population supported the Dunderdale team and the voter turnout decreased as only 58% of our people voted.
Many I'm sure said - why bother to even support a process which has left true democracy in the dust.
That tells us quite a bit. 42 per cent of us are not voting. This at a time of "New Energy" - quite a joke if it was funny.
The Premier managed to get 1/3 of the population to vote for her and under our system - that works to form government.
It was 73 per cent in 2003 and dropped to 60 per cent in 2007 and now 58 per cent.
This is not an energized population and all parties are to blame.
Further the PC's had 70 per cent of the popular vote in 2007 up from 59 per cent in 2003 and in 2011 dropped down to lowest levels during this time to 56 per cent.
So not only did the PC's lose significant popular vote from 2007 but additionally the number of eligible voters - who actually voted went down.
So Madame Premier you have 1/3 of us on your "New Energy".
Now let's talk about notable exceptions.
The two I am most familiar with are the two where pharmacy owners tackled Cabinet Ministers.
Todd Squires - Liberal - in Placentia - St. Mary's that district's voter turnout was 68.55%
Wayne Morris - Liberal - in Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans that district's was 65.35%
Todd Squires actually raised the Liberal vote by 1000 and Wayne Morris by 1300 - this demonstration of both increased turnout plus significant growth says that new faces and quality candidates do make a difference and is what it's going to take to rebuild our democracy.
These two gentlemen accomplished this in only three short weeks.
Continuing on with the polls - and the media that embraced them. They were wrong. The MQO inaccuracies were significant and certainly played a role in voter disgust and disinterest. Elections are about people not companies - particularly polling companies using "innovative" techniques.
The Liberal Party at 13% that MQO predicted a just over a week before an election - was obviously damaging and did not represent - within a margin of error - even though such a margin of error should not have even been used for an "opt-in" poll.
The Liberals have about 20 per cent support which meant they lost about 2 points since the last election.
The NDP about 24 per cent support up 16 points since the last election.
The PC's about 56 per cent support down from 70 per cent meaning they have lost 14 points since last election.
The NDP gained 4 seats - the Liberals gained 2 - and the PC's lost 6 seats.
So the pollsters and the media could honestly have said - the Liberal vote and support is stagnant overall - with major shifts downward on the Avalon and shifts upward in about 25 per cent of districts.
They could have said the NDP vote was growing substantially in the Avalon and making gains with shifting Liberal vote and some PC drain.
The only support collapsing is the PC support. The fact they hung on to government is one thing - but 1/3 supporting this Premier is quite another.
The polls were wrong and the media exasperated the error. This does not help democracy. The media will take no responsibility as one important tenet of our democracy. The media will get as annoyed as any PC hack when anybody dares critique their work.
Now let's look at some Districts
Baie Verte - Springdale
2007
4509 cast votes out of 8083 eligible to vote 55.78%
Popular vote - 18 per cent Liberal 7 per cent NDP 75 per cent PC
2011
4836 cast votes out of 8067 eligible to vote 59.95%
Popular Vote - 38 per cent Liberal 9 per cent NDP 53 per cent PC
Clearly this represents significant Liberal gain - a new face, quality candidate caused improved results in voter turnout and clearly the PC vote collapsed from the 2007 numbers.
Bay of Islands
2007
5464 cast votes out of 7439 eligible to vote 73.45%
Popular Vote - 46 percent Liberal 2 per cent NDP 52 per cent PC
2011
5388 cast votes out of 7668 eligible to vote 70.27%
Popular Vote - 51 per cent Liberal 12 percent NDP 37 per cent PC
Clearly this represents the return of the Liberal vote, significant gains by the NDP and a collapse of the PC vote. The NDP gains were from traditional PC vote.
Bonavista North
2007
4295 cast votes out of 7258 eligible to vote 59.2%
Popular Vote - 30 per cent Liberal 2 per cent NDP 68 per cent PC
2011
3708 cast votes out of 6956 eligible to vote 53.3%
Popular Vote - 41 per cent Liberal 13 per cent NDP 46 per cent PC
Sadly the worst of these numbers is the loss of population. However one can clearly see the collapse of the PC vote, the significant recovery of the Liberal vote and I would say on this one; an increase in NDP vote due in part to inaccurate polls. This served the Tories to eliminate this loss of a seat. The polls did not represent this district did they? The return of the Liberal base can once again be attributed to a quality candidate and new face.
St. Barbe
2007
4247 cast votes out of 7340 eligible to vote 57.9%
Popular Vote - 37 per cent Liberal 4 per cent NDP 59 per cent PC
2011
4031 cast votes out of 7064 eligible to vote 57.1%
Popular Vote - 45 per cent Liberal 11 per cent NDP 44 per cent PC
The collapse of the PC vote here is obvious and is another area losing population and youth. There was a virtual split between the Liberals and the NDP with the gain. This is yet another example of how the pollsters did nothing to reflect this area of the province.
Torngat Mountains
2007
1480 cast votes out of 2079 eligible to vote 71.2%
Popular Vote - 5 per cent Labrador Party 42 per cent Liberal 53 per cent PC
2011
1516 cast votes out of 2130 eligible to vote 71.2%
Popular Vote - 49 per cent Liberal 12 per cent NDP 39 per cent PC
Once again the only vote that collapsed was the PC vote. This contrary to all polling and media pundits.
Now let's turn to St. John's and see what happened to the vote.
St. John's Centre
2007
4382 cast votes out of 7569 eligible to vote 57.9%
Popular Vote - 9 per cent Liberal 15 per cent NDP 76 per cent PC
2011
4719 cast votes out of 7846 eligible to vote 60.1%
Popular Vote - 2 per cent Liberal 55 per cent NDP 43 per cent PC
Clearly the vote that collapsed here was the Tory vote a 43.4% collapse. The Liberals were not in the park in 2007 and with the polling and media siege of democracy many Libs stayed home or switched to the NDP to take out Shawn Skinner.
Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi
2007
5371 cast votes out of 7517 eligible to vote 71.5%
Popular Vote - 3 per cent Liberal 57 per cent NDP 40 per cent PC
2011
4962 cast votes out of 8137 eligible to vote 61%
Popular Vote - 4 per cent Liberal 65 per cent NDP 31 per cent PC
Wow the Liberal vote actually went up - but the vote that collapsed was clearly the PC vote. Further the voter turnout dropped significantly. A 22.5% collapse for the Tories - with a star candidate.
As the weeks go on I will show the results in more of the ridings - particularly as it relates to the MQO polls and the media spin of those polls.
How about this:
1. The Tories went down in votes in 42 ridings,
2. 15 of those 42 ridings the losses exceeded 1000 votes,
3. Meanwhile the Liberals increased votes in 17 ridings while decreasing in only 9 districts off the Avalon.
The medias' coverage of the inaccurate polls and the spin of the collapsing Liberal vote is a myth. While the Liberals did lose votes in the St. John's Metro area - there was not much there to start with. The polls and the media coverage did - in my assessment cause losses for the Liberals. It also artificially and I would suggest temporarily cause inflated NDP vote outside St. John's Metro - with the exception of a couple of unionized towns.
The coverage by the media was at best reckless and at worst willingly partisan. It was not pro-government - it was anti-liberal and it should be investigated.
I have kept copies of the media headlines and predictions during this election and I will roll those out with commentary over the coming weeks.
Further I will post the latest response from MQO and I await still information from CRA on its poll.
As Sue's blog pointed out on October 3rd a full week before the election - the MQO polls were severely flawed, inaccurate and misleading. Now this past weekend please note that Don Mills of Corporate Research made essentially the same points as was made in this blog on October 3rd.
What a disgrace for all hands - and as for our government - the new energy did not materialize as only 30% of the voting population supported the Dunderdale team and the voter turnout decreased as only 58% of our people voted.
Many I'm sure said - why bother to even support a process which has left true democracy in the dust.
Sesquipedalian Rex Murphy pontificates on the "silent crisis" in Rural NL Get off your arse Rex!
The best example of actions speak louder than words is Rex Murphy. His discussions with himself are renowned and really for most a form of amusement. Murphy has made his way in Upper Canada by simply talking - but then again he is not alone there - that's the problem.
Below you will find a story from VOCM news today. In it Murphy continues to talk about what others should do - but does nothing - himself - to fix the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador.
He pontificates about what opposition parties should concentrate on - in order to stop the rubber-stamping of the status quo.
First - it appears Murphy missed the entire election and that his media colleagues were pontificating that the Liberals were only focusing on the rural divide and problems in outport communities. Somehow Rex missed that.
As a Rhodes Scholar - Mr. Murphy - might like to get his hands dirty and do some of the work required to correct the problems. Perhaps Mr. Murphy would shut-up talking about it and do something. Perhaps Mr. Murphy should leave Upper Canada and take up permanent residence here in the province - then make a living by developing and implementing progressive policy.
Rex should spend some of his time explaining - in plain English - what he would do to correct the fishery - without fighting with Ottawa. Did you miss something Rex? Ottawa or the feds are responsible for the collapse of the stocks and it is costing our rural people and their communities over a billion dollars a year. Perhaps Rex would like to address the inequities of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (equalization) - by explaining why the program is designed for Quebec. Perhaps Rex would like to address the hydro-electric sector in our province and discuss how ludicrous it is for us to focus on "greening up" Canada - when we already pump 5,000 MW's from the Upper Churchill to Canada.
Newfoundland and Labrador is in a "silent" crisis Murphy says. Nothing silent about it Rex - however people such as yourself who would rather moan about it instead of rolling up your sleeves - do not help the situation.
While his words are sexy to other sesquipedalian commentators - his virility weakens when actions are required.
Murphy knows full well how difficult it is to fight a dictator - he tried and lost when he challenged Joey and ran as a PC. He sought and achieved a Tory nomination but then withdrew from lack of funds. Murphy knows.
We have many people in this province who fight this battle on the ground daily. It is not easy - nor is it simple. But rural communities have been front and center in our discussions and we are fighting hard for them.
Murphy would be better off examining how inaccurate polls were used to diminish Liberal votes and to demoralize voters generally. He would be better off examining the media coverage - of which he is a part - that exacerbated the questionable polling and rendered the election process useless.
If he were in the outports today - he might hear the following - get off your arse - stop whining - and do something about it. Go yell at Stephen Harper and educate the Upper Canadian elite about the abuse of Newfoundland and Labrador within the "con"federation.
VOCM story below:
One of the sharpest political pundits in the country suggests it's time the province's opposition parties start addressing the questions raised by the depopulation of rural Newfoundland. In Saturday's National Post, Rex Murphy breaks down the results of the provincial election and concludes that Newfoundland and Labrador is a province in denial. Murphy says the province is facing a crisis and that the Liberals and NDP have to build policy that is "more than about oil or fights with the federal government." Murphy says the two opposition parties have to work towards building an identity that appeals to the entire province, and develop policy that addresses the "crisis" that is being created by the evacuation of the outports and shrinking economic activity outside the St. John's oil boom. Murphy says Newfoundland is in a silent crisis that began with the closure of the inshore commercial fishery 20 years ago. Murphy says the fact that none of the parties had the courage to address the questions posed by that crisis, may partly explain why voters as he puts it; "simply rubber-stamped the status quo" in last week's election.
Below you will find a story from VOCM news today. In it Murphy continues to talk about what others should do - but does nothing - himself - to fix the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador.
He pontificates about what opposition parties should concentrate on - in order to stop the rubber-stamping of the status quo.
First - it appears Murphy missed the entire election and that his media colleagues were pontificating that the Liberals were only focusing on the rural divide and problems in outport communities. Somehow Rex missed that.
As a Rhodes Scholar - Mr. Murphy - might like to get his hands dirty and do some of the work required to correct the problems. Perhaps Mr. Murphy would shut-up talking about it and do something. Perhaps Mr. Murphy should leave Upper Canada and take up permanent residence here in the province - then make a living by developing and implementing progressive policy.
Rex should spend some of his time explaining - in plain English - what he would do to correct the fishery - without fighting with Ottawa. Did you miss something Rex? Ottawa or the feds are responsible for the collapse of the stocks and it is costing our rural people and their communities over a billion dollars a year. Perhaps Rex would like to address the inequities of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (equalization) - by explaining why the program is designed for Quebec. Perhaps Rex would like to address the hydro-electric sector in our province and discuss how ludicrous it is for us to focus on "greening up" Canada - when we already pump 5,000 MW's from the Upper Churchill to Canada.
Newfoundland and Labrador is in a "silent" crisis Murphy says. Nothing silent about it Rex - however people such as yourself who would rather moan about it instead of rolling up your sleeves - do not help the situation.
While his words are sexy to other sesquipedalian commentators - his virility weakens when actions are required.
Murphy knows full well how difficult it is to fight a dictator - he tried and lost when he challenged Joey and ran as a PC. He sought and achieved a Tory nomination but then withdrew from lack of funds. Murphy knows.
We have many people in this province who fight this battle on the ground daily. It is not easy - nor is it simple. But rural communities have been front and center in our discussions and we are fighting hard for them.
Murphy would be better off examining how inaccurate polls were used to diminish Liberal votes and to demoralize voters generally. He would be better off examining the media coverage - of which he is a part - that exacerbated the questionable polling and rendered the election process useless.
If he were in the outports today - he might hear the following - get off your arse - stop whining - and do something about it. Go yell at Stephen Harper and educate the Upper Canadian elite about the abuse of Newfoundland and Labrador within the "con"federation.
VOCM story below:
One of the sharpest political pundits in the country suggests it's time the province's opposition parties start addressing the questions raised by the depopulation of rural Newfoundland. In Saturday's National Post, Rex Murphy breaks down the results of the provincial election and concludes that Newfoundland and Labrador is a province in denial. Murphy says the province is facing a crisis and that the Liberals and NDP have to build policy that is "more than about oil or fights with the federal government." Murphy says the two opposition parties have to work towards building an identity that appeals to the entire province, and develop policy that addresses the "crisis" that is being created by the evacuation of the outports and shrinking economic activity outside the St. John's oil boom. Murphy says Newfoundland is in a silent crisis that began with the closure of the inshore commercial fishery 20 years ago. Murphy says the fact that none of the parties had the courage to address the questions posed by that crisis, may partly explain why voters as he puts it; "simply rubber-stamped the status quo" in last week's election.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Tell me again how this should be allowed!
It is rural areas that will suffer - particularly the fishery.
Funny how the PC vote was pretty dead on - but the other little mess probably cost some seats for the Liberals.
Friday, October 07, 2011
CBC needs to Rethink - Decisions Questionable
Did anybody catch the political panel on CBC Here and Now tonight?
If you did you were probably scratching your head.
First question - did CBC choose the panelists?
PC representative - Ross Reid Current Campaign Chair Forever Tory
NDP representative - Lana Payne active with current and ongoing ties to the NDP
Liberal representative - Bill Matthews the Liberal/PC with no obvious current ties to the Liberals
This was an obvious problem from the get go. First Matthews has not always been Liberal - rather for a significant period of his political career he was Tory. Second - he has not been obviously involved with the Party during this election or over the past number of years. Third - he seemed disconnected with what's current in the Libs organization and campaign.
This contrasts completely with the other two individuals who are stalwarts of their respective parties and are obviously current and involved.
The first question revolved around the ongoing battle in St. John's Centre and the battle between Gerry Rogers NDP and the incumbent Shawn Skinner PC. Really there was nothing left to do but agree for Bill.
Then we got into the polls and the expectation of seats. Ross Reid just had to sit back and let Bill Matthews do the hacking for him. Lana predicted 5 for the NDP and then predicted 4-5 for the Liberals. Ross just sat there smug as Bill agreed with Lana and was unable to talk about any seats outside the overpass. Ross sat there again letting them split 7 or 8 seats.
Regardless of the types of polls done - accurate or inaccurate - when you remove the greater St. John's areas and a few strong Tory seats in other areas of the province - the numbers for a significant number of rural seats would probably show a very close split between the Liberals and Tories.
Let's look at this:
Yvonne Jones - does anybody believe she is at 16%?
Andrew Parsons?
Eddie Joyce?
Dwight Ball?
Kevin Aylward?
Neil Ward?
Joanna Guy Ryan?
Danny Dumderesque?
Wayne Morris?
Eric Skinner?
Merv Wiseman?
Chris Montague?
Randy Edmunds?
Todd Squires?
Leanne Hussey?
Jim Bennett?
Marshall Dean?
Barry Snow?
Ryan Lane?
I could carry on. Anybody like to take a crack at the popular vote in these districts before the election?
Despite the continued attack on the Liberals by certain anti-liberal media it will be interesting to check these polls on election day.
I have to say CBC - the panel on tonight was the worst demonstration of balance I have ever seen. That is unless the Liberal party sent Matthews. If that's the case - something worse is on the go.
If you did you were probably scratching your head.
First question - did CBC choose the panelists?
PC representative - Ross Reid Current Campaign Chair Forever Tory
NDP representative - Lana Payne active with current and ongoing ties to the NDP
Liberal representative - Bill Matthews the Liberal/PC with no obvious current ties to the Liberals
This was an obvious problem from the get go. First Matthews has not always been Liberal - rather for a significant period of his political career he was Tory. Second - he has not been obviously involved with the Party during this election or over the past number of years. Third - he seemed disconnected with what's current in the Libs organization and campaign.
This contrasts completely with the other two individuals who are stalwarts of their respective parties and are obviously current and involved.
The first question revolved around the ongoing battle in St. John's Centre and the battle between Gerry Rogers NDP and the incumbent Shawn Skinner PC. Really there was nothing left to do but agree for Bill.
Then we got into the polls and the expectation of seats. Ross Reid just had to sit back and let Bill Matthews do the hacking for him. Lana predicted 5 for the NDP and then predicted 4-5 for the Liberals. Ross just sat there smug as Bill agreed with Lana and was unable to talk about any seats outside the overpass. Ross sat there again letting them split 7 or 8 seats.
Regardless of the types of polls done - accurate or inaccurate - when you remove the greater St. John's areas and a few strong Tory seats in other areas of the province - the numbers for a significant number of rural seats would probably show a very close split between the Liberals and Tories.
Let's look at this:
Yvonne Jones - does anybody believe she is at 16%?
Andrew Parsons?
Eddie Joyce?
Dwight Ball?
Kevin Aylward?
Neil Ward?
Joanna Guy Ryan?
Danny Dumderesque?
Wayne Morris?
Eric Skinner?
Merv Wiseman?
Chris Montague?
Randy Edmunds?
Todd Squires?
Leanne Hussey?
Jim Bennett?
Marshall Dean?
Barry Snow?
Ryan Lane?
I could carry on. Anybody like to take a crack at the popular vote in these districts before the election?
Despite the continued attack on the Liberals by certain anti-liberal media it will be interesting to check these polls on election day.
I have to say CBC - the panel on tonight was the worst demonstration of balance I have ever seen. That is unless the Liberal party sent Matthews. If that's the case - something worse is on the go.
More INFO regarding MQO poll coming soon
I have received a further response from Ms. Carolyn O'Keefe - President MQO Research.
I will post this and commentary over the weekend. Stay tuned.
I will post this and commentary over the weekend. Stay tuned.
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.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Response from Carolyn O'Keefe President MQO Research on the Poll
Well we now have part of the response from the MQO Research Company.
Now we can start to put in perspective what the polls value is.
As all the questions have not been answered I will ask again for further information.
First - Here is a statement from a report lead by Stanford University Researchers.
While the random-sample surveys were “consistently highly accurate,” the Internet surveys based on self-selected or “opt-in” panels “were always less accurate, on average, than probability sample surveys, and were less consistent in their level of accuracy,” the researchers said. Further, they said, adjusting these samples to known population values had no effect on accuracy (and in one case even worsened it) as often as that process, known as weighting, improved it.
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,” suggesting that no one or another of these producers can claim to have perfected the approach.
One ABC reporter said:
The results shouldn’t be a surprise; as I’ve reported previously, non-probability samples lack the theoretical underpinning on which valid and reliable survey research is based; our policy at ABC News, as at several other national news organizations (including The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post) is not to report them.
The poll conducted by MQO was one of these polls. Although Ms. O`Keefe says the poll is a probability based one. This is not exactly accurate as it is a panel. This poll is not scientific (under the definition under MRIA) and may be very inacurate. You will note that Ms. O`Keefe does not say it is scientific. That is something she should have answered.
Further the MRIA - the Association MQO is a member of - public information states:
Online survey participants are self-selected, meaning that a margin of sampling error cannot be calculated or quoted for online panel research studies. Using margin of sampling error to describe the accuracy of online polling is misleading, and prohibited under MRIA’s Code of Conduct.
Does this mean that adding some phone panel participants in the midst of online polling makes this one different.
Below is what Ms. Carolyn O`Keefe provided me on the poll. As not all the information requested was NOT included - I will ask again for complete information.
The survey conducted was quantitative in nature, not qualitative research, so Questions 5-7 do not apply.
Now we can start to put in perspective what the polls value is.
As all the questions have not been answered I will ask again for further information.
First - Here is a statement from a report lead by Stanford University Researchers.
While the random-sample surveys were “consistently highly accurate,” the Internet surveys based on self-selected or “opt-in” panels “were always less accurate, on average, than probability sample surveys, and were less consistent in their level of accuracy,” the researchers said. Further, they said, adjusting these samples to known population values had no effect on accuracy (and in one case even worsened it) as often as that process, known as weighting, improved it.
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,” suggesting that no one or another of these producers can claim to have perfected the approach.
One ABC reporter said:
The results shouldn’t be a surprise; as I’ve reported previously, non-probability samples lack the theoretical underpinning on which valid and reliable survey research is based; our policy at ABC News, as at several other national news organizations (including The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post) is not to report them.
The poll conducted by MQO was one of these polls. Although Ms. O`Keefe says the poll is a probability based one. This is not exactly accurate as it is a panel. This poll is not scientific (under the definition under MRIA) and may be very inacurate. You will note that Ms. O`Keefe does not say it is scientific. That is something she should have answered.
Further the MRIA - the Association MQO is a member of - public information states:
Online survey participants are self-selected, meaning that a margin of sampling error cannot be calculated or quoted for online panel research studies. Using margin of sampling error to describe the accuracy of online polling is misleading, and prohibited under MRIA’s Code of Conduct.
Does this mean that adding some phone panel participants in the midst of online polling makes this one different.
Below is what Ms. Carolyn O`Keefe provided me on the poll. As not all the information requested was NOT included - I will ask again for complete information.
I would be pleased to respond to your request. Please find attached a release outlining the methodology employed for the poll. The poll was paid for by MQO Research, it was not commissioned by any outside organization. I designed the questions for the survey.
The poll was conducted through iView Atlantic, a proprietary research panel developed by MQO Research. This panel consists of over 12,000 Atlantic Canadians who have agreed to provide their opinions on Atlantic, provincial and local topics that matter to them. To ensure the representativeness of all Atlantic Canadians, iView Atlantic also includes a component of phone-based membership to reflect those Atlantic households who still spend limited time in an online environment. iView Atlantic is unique from other opt-in online panels in that panellists are recruited randomly by telephone, and indicate their preferred method of contact (either by phone or online).This means that individuals without Internet access are recruited and can participate in our panel surveys therefore enabling coverage of the entire population. iView Atlantic is a probability-based panel, meaning that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for participation.
The poll was based on a sample of 464 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, with a margin of error of +/- 4.6%. It was conducted between Wednesday, September 28 and Friday September 30, 2011. The respondents were weighted regionally to ensure proper representation of the province as a whole.
Letter to MQO President Carolyn O'Keefe requesting information on Polls
Attention: Carolyn O’Keefe
President
October 3rd 2011
Dear Ms. O’Keefe,
I am writing this letter to request the following information on the past two polls you have conducted on the Newfoundland and Labrador election.
I am a member of the general public – interested in the validity of polls.
This request is being made as per the standards of the MRIA – an organization you are a member of.
Please advise when this material will be provided.
- Sample size, and population surveyed (who was included)
- Sponsor of study (who commissioned the research)
- Survey method (e.g. telephone, on-line, intercept)
- Timing (when the survey was done)
- Statement of sample error/margin of error (i.e. "+/- 2.5% 19 times out of 20")
- Name of practitioner (company conducting research)
- Sampling method (e.g. random, custom list)
- Weighting procedures (statistical weights, if used)
- Exact wording and order of questions
3) Always differentiate between scientific (most public opinion polls) and non-scientific studies (reader/viewer polls or other "self-selection" methodologies).
4) Where appropriate, use the caveat that research is not necessarily predictive of future outcomes, but rather captures opinion at one point in time.
Additional Standards for Reporting on Qualitative Research
Additional considerations should be adhered to when reporting on qualitative research observations (such as focus groups, or other small sample in-depth research).
Additional considerations should be adhered to when reporting on qualitative research observations (such as focus groups, or other small sample in-depth research).
5) Clearly defined recruiting specifications (i.e. product usage, party affiliation, specific demographic specifications, etc...)
6) Inclusion of statement of non-projectability. Results of qualitative research are not statistically projectable to the population at large.
7) Qualitative reporting should not include percentages or precise proportions. Expressions such as some, most, or a few, may be used.
I look forward to your earliest reply.
Thank you,
Sue Kelland-Dyer
No answer from the polling company! Public Servants restricted in Private Life?
MQO has not answered my request for specific information on the election poll. They claim to be an upstanding member of MRIA - an agency that sets standards for polling and research.
The information I am seeking - according to MRIA - should be given to a member of the public that asks for it. So where is it. The only answers MQO has given is a self proclamation of their goodness.
Then we move to a Telelink Poll that has 42% undecided. That number could form its own government.
Now word that the PC government policy is that public servants are being controlled in their private lives by their employer - the province.
Rules like - can't make a political contribution, can't display a sign on their own lawn, can't wear a button outside the workplace, and can't stuff envelopes!
Who does this apply to?
- report directly to, speak on behalf of, or provide advice, opinions or recommendations to the Premier, Cabinet, Treasury Board, a Minister, or a Deputy Minister
That could be anybody.
What's next?
This is a very dangerous and not democratic. Also is this applying to the Tories - and the political emails from the Confederation Building - managers and all - promoting Tory things. Okay let's start pumping these out.
Then there's this.
So if the PC's win - does that mean that Ross Reid and Len Simms cannot come back - because maybe they would not be impartial and may treat certain members of the public unfairly.
Finally this one takes the cake.
The policy actually says:
Employees
All employees can vote in an election.
Gee Thanks!
The information I am seeking - according to MRIA - should be given to a member of the public that asks for it. So where is it. The only answers MQO has given is a self proclamation of their goodness.
Then we move to a Telelink Poll that has 42% undecided. That number could form its own government.
Now word that the PC government policy is that public servants are being controlled in their private lives by their employer - the province.
Rules like - can't make a political contribution, can't display a sign on their own lawn, can't wear a button outside the workplace, and can't stuff envelopes!
Who does this apply to?
- report directly to, speak on behalf of, or provide advice, opinions or recommendations to the Premier, Cabinet, Treasury Board, a Minister, or a Deputy Minister
That could be anybody.
What's next?
This is a very dangerous and not democratic. Also is this applying to the Tories - and the political emails from the Confederation Building - managers and all - promoting Tory things. Okay let's start pumping these out.
Then there's this.
Political Support Staff
For the purpose of this Policy, political support staff members are considered to be politically non-restricted. The appropriateness of the political activities undertaken by this group will be determined by the respective Minister.So if the PC's win - does that mean that Ross Reid and Len Simms cannot come back - because maybe they would not be impartial and may treat certain members of the public unfairly.
Finally this one takes the cake.
The policy actually says:
Employees
All employees can vote in an election.
Gee Thanks!
Polling Standards - I am awaiting a reply from MQO - based on MRIA standards.
Today in response to Liberal leader Kevin Aylward's assertion that the MQO poll was bought and paid for - MQO released a statement countering the claims.
Part of the MQO rebuttal follows:
MQO Research is an accredited Gold Seal member of the only national research organization, Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA). Every piece of research carried out by the firm meets and exceeds the Code of Conduct and Good Practice put in place by MRIA. The same is true of the recent election polling done in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So in the spirit of fairness - I viewed the MRIA standards and followed up with a call to Carolyn O'Keefe - President of MQO. I got her answering machine so I left a message.
I have asked her to supply the following to me:
In order to preserve public confidence in public opinion research-a science of mutual importance to the Media and Market Research industries-please consider our following recommendations before releasing survey data to the public:
1) Please include the following key facts in the report:
4) Where appropriate, use the caveat that research is not necessarily predictive of future outcomes, but rather captures opinion at one point in time.
Additional Standards for Reporting on Qualitative Research
Additional considerations should be adhered to when reporting on qualitative research observations (such as focus groups, or other small sample in-depth research).
5) Clearly defined recruiting specifications (i.e. product usage, party affiliation, specific demographic specifications, etc...)
6) Inclusion of statement of non-projectability. Results of qualitative research are not statistically projectable to the population at large.
7) Qualitative reporting should not include percentages or precise proportions. Expressions such as some, most, or a few, may be used.
I have not received a return telephone call yet.
Part of the MQO rebuttal follows:
MQO Research is an accredited Gold Seal member of the only national research organization, Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA). Every piece of research carried out by the firm meets and exceeds the Code of Conduct and Good Practice put in place by MRIA. The same is true of the recent election polling done in Newfoundland and Labrador.
So in the spirit of fairness - I viewed the MRIA standards and followed up with a call to Carolyn O'Keefe - President of MQO. I got her answering machine so I left a message.
I have asked her to supply the following to me:
In order to preserve public confidence in public opinion research-a science of mutual importance to the Media and Market Research industries-please consider our following recommendations before releasing survey data to the public:
1) Please include the following key facts in the report:
- Sample size, and population surveyed (who was included)
- Sponsor of study (who commissioned the research)
- Survey method (e.g. telephone, on-line, intercept)
- Timing (when the survey was done)
- Statement of sample error/margin of error (i.e. "+/- 2.5% 19 times out of 20")
- Name of practitioner (company conducting research)
- Sampling method (e.g. random, custom list)
- Weighting procedures (statistical weights, if used)
- Exact wording and order of questions
4) Where appropriate, use the caveat that research is not necessarily predictive of future outcomes, but rather captures opinion at one point in time.
Additional Standards for Reporting on Qualitative Research
Additional considerations should be adhered to when reporting on qualitative research observations (such as focus groups, or other small sample in-depth research).
5) Clearly defined recruiting specifications (i.e. product usage, party affiliation, specific demographic specifications, etc...)
6) Inclusion of statement of non-projectability. Results of qualitative research are not statistically projectable to the population at large.
7) Qualitative reporting should not include percentages or precise proportions. Expressions such as some, most, or a few, may be used.
I have not received a return telephone call yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)