Tories Spend More on Political Polls

[capricorn]

This was only in regard to old spending.

Isn't it always about old spending? New spending does not come under scrutiny unless the money was actually expended and divulged in current financial reports.

[jdobbin]

At least Harper didn't waste 100 million dollars in a pathetic attempt to get party support in Quebec. 31 million dollars is chicken feed compared the the handouts the liberals gave quebec during the sponsorship debacle

Blackburn spends his time flying back to Gaspe to make multi-million dollar announcements. Who knows what the final tally might be.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/...706614-sun.html

The documents obtained under the Access to Information Act say that of 228 announcements made by Economic Development Canada for Quebec last year, nearly 20% went to that part of the province, which has only 4% of Quebec's inhabitants.

In his first year as minister, Blackburn participated in 75 announcements by Economic Development Canada, including 28 for the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region.

He made 147 speeches, including 33 in his riding or neighbouring constituencies.

Edited December 5, 2007 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

Blackburn spends have his time flying back to Gaspe to make multi-million dollar announcements.

The local communities are always happy to hear good news which will boost their economy. Isn't it great we have the resources to to this?

Who knows what the final tally might be.

I'm sure those figures will not be hidden in some obscure expenditure report and we'll be able to examine them at a future date. IMO money well spent.

[jdobbin]

The local communities are always happy to hear good news which will boost their economy. Isn't it great we have the resources to to this?

I'm sure those figures will not be hidden in some obscure expenditure report and we'll be able to examine them at a future date. IMO money well spent.

The same argument was made on sponsorship by the Liberals. And now the Tories have re-established sponsorship. The first thing they did was ask Conservative MPs to let them know what things they wanted sponsored in their ridings.

Given how Blackburn obscures his charter flights in a line buried in his department's budget, I'm not so sure.

[jdobbin]

Isn't it always about old spending? New spending does not come under scrutiny unless the money was actually expended and divulged in current financial reports.

I guess we'll have to wait for a new Liberal government to begin that investigation then.

[capricorn]

The same argument was made on sponsorship by the Liberals.

It obviously didn't work. See the Gomery inquiry.

And now the Tories have re-established sponsorship.

Sponsorship a la Liberal is dead. You'll have to devise a new moniker for Conservative initiatives that are out in the open for all to see.

The first thing they did was ask Conservative MPs to let them know what things they wanted sponsored in their ridings.

Sounds like MP's encouraged to work for the well being of their constituents to me. A refreshing change.

Given how Blackburn obscures his charter flights in a line buried in his department's budget, I'm not so sure.

The expenses couldn't have been buried that deeply if the expenditures where brought to light so quickly and clearly, and made public.

[jdobbin]

It obviously didn't work. See the Gomery inquiry.

Sponsorship a la Liberal is dead. You'll have to devise a new moniker for Conservative initiatives that are out in the open for all to see.

Sounds like MP's encouraged to work for the well being of their constituents to me. A refreshing change.

The expenses couldn't have been buried that deeply if the expenditures where brought to light so quickly and clearly, and made public.

We'll see how refreshing it is. When Tory MPs are the first to get to the trough, you have to wonder.

It wasn't public. It had to come under a Freedom of Information request. Public is when it is listed in regular publications on expenses.

Edited December 5, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

The expenses couldn't have been buried that deeply if the expenditures where brought to light so quickly and clearly, and made public.

Anything accessible to Freedom of Information requests is pretty accessible.

If FOI was all that was available to Gomery it wouldn't have become the scandal that it truly was.

[Fortunata]

Anything accessible to Freedom of Information requests is pretty accessible.

If FOI was all that was available to Gomery it wouldn't have become the scandal that it truly was.

Why should it take a freedom of information request for expenses that should be public? I do remember Harper saying that expenses would not be hidden; there would be openness and transparency. This has not been the case.

[Michael Bluth]

Why should it take a freedom of information request for expenses that should be public?

An FOI request is available to any Canadian citizen at a minimal fee. That is open to the public.

[jdobbin]

Why should it take a freedom of information request for expenses that should be public? I do remember Harper saying that expenses would not be hidden; there would be openness and transparency. This has not been the case.

The fact that you have to pay for information that should be disclosed as a matter of record for MPs is not transparent. All the newspapers in Canada including the Sun newspapers, National Post, Globe and Mail once a year make standard requests for information. Many requests receive no reply. Others are censored even when they were about information that took place in World War 2 and were freely available a years back. Some requests are prohibitively expensive and run into the hundreds of dollars for each request.

It isn't transparent and Harper in Opposition said he would do things differently...especially when it came to MPs expenses. One reform he hasn't made was to have MPs office expenses accounted for line by line. From that, we could learn how much he pays for his make-up artist.

[guyser]

Anything accessible to Freedom of Information requests is pretty accessible.

Surely you mean accessible in that one can try dont you? Or that they can open the door and enter. But you couldnt mean actually "getting " the info ...could you?

The Privy Council Office, which serves Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet, gets a failing grade for persistently dragging its feet on public requests for access to government information, Canada's new information czar says in a surprisingly tough report.

and more...

Too often, responses to access requests are late, incomplete, or overly censored," Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said in his first report. "Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement."

In terms of respecting the Access to Information Act, the PCO, which serves as the cabinet's nerve centre, is setting a bad example for other departments, the report charged.

Looks like stevey has them trained well.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...64-be4f32b3312c

Edited December 7, 2007 by guyser

[jdobbin]

Looks like the polling inquiry is hurting the Tories instead.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...13?hub=Politics

An independent investigator hired by the Harper government to look into past Liberal polling practices has wound up shining an unfavourable light on the Tories' penchant for polling.

Daniel Paille notes that the Conservative government commissioned more than two polls per business day in the past year, a figure he calls "quite astounding.''

His report shows that the government spent $31.2 million on opinion research in the last year -- more than any previous year and almost twice the $18 million spent on average during the Liberal years.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Paille, a former Parti Quebecois cabinet minister, last April to conduct a probe of federal contracts for public opinion research between 1990 and 2003.

The objective was to determine whether a judicial inquiry into the previous Liberal government's polling practices was warranted.

But Paille's report -- which was released Thursday after sitting for two months in the government's hands -- concludes "it would not be worthwhile'' to pursue further in-depth inquiries into public opinion research contracts during that period.

Paille also "took the liberty'' of exceeding his mandate to examine public opinion research contracts awarded by the federal government up to the present. On that score, his report includes some pointed observations about flaws in the polling practices of the current government.

He notes, for instance, that the Harper government commissioned 546 opinion research projects in the last year alone.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier pointed out that the report shows previous Liberal governments actually commissioned more opinion research in some years -- reaching a peak of 686 projects in 2001-02 _-- even though they spent less on them.

"It is the spend per poll . . . that has gone up,'' Fortier said in an interview. "We just need to be smarter in how we buy polls.''

Fortier is such a funny guy.

[Fortunata]

An independent investigator hired by the Harper government to look into past Liberal polling practices has wound up shining an unfavourable light on the Tories' penchant for polling.

Daniel Paille notes that the Conservative government commissioned more than two polls per business day in the past year, a figure he calls "quite astounding.''

His report shows that the government spent $31.2 million on opinion research in the last year -- more than any previous year and almost twice the $18 million spent on average during the Liberal years.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't stop laughing that is so funny. Especially for Steve who said he wouldn't govern by polls. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

He notes, for instance, that the Harper government commissioned 546 opinion research projects in the last year alone.

Not bad for a PM who doesn't believe in polls don't you think? Hahahahaha Principles in action.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier pointed out that the report shows previous Liberal governments actually commissioned more opinion research in some years -- reaching a peak of 686 projects in 2001-02 _-- even though they spent less on them.

"It is the spend per poll . . . that has gone up,'' Fortier said in an interview. "We just need to be smarter in how we buy polls.''

Our "new" government doing things differently.

[jdobbin]

Looks like more spending on polls by poll ruled Tories.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0107?hub=Health

Canada's most poll-reliant government is spending $1 million on polling services to help guide its drug-prevention strategy for youth.

The Conservative government has awarded Ottawa-based Environics Research Group the contract to conduct continuing surveys of 13- to 15-year-olds and parents.

Public-opinion research is needed to help develop and implement the strategy and the messages it delivers, says the award document released Monday.

The government also wants Environics to develop ways to track drug awareness and monitor the strategy's success in reducing illicit drug use among youth.

"Quantitative survey research will be used to determine current behaviour and knowledge levels of both target audiences related to illicit drugs,'' the document says.

"Qualitative research, such as focus groups or one-on-one interviews, will be used to explore attitudes and beliefs related to illicit drugs.''

Bidders were asked to include in their proposals how they would "deal with the research challenges that arise in dealing with value-laden or controversial subjects with both audiences: youth and parents.''

The Tories introduced legislation in November to toughen drug-related penalties, including two-year mandatory jail sentences for traffickers of hard drugs and large-scale marijuana growers.

Last month, an independent investigator reported the Conservatives spent $31.2 million on public-opinion research in the year leading up to his government-commissioned probe.

That's 546 public-opinion research projects, worth almost twice the $18 million a year the Liberals averaged on polling between 1993 and 2006.

Investigator Daniel Paille called the two-plus polls each business day average "quite astounding.''

I guess polling is the unexpected thing that can explode in your face. The Tories believed that Liberals were ruled by polls. Now it turns out the Tories can't manage a day without commissioning two of them.

[Michael Bluth]

The Tories believed that Liberals were ruled by polls. Now it turns out the Tories can't manage a day without commissioning two of them.

Yet again another misrepresentation.

Investigator Daniel Paille called the two-plus polls each business day average "quite astounding.'

I think the more astounding thing is the patent inability to present anything without misrepresenting it ...

[guyser]

Yet again another misrepresentation.

oh my.....someone forgot to use "business day" ...the horror!

Well ricki....er MB I guess you would be the expert on misrepresentation wouldn't you?

Cheers,

Your friendly Timmies worker.

[jdobbin]

oh my.....someone forgot to use "business day" ...the horror!

I forgot to mention that they might take a few weekends off. heh

I take it that the right wing here think that this amount of polling is completely acceptable and now realize that criticizing the Liberals over their polls was very wrong and they feel very bad about it.

[Michael Bluth]

I guess you would be the expert on misrepresentation wouldn't you?

Nope, the expert is the person who made the 'mistake'!

The difference between 'business days' and 'days' is a 28% difference. A serious and significant misrepresentation.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Michael Bluth

[guyser]

Nope, the expert is the person who made the 'mistake'!

>>>>>snicker<<<<<<<<<<<<

Oh ok .

The difference between 'business days' and 'days' is a 28% difference. A serious and significant misrepresentation.

Sorry ri ..MB you are wrong. Since it is your MO to play , it is exactly 28.571428571%

"serious and significant".....oh the comedy.

Cheers,

Your Community college student

[Michael Bluth]

Since it is your MO to play , it is exactly 28.571428571%

You are correct sir. I guess that means I was off by 0.571428571%.

Or about the frequency with which our resident poll misrepresenter makes accurate and non-biased comments about the polls they present.

Or is it the likelihood Steph Dion will ever be PM?!

[guyser]

You are correct sir. I guess that means I was off by 0.571428571%.

So you made a serious and significant error too. Ok.