Sunday, December 20, 2009

Open goal for Tymoshenko to shoot at

Last Friday, PM Yulia Tymoshenko answered questions from journalists and other political analysts for over three hours on the flashy 'Shuster-Live' television programme.

Watch it all here.

President Yushchenko and PoR leader Viktor Yanukovych had been invited to take part but had declined to attend, thus providing Tymoshenko over three hours of almost unchallenged TV prime time - political gold dust in anyone's language - which she took full advantage of in her usual masterful manner.

Most voters receive most information on politicians via television - the most important mass media by far. It could even be said, "If you're no good on TV don't even think about going into politics."

It is unmaginable that the owners of the tv channel on which Shuster's programs are broadcast, major backers of PoR, are not aware of this. Any broadcast by the prime minister attracts a large audience and hence generates large advertising revenues - perhaps one reason why the program was allowed to run without the president and leader of the opposition attending. Most of the questioning was 'soft-ball' and easily dealt with by the PM - some journalists even declaring their investigations had confirmed the PM's allegations that Viktor Yanukovych's Mezhehirya dacha had been dishonestly appropriated - but it did not, however, appear that any of the questions were 'planted'.

Yanukovych has declared recently that because Tymshenko is an artist, and he will not compete, or debate with her on tv.

In an excellent in-depth analytical article in 'Lyeviy Bereg' its authors suggest the 'most optimistic' result for the first round of the January 17th presidential election would be a small lead for Yanukovych over Tymoshenko. [His current lead in current OP's is significant]. According to the article a large lead, say over 8% after the first round of voting could plunge the country into a very nasty campaign - outpouring of 'kompromat', challenges to the result etc. akin to 2004. Could this is the thinking behind 'Ukraina' television's decision to run the Shuster program?

The article presents two scenarios for a possible Yanukovych presidency, and three scenarios for a Tymoshenko presidency; it has nine most interesting conclusions which I may summarise later, time permitting.


UkrToday said...

The 2010 first-round Presidential election is a no-contest. Viktor Yanukovych remiss in poll position with Yulia Tymoshenko securely in second place. Her nearest challenger depending on which poll you want to choose is 10 percentage points behind a big gap in a race with only a few laps to go.

Yushchenko on less then 3.5% is desperately trying to force Yatseniuk out of the race in the false hope that his support would flow on to him.

With less then 26 days to go before the first ballot a survey conducted by the U.S.-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems and financed by the United States Agency for International Development puts Yushchenko slightly higher. but way done the list of contenders.

At an estimated campaign cost of one billion dollars one has to serious question the value of holding the election in the first place. The money could have been better spent elsewhere in Ukraine's economy. The head of state should have been e;c a constitutional majority of the peoples democratically elected polarimetry representatives. Just as democratic and at no cost. The EU parliament elects the EU president, as does Greece and Moldova.

It never cease to amuse that Yushchenko who is clearly in a no win situtaion still claims he will win the next election. Does anyone take him seriously?

Yushchenko's decision to veto the proposed increase in taxation on tobacco products has many people questioning his motives with suggestions that the tobacco industry are bankrolling his campaign in return for services rendered. (Would not be the first time for the tobacco giants to act in such a manner).

Yushchenko is unelectable, in a fair and honest election. His has the highest negativity rating (83%) all all candidates.

Yanukovych 31.20%
Tymoshenko 19.10%
Tigipko 4.80%
Yatseniuk 4.70%
Symonenko 3.80%
Yushchenko 3.50%
Lytvyn 2.80%
Tiahnybok 1.80%
Bogoslovska 0.70%
Hrytsenko 0.70%
Others 2.40%
Will not vote 5.00%
Against All 7.90%
Unknown 11.60%

psephos said...

The scenario for the possible second round outcomes are flawed in that I do not believe that Tigipko can direct his votes to any one particular candidate. They just are not that committed.

Preferential voting as an analytical tool

What is interesting is that if Ukraine had adopted a single round preferential ballot then a whole range of other possibilities begin to merge. A preferential ballot give a much more accurate picture of the body politic. It like comparing an x-ray (the two round first-past-the-post- voting system) to a CAT scan (A preferential voting system.

You should ask readers to nominate in order of preference their choice of candidates (1,2 3 ... 18).

The try and estimate the various candidates electoral and the preference they are likely to allocate. if you do then likely outcome of the second round becomes more clearer.

Preferential voting explained

Had Ukraine had a preferential voting system Yatseniuk or even Yushchenko would have been in a better position.

For those how do not understand how the preferential voting system works it is effective a single round ballot that reflects and exhaustive first-past-the-post voting system. If no one candidate has 50% or more first preferences then the candidate with the least vote is excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters nominated order to preference the process repeats until a candidate has 50% or more votes. Its one round instead of two or more rounds.

elmer said...

Oh, geez, I did it again - 3 hours of marathon Ukrainian windbagging.

It was indeed the Yulia Tymoshenko show on the Savik Shuster show.

1) First, a shocker, at least to me. The very first question involved a comparison of France's budget to Ukraine's (Ukraine is about the same size as France). A pretty good question.

When Mustafa Nayem challenged Julia on some of the figures, what popped out of her mouth was this put-down:

"you see, this is a good example of why journalists should stick to journalism, and leave the numbers for (competent) government officials."

As if journalists are all incredibly stupid little children, who cannot deal with budget figures or analysis!

Mustafa was remarkably restrained, and handled it quite well, I thought.

But the arrogance of that remark is absolutely unbelievable!

2) In 3 hours, it is quite surprising how few questions Julia got. She is a windbag - she does not let anyone talk, and in answering questions, launches into her long-winded speeches.

Even after she appeared to be finished, when the next question was asked, she simply interrupted, and continued adding to her previous speech regarding the previous question!!!

And while she demands that journalists not interrupt her (the demand is put in typical Ukrainian fashion), she has no hesitation in interrputing anyone and everyone else at any time.

3) The audience clearly gave her credit for showing up under the circumstances - the 2 Victors (or Vitya's) did not bother to show up.

But what was surprising is that at the end, when the audience was asked whether Julia had convinced/converted them (a general question, but nevertheless...), the results showed an almost 50-50 result. In other words, even though the 2 Vitya's failed to show up, and she had the show all to herself for 3 hours, there was nevertheless a 50-50 split - she seemed to be pleased.

At several points, she even tried use the audience reaction panels (Savik has touch panels in front of each audience member where the audience can register approval/disapproval or answer questions) for her own purposes - Savik did not let her.

4) Ukraine has a weird little law which, in general, prohibits "agitation", or campaigning, on shows such as Savik's.

So Savik has enlisted the aid of a lawyer, who sits in during the shows, and acts as a sort of political monitor to make sure that the guests comply with the law - very clever on Savik's part.

well, the lawyer dared to point out to Julia that she was entering the prohibited "agitation" zone, which got Julia all perturbed. She questioned the lawyer ("who are you" - in a sort of sneering way). She asked the lawyer, in a sneering way, whether she was from the Central Election Committee (no).

To her credit, however, when Savik explained to her what the deal was, she quickly composed herself, and said that she would take the "anti-agitation" rules into account. Kind of surprising - apparently she doesn't watch Savik.

Richard said...

Elemr face fact. Yushchenko is a psent force. There is only two candidates to choose from in this election Yanukovych and Tymoshenko.

Now who do you want elected President and what powers do you think the President should have?

You were asked a series of questions on Taras Kuzio's site which you have failed to answer.

Which do you support?

1. Rule of law or rule by presidential decree?

2. One vote on value – equal representation or a bias in favor of one party or region?

3. A fair honest political system that reflects the diversity of the electorate or a system that delivers a political outcome in favor of one party?

4. Self governance and independence or subordination and domination of a “elected”/anointed ruler?

5. Hetman or rada?Parliamentary,

6. Canada or the USA?