But you’re kinda saying that if you call people and and ask them a list of questions that’s data, but if you front up on their doorsteps and listen to them, that’s anecdote.
Yeah I am, kinda :) I’m not dismissing people’s experience, just very wary of jumping in any old direction because – well – gotta jump!
Just to add: I'm also dismayed at the back-biting and leaking - and even more at the distance it seems Labour must travel. Everything I see postulated about 'what Labour should do' screams of guesswork (often with the sound of axes grinding.)
Truckloads of data would be nice. Even supertanker full of anecdotes doesn't cut it.
We expect to have to work shitty jobs, 3 on the go at once, for the rest of our lives.
Unions. Join 'em. Just sayin :)
Bravo! Let's which (if any) media run with this...
Pastuerising changes the taste a bit (and takes out a bunch of stuff.) But I'd be astonished if supermarket milk was re-constituted.
Wouldn’t the polling methods, advisory organisations and spending be a closely guarded secret for all parties?
Probably :) I suppose that's why I want to know. It's a good part of Hollow Men and Dirty Politics. Hager writing about it in 2008
Our best bet on dodging this particular bullet remains Japanese resistance.
Plus, even if the US trade negotiators get everything they ever dreamed of, getting TPPA through Congress isn’t assured. Republicans in Congress could kill it just because they don’t want to give Obama anything.
The intention is for St Andrews Trust and Public Good to be part of the work with others to scope a plan to improve our democracy. One small but useful initiative, signalled at the conference would be to crowdfund for summer research scholarships to investigate some of the issues that have arisen in the light of Dirty Politics.
I'd like to see someone research how the 'modern political parties' use data. And what the different parties spent on PR advice, polling, and focus-groups.
All perfectly legal, except the 'black ops' stuff doesn't come out of nowhere.
If you mean that the media quoted Key, et al saying this, then … yeah. That’s what the media does, unless you really want it to stop reporting things that the journalist in question happens not to believe.
I want them to question BS, spin, mis-direction, smears, and lies. To challenge those who spout them at the time. But more importantly, I want journalists to look into said BS, analyse it, and report on where it varies from the facts. So next time that person spouts BS, they know it won't go out without scrutiny.
That is f*ckin essential to democracy.
Thanks Keith. spot on.
And it's not just about not getting a straight answer. You then have to report you didn't get a straight answer, and outline in detail why it matters and what's at stake. Following that up with further stories and quoting anyone who will be quoted.
Then when reporting smears like 'left-wing smear campaign' you ask the person who claims this to back it up with evidence- what are the smears; what is the role of the 'left-wing' and what evidence is there of a campaign?
It's not comfortable when the powerful frown on you - especially when you're used to smiles. But get over it and grow up.