So despite the fact that several experts (Dr Black et. al., are experts) have called your data rubbish* you are still happy that you applied the analytical method correctly.
We have a bunch students here learning how to do science. None of them would be so utterly stupid as to persist with your line of reasoning. If any did we would consider it a failure of our teaching.
Honestly I understand your reluctance to admit you were wrong. It is entirely human and normal. But by continuing to insist that what you did was just fine you are convincing me (and I’m guessing others) that you should have no role in managing this country. That opinion carries over those for whom you work, the Labour Party.
I’m guessing you (and/or your employers) believe that any damage you do now will be forgotten by the next election and that the votes you lose are balanced by votes you gain. If that is true, again it convinces me that you should have no role in managing this country.
You have hurt a large group of New Zealanders and continue to do so and you don’t seem to care.
This is it.
There are several issues at play here. One is the problem of strong inference from weak data. The second is the political use of that inference. The third is how that inference was perceived.
The first is problematic, but not wickedly so. The second is highly problematic, and through persistence of use has continued to compound the issues inherent with the first. From the first day, foreign money became supplanted by foreign/'foreign' people. That could have been foreseen, but once it became obvious it was your responsibility to deal with and not promote. You failed.
This has in turn created a third problem: perceptions by those affected (Asian New Zealanders) of the use of that data. You *don't* get to claim independence of these perceptions, whether or not they are proportionate to your intentions or your actions. Not in politics (which isn't fair) and not in real life (which is an interplay of people and minds). You especially don't get to claim independence when you have maintained a position despite these reactions.
I've had to deal with a perception problems of my own, where the difference between actual intent and perceived intent is real. In that case, the answer is simple; stop doing the thing causing a problem/offense, apologise, shut up.
I still think that Rob should have buried the data.
There was no useful way to use the data without creating problems such as these.
Pleased to see that our current songwriters are getting their due. UMO keep getting better... how good is this?
Labour would have been far better advised to turn their guns on; the inefficient and expensive construction industry, the “Australian” banks, or the parasitic real estate industry. Almost everyone distrusts or dislikes those industries.
Many people dislike or distrust foreign investors too, but Labour/we can’t win because if they’re successful they’ll end up bringing the hate back to immigrants who live here. (This dislike already exists, but they’ll succeed in spreading and intensifying it). That isn’t what Phil wants, it isn’t what Rob wants, and it’s not what their party wants.
There's no way to win this.
Either you're right, and people in China seeking foreign property *are* buying Auckland houses in great numbers.
Or you're wrong, and people in China seeking foreign property *are not* buying Auckland houses in great numbers.
Twyford and Salmond have been far too smart for their own good.
That's a really good doco, I saw it a couple of years ago, about the time I moved to Brisbane. It changed my appreciation for the city and the state. A true classic of Australian pop, mostly overlooked in a time of INXS and Kylie.
in today’s mail my wife and I received a personally addressed, tidy and colourful letter signed by John Key on behalf of the National Party. It makes a big deal about National’s success with (1) free GP visits & prescriptions for under 13s, (2) jobs & higher incomes, (3) “better education”, (4) “helping children living in hardship”, (5) warmer, drier & healthier homes, (6) breakfasts in schools, (7) grants for first-home buyers, (8) “more paid parental leave”, (9) improved mmunisation, and (10) more money in your pocket.
That's brilliant advertising. Attack your enemies strengths - it doesn't matter that you're doing token amounts in any one of these areas, because the opposition is left with few options other than to say that you're not doing enough. That looks churlish.
The central achievement of this government has been to maintain a narrative about 'economic credibility', while shutting down criticism areas in which they are demonstrably weak. That fails when the gap between expectation and reality is large and uncontestable, as it is with poor quality housing. But give the government six months or a year and they will have developed a strategy that puts small amounts of money into that or any other problem, which will be followed with consistent messaging about how this is part of a comprehensive fix.
Also, the public still – inexplicably – loves them; remember, National won the party vote in every electorate bar three last year.
A plurality, perhaps. In Wellington Central and Rongotai the Greens and Labour both carved off about 30% of the vote each, with National and other parties splitting the remaining 40%.
That Pew graph is also from before the Supreme Court decision. Presumably support will get a bump of several points among independents and Democrats, and a slight boost among Republicans. But a majority of Republicans will still oppose marriage equality, particularly the activist base. A very difficult position to be in.
I suspect any successful candidate will seek to put this on the sidelines.
It’s been a little irksome seeing some queer activists dismissing marriage equality. It’s something people have struggled for for decades, something that seemed wild and unreachable for a lot of that time. It should be okay to celebrate a win and then look ahead.
Quite. This makes a whole bunch of things they’re fighting for more likely.
Even if a rainbow picture is the ultimate in slacktivism, it’s that person saying – ‘your rights are ones that I endorse’. And that support (weak or not) means that progress is less difficult. I don't think that this is a mass exercise in self-congratulation by well-meaning straight people, but I could be wrong.