Can you elaborate?
In no way shape or form.
I think the only way that could be false would be if Labour was on or to the right of the center.
I’ve just been rereading through the 2015 budget thread, some good musings there. 2011 sure seems a very long time ago now. Anyway thanks for your patient responses Ben, they are very much appreciated as always.
with the data you get how each respondent answered each question, so you can look at the correlation between questions, clustering into groups, etc.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with. As far as data driven discussions go, not much has been provided for the average reader thus far.
I guess what I was trying to gauge is whether some statistical imperative is being employed as far as you are aware? Which is probably a foolish question, excuse my ignorance.
What I really want to know is how far right or left of center Labour’s policies are and whether compiling the preferences from one of the questionnaires might be helpful in clarifying Labour’s policy position in relation to this policy center and in determining whether a shift towards center would entail moving left or right, if at all.
The overriding assumption throughout this discussion from all sides, including the post you just linked me to seems to be that a centering of Labour must entail it moving right. I can’t see much in the way of solid data being presented here to affirm that other than Labour traditionally equals left, people assume that to be the case, and they lost some elections.
In the same kind of way as – why lead with a policy that is this borderline? From the data it’s clear that there are many traditional Labour policies that garner much stronger support such as healthcare spending, energy company regulation, education spending. It's like flaunting all the accouterments of a centrist without ever looking at the job description.
And my fortune, rounded to nearest billion, is the same as John Key’s.
ahem, but harking back:
I’m not optimistic, but I’m at least trying. It’s an extremely complex question. Perhaps precision is impossible. If so, I think that a data driven discussion is also impossible, and the whole thing comes down to shouting. So I’m just working on the assumption that this is not the case, because it’s the only hopeful position, since I’m not optimistic about my chances of shouting down the Internet.
I think data driven discussion is eminently possible, but with that much data, spanning 9 election cycles, addressing all manner of topics, why has Rob begun the discussion in the centre looking outwards instead of beginning on the perimeter and analysing policy and other preferences with the clear intent of working towards majority? Why begin this type of conversation based on these left/centre/right questions – in which an average of well over 25% fall into the missing/don’t know category, when there’s so much more tangible data to discuss? Why even lead with a hypothesis in this type of exercise?
Is it all this airy-fairy?
Yep. End of week one, Duncan gave Heather a hottie, Heather decided instead to give it away, Duncan looked hurt. Target age bracket 7-12.
When did anyone think Hosking was a journalist?
I fear that this does work in his favour somewhat. In the parlance of the times – citing Google:
a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
“foreign journalists had been expelled from the area”
synonyms: reporter, correspondent, newsman, newswoman, newspaperman, newspaperwoman, columnist, writer, commentator, reviewer, blogger; More
I mean you couldn’t describe what he does as ‘high journalism’ if there is such a thing, but were the tables turned and his house raided and he pled journalist, I think that we could be fairly confident that the current judicial system would find him to be just that.
At least, as a journalist, if he is one, there is a code of ethics he should be expected to uphold.
he is not, as is widely supposed a journalist
Channeling Simon Sweetman.
I’d like to see this expanded upon actually:
To maintain an aloof abstraction about it is only possible if you:
1. Don’t actually care, or
2. Are naturally aloof, or
3. Are carefully maintaining aloofness for whatever reason.
Some people are just too damn busy to spare sufficient energy, some people don’t understand or feel they aren’t (yet) informed enough to contribute more, others are perhaps biding their time until another makes their mind up for them, perhaps 3 could loosely apply there, heck some people are in prison, legally coerced into political aloofness. I’m seldom persuaded by limiting arguments of this nature when it comes to nature, could this train be worth pursuing wrt examining low turnout and swing voters?
We’ve got plenty of anecdotes…anecdotes for Africa are like coals to Newcastle (and cliches for Hollywood) in this debate.
Also the metaphors and similes, some quite profound in their enhancement of the issues such as your latitude post, very helpful, a case of a few words painting a thousand pictures - well, one very clear image.
It's probably worthy of a spot in the Dirty Politics thread all things considered.
Labour haven’t won an election since 1984
* As opposition, I should add, in case that’s fodder for rebuttal. So yeah, since 1987 – : The Cold War, Iran-Contra testimony , The Last Emporer, Wall Street, Got my mind set on you, King’s Cross fire, Black Monday. No majority. We can keep kidding ourselves that a tweak here and there will restore the glory days, but it no longer appears to be the way things work.