Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Name That Food Blog,
Email
Bad Taste
-
Hard News: Name That Food Blog,
Email
Gobsmacked.
-
Email
Gives 'kiwi dip' a whole new meaning.
Got any chips, bro?
-
Hard News: Name That Food Blog,
Email
Champagne Socialising
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
Email
A tasty-sounding menu aint enough.
Eat your Greens, children, they're good for you.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
Email
I reckon we're at an interesting point where the underlying models are actually changing.
The inevitable convergence of experimental particle physics and politics is close.
As soon as CERN comes back on-line we can split the party vote and release the vile energies of 1000 in-fighting lefty factions.
-
Email
Ikea is a little déclassé for us well-served middle-class professionals, darling.
Freedom furniture for the neccesities. Pre-loved antiques to zhuzh it up. Or so one's interior designer informs one.
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…,
Email
I don’t think this has much to do with anonymity, it’s just as likely to happen on FB or some other place where people are easily identifiable.
Well, we can agree to disagree on that, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding :)
FB may not be anonymous, but it's still not face-to-face, so the immediate effect (or rather lack thereof) is effectively the same. You're still not going to immediately see the other person get upset and angry, and to take it to extremes, you're still safe from a smack in the chops. It's still all just words on a screen.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to steven crawford,
Email
Positions to argue politics from, could be aranged with the help of an architect.
I'll take the Rapunzel tower. In ivory, natch.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Email
So Rich if you are unconvinced that Labour's failure was content based then you need to come up with an alternative explanation for the observed fact.
If I was Labour I'd be unwilling to bet the next election that it was merely poor delivery of message.
Actually, I don't. I merely have to point out that while your methodology and measurement is sound, the conclusions you draw from the observed facts may be erroneous. But I will anyway :)
The observed fact is that Labour lost seats. Your conclusion is that the content of their message was wrong. The counter-factual to your conclusion is that all the pre-election polling showed broad support for their policies across the spectrum.
That suggests to me that potentially there are other reasons. On the table at the moment we have: 1) wrong message, and 2) poor delivery.
I'd suggest we also need to consider: 3) poor deliver-er, and 4) systemic inertia.
Re: 3), Goff as prefeered PM was polling in near single figures. 'nuff said. Re: 4), single-term governments are rare, and (I believe) in general governments change because more people mobilise to vote for a change (i.e. de facto against the incumbent), rather than voting for someone.
So it's not 'merely' poor delivery of message, it's probably some combination of all four, and a few other factors I've not considered. I'd personally weight 3) and 4) more heavily than 1). I'd also parse 2) and suggest that poor delivery not only includes bad presentation to those that are listening, but also breaks down to i) activating the base, ii) attracting the swingers, and iii) putting in work to mobilise the non-voters.