The left in Britain has a long and painful history of arguing that the voters don’t know what is good for them and will eventually see the light etc.
How did UK Labour break out of this funk? Tony Blair.
Not exactly –
This makes the presumption that no one else would have been electable at the time. Given 17 years of Tory rule there was a lot of anything but a Tory will do. Failures in the previous election turned myself and many others into door knocking Labour activists. Blair’s predecessor was in fact John Smith who died in opposition before the 95 election. Neither Foot nor Kinnock, Smith was Scottish Labour, a Lawyer and member of the Bilderberg group. He wasn’t Murdoch’s pick (what Murdoch did to Kinnock was more than unkind). The most likely outcome based on the figures going into 1994 was a Labour victory, though probably not as substantial as the one Blair obtained. At the appointment of Tony Blair as leader, much was made of his marriage to Cherie Booth and the blessing of Tony Booth a well-known actor and unionist. When I went door knocking I thought I was supporting someone with left wing credentials. In subsequent years I wouldn’t be the only one who felt betrayed, I gave up my Labour membership before the next election.
With respect to the graph you present it conflates political views with actual voting patterns. I understand there is quite a lot of concern that many of the 7% that haven’t turned out NZ after 1999 election are those on the left who don’t have anything to vote for. This situation is complicated by the MMP threshold where it is quite possible to vote on the left and not have your vote represented in parliament. Mine was one of those votes in the last election.
In a context where ill-health, poverty and inequality is conspicuous, related debate here in NZ would suggest something has changed. Whether that change demands a shift in the centrist at all costs agenda remains to be seen. I do think the scrabble to put the “zombie of the old left to death” has been somewhat unseemly and to the advantage of people like Corbyn. What interests me about this article in the New Yorker, is the cold presentation of all the things that the still growing working class aren’t receiving and what it may revive.
Hat tip to Paul Brislen:
This on Boing Boing today…
Heh they had real special way of getting round corners, self opening doors and choke that could be used as a cruice control.
I should have added that my Nana sent us sheepskin seatcovers from good ole NZ :-)
Bogan? You decide:
On my top ten favourite songs is this - Eddie Cochran’s Somethin’ Else note the gorgeous moment when he out Elvis’s Elvis at 1:31-1:33. Was there ever a better song about cars and girls?
I did a lot of growing up in a car town where they made Marinas, Maxis and errrm Princesses, I rebuilt one of my own ragtop Triumph in later years. But the car that needs to carry my ashes is one of these. The Vauxhall Viscount 3.3 Straight six, 3 speed GM transmission, electric windows, leather seats, walnut dash, just don’t go round any corners at speed. The old man had a very interesting taste in cars, our model was a ’72 just don’t ask the cost of the spares.
Long hair? Check
Leather jackets? Check
I still have the above in my wardrobe……
As for music
There was of course Black Sabbath from Birmingham - where they also built cars.
Ownership of Deep Purple’s Made in Japan was obligatory, containing one Highway Star.
Forgotten upstarts? That would be Saxon and their wheels of steel.
Whatever we were it wasn’t f***ing Chavs - they had yet to be born and Burberry had yet to sell out as a fashion brand.
81st promises to put the ghost of Ronald Fisher to sleep...
Maybe over one of those missed cups of coffee eh?
Presumably you've occasionally done research that you weren't allowed to just release to the world without someone else's say so before?
Yes indeed and I would see anonymity and redaction an important part of the process, especially with respect to qualitative data. The goal here is to act ethically and where possible, avoid harm to those who provide data. At the end of this I still have to decide on my own terms whether the remaining data is a fair reflection of the processes and question(s) involved. But that is not the same as obscuring methodology.
The problem with IP on analytical procedures is that you cannot gain any sense of the robustness of that approach, consequently the worth of what you are seeing. Moreover it removes an important point of agreement regarding truthfulness of the conclusions drawn.
nb. Stats programmes use IP to process data but the method is open and testable. I can test the tool using standard data sets and know what should come back.
I guess because this is "sensitive IP for Labour" the credibility issue really sits with the Labour party (ahem - a group of politicians). Consequently my ire may have been mis-directed - but Rob did publish this in a post defending the method used.
Consequently, for a political party that seeks an electoral mandate to obscure statistical method in pursuit of political goals......well my comments would still very much apply. Indeed I'd go further, the findings as they stand are not really credible, which leaves the inflammatory approach. Labour, Phil and others should not have released this analysis.
Okay while we are here:
I like the idea of including priors it makes a lot of sense. But I think Bayesian analysis has to do its time on the wheel of epistemological rigour.
i) The scope and impact of assumptions made in Bayesian analysis still need some testing, for example history effects on sampled ratios.
ii) The tractability of the frequentist approach is a grand asset which is not trivial.
It may take some time to develop a way of reporting and auditing assumptions made in Bayesian analysis that supersedes the evolution of the frequentist approach.
@Tze Ming Mok - Cool poeple are still doing quants in our wonderfully post positivist world. Sure do miss you.