Posts by Alex Coleman

  • Speaker: The problem is Serco, in reply to Alex Coleman,

    Hit the wrong reply button there, soz. Should have been at 'Tinakori'.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: The problem is Serco, in reply to Joe Wylie,

    The disappointing thing about the performance of Serco is that it is all too similar to the work of the Department of Corrections. They were supposed to be better.

    Wasn't the model of contracts and incentives supposed to, via common sense and magical laws of the universe, ensure that they were better?

    I get that you're just being cute, but the point for the model isn't that Serco sucked, it's that the model didn't work as advertised. It would be good to see some serious grappling, from the model's fans, with the 'whys' of that beyond 'Oh just Serco actually'.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Meet the middle, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    First, the actual arguments parties run aren’t generally about whether “dole = bludger” or not.

    I get that.

    That’s just the opinion poll question.

    Yes.

    For me, the poll gives us how relatively receptive centrists are to left / right arguments about the morality of welfare and personal responsibility. And to my eye, it says they’re more receptive to right arguments than left ones on that issue.

    This is the part don't understand

    To my eye it looks a like a large majority of the left, a slim majority of the centre, and a slim minority of the right agree withe each other, and together form an outright majority population wide.

    I get that the Q itself is a proxy for whole bunch of other things, but doesn't the data (which we are using for a proxy) suggest that slightly over half of the centre, and slightly under half of the right, agree with the left here?

    I don't get how you see it as meaning 'the centre' agrees with the slight majority of the right.

    Both of those two groups are split down the middle on how they view it, aren't they?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Meet the middle, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    I still don't understand though.

    On that question, there's only a small majority of *actual righties* that agree with it. It's a pretty divisive question. I get swallowing dead rats that are well and truly lost causes, but when it's a close run thing even on their side? And a majority of centrists agree with you that it's a rat?

    Isn't the 'gap' smaller between the centre and the right because the right isn't really united on this view that dole=bludger?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Meet the middle,

    "Ccentrist views are only 7% removed from right-wingers' views, but 19% removed from left-wingers views. That means centrists think more like right wingers on that issue than like lefties, suggesting a standard leftie line on this issue will be less resonant than a standard right-leaning line."

    Why assume there is a standardised Centrist view that is 'closer' to x than y? Why not start with '46% of them think this, 54 that' ( or whatever it is). Could be they really do think that. Centrists are probably in strong disagreement with other centrists. They are all centrists in their own particular way, with a spread of views over different issues that may be strongly held.

    If the latter is true, then being making dole=bludger noises will make you look like whimps to the centrists that actually really do agree with the left, and the ones that agree with the right won't actually believe you anyway.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Meet the middle,

    I'm an idiot, so be patient. But I see that as saying 46% of centrists buy the dole=bludger thing?

    Isn't that actually less than the 51% magic number?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: In defence of the centre,

    Clarity is always a good quality in a politician. Saying what they’re for, and saying why they’re for it in simple, accessible language, are cornerstones of good political communication. But you can have clarity, and be competent, no matter where you stand on the ideological spectrum. “Clear” does not mean “extreme.”

    One thing I find endlessly frustrating about Centrists, or Blairists, or whatever we want to call them, is this repeated stating of the fairly obvious.
    '
    I mean, the advice like this post, and the criticisms of 'The Left' just keeps on rolling out. 'Here's what we would do, here is what it ought to sound like', blah blah blah.

    Get. on. with. it.

    Show, don't tell. Look at what the Bl;arists are doing in the UK. Does their campaign actually follow their own advice? Or does it sound like complete vacuous waffle,just stating the effect they want to have, rather than saying things that might cause the effect.

    Getting on a box and saying 'I'm a centrist who believes in what you believe sensible aspiration for happy days' makes you look like a grasping vacuous pillock. There is no there there.

    If the centrists are actually so darned on to it about how to get the center, then why don't they just get on with it instead of lecturing their parties about how much they suck? Is that part of the plan? Does that actually send the clear concise aspirational messages shown to be effective in the literature with swing voters?

    Sorry for sounding grumpy, but this has been going on for years now.
    To me, from the outside, it looks like just more whinging and blaming. No different *at all* from what the centrists accuse the left of doing. It does have an added meta nature of being talk about doing politics, rather than just actually doing politics though. Which doesn't help.

    The party insiders and MPs and all the rest have to maintain the support of the party. Look at your graphs. It;s about a third in each of centre, left and right.

    Pissing off the left to win 51% of the centre will not get you a win. The Blairists have to take the left with them if they want to move.

    That's why that metaphor is stupid. The centre isn't a place, it's a group of people, and it's fluid. Shift a bunch of them over to supporting you (with policy, rhetoric, or whatever) and nothing has *actually* moved. It is a metaphor. You have defined 'a center' with whatever it is you shifted the voters with. The thing(s) you shifted them with will now be called 'the centre'. But you haven't moved to them, and they haven't moved to you. You've spoken to them, and they heard you. All this talk about moving is just a huge symbolic fail, imo. It's seductive, but it's bollocks.

    Maps/territories

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: A week on from the housing controversy,

    "In some of the reaction, self-appointed experts decided Labour had lost all its principles entirely, and instantly transformed itself into a pack of nihilist, racist, poll-driven Machiavellis. Those same activists decried those same Labour MPs in 2014 for being too PC, and too consumed with identity politcs"


    What about the ones who didn't decry 'Labour MPs in 2014 for being too PC, and too consumed with identity politcs'? I'd say there are more of them among last weeks critics than the unnamed hypocrites you point towards.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: My last name sounds Chinese, in reply to Raymond A Francis,

    And let us not forget the shameful reaction of the Labour Government when Maori asked for the return of rights to the foreshore and beaches

    Indeed not. And while we are at it, let us remember that National claimed that shameful reaction was tantamount to giving in to Maori. That was a shit of an election for non-racist voters.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Will the grown-ups ever…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    #NotALLmonarchists.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 231 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 24 Older→ First