Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
We'll see about Kaye. You might be right, but I'm reserving judgment.
But given everything the Nats signalled and started doing in the previous few years, and it had no impact on their popularity whatsoever
That's an incredibly short time to try to pick long term trends over. Practically every government has a honeymoon period, during which their foibles are seen as great strengths. But over time, popularity wanes, and the exact same things that are initially seen as strength can be seen as weaknesses. As in the movie Wall St, it moves from "I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I like it" to "I don't know where you're getting your information from, and I don't like it" quite rapidly. Popularity is subject to feedback loops, after all - more people liking something means others are better disposed to it. But as with all feedback loops, it only takes a small change in momentum before the feedback goes in reverse, as a few people drop off, and it starts becoming less cool, and then you start finding the old jokes lame, the old positions offensive. Key already hit his peak.
which is also to assume that they didn't already.
I think most of National's first term result came from a rejection of the Clark government. This term's result, whatever you're saying about National's party vote, has not been good for the right. Their coalition has been decimated. You don't seem to appreciate just how close the result is in this election.
Also I disagree, signalling in politics is just as (or more) important as doing, because once it's been signalled, it just happens, often with far less media coverage, and therefore far less fuss than the announcement itself.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that, then. Action is a lot louder than words. You can see a huge mine, you can see homeless people, and you can certainly feel the big hole in your pay packet when you get laid off. You can feel the burn when a kid replaces you because they're on $2/hour below the minimum wage, and you can certainly notice the drop in quality. You notice immediately when your power prices go up.
How many beneficiary votes will National lose by doing that, do you think?
Who knows? The DPB is almost entirely spent by those receiving it, so I expect the businesses that they spend it in would notice, for sure.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Michael Homer,
I did. I will at this point make a (small) profit regardless of who the leader is, but that doesn't mean I have any confidence in the predictions it makes of either that or the 2014 election as being based on anything meaningful at all, yet.
Agreed. I can't think of any method that could do that. Anything can happen in 3 years, including non-human factors like earthquakes and droughts.
At the moment, I think what can be gleaned from the long range predictions is the sentiments of the likely traders. That was all I commented on - why do they feel Shearer is so likely, and yet at the same time a Labour government unlikely?
But I'm not worrying about the VRWC too much, HORansome would have a piece of me. Besides, even if there is a conspiracy, you can't work out what it's going to do. Best just to lay your plans along sound lines - work out your policies, then work out who they appeal to, then get the message out, then sample to see how you're doing. Adjust policy if necessary, to find the demographics untapped or wavering. Get the message out, collect data. Don't worry too much about what the other party thinks - you'll find out the important truth from your own sampling and analysis.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
National won the same number of electorates as last time, and got a slightly higher party vote than last time. Labour suffered a massive defeat. I think we can accept these things are facts – in which case I think it’s a bit too soon to characterise how I think a lot of media, and certainly much of the left would like to portray this next term as one where National are on the back foot.
A couple more facts to add to the mix. ACT and UF got caned. Greens and NZF had big gains. Mana was born. The Maori party got punished hard. MMP convincingly returned. I think "on the back foot" is less true than "backed into a corner". National have 3 years to show why anyone bothered. So far their administration has been an unmitigated disaster for every stat worth a damn, and Labour was piss weak as an opposition. They hold their position of power by the grace of one homophobic racist, and one avowed centrist, who deliberately chose purple as his party's color. And the Maori party, which is run by people who say they're not even going to be here next time around.
But I agree that this time around there are more ways for them to do that, and unpopular policies such as asset sales is one of them.
Practically everything they have said they'll do is unpopular. Talking about doing them isn't. So you can bash beneficiaries all day long, but if you actually start really cutting into benefits, you not only lose all those votes, you energize apathetic non-voters. You can talk about mining, but when you start digging up the land, NIMBYism has major traction. You could even find defection to be a problem in that case - Nikki Kaye could cross the floor. Maori Party could vote against if it's in their stronghold and their cut isn't enough.
If they have to go so far as to actually break strikes, NZ could even rediscover its working class.
Every year that passes, more baby boomers are starting to retire too. That's got to take its toll on the tax take and the pension cost.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Damian Christie,
Was Ben Thomas even in this conversation?
Nope.
They haven't been extremely accurate (yet), because the events these contracts cover are still far from being determined.
Sure, but it's been around for many years now, and made a lot of very accurate predictions.
More to the point though, I don't trust them as predictions here because the various contracts don't match up or trade in line with each other.
Arbitrage it then. As people get more interested (as the event approaches), the volumes go up, and the arbitrage opportunities get smaller and smaller.
When a Labour PM is less likely than Shearer or Cunliffe personally the market simply isn't working.
Just indicates high volatility. Could be a chance for arbitrage.
As you say, long way out, low volumes. Volumes are akin to the sample sizes that you have to always ask for in polls. But you don't need to worry about the sampling method in iPredict.
Allow me to correct that oversight.
Welcome back, btw. Have missed you about this place.
-
I thought I already said
I thought you must have too, but you didn't. It does make sense, though. Counting isn't exactly rocket science.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Have I ever told you that I love you, Ben?
You never have.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Keith Ng,
The whole "is he a dick? Or is he just smart? Is he the kind of dick Labour needs? Is he too much of a dick?" argument is one that I don't want to start.
There's a good reason why the "don't be a dick" rules that cede arbitrary authority to the organizers of a Foo camp can't possibly work in politics. It's actually borderline whether they can even work in a robust debating society. They sure don't work in school playgrounds, other than to divide them into camps full of people who think the dicks are the other camps.
-
As @BenThomas said before
He did?
Part of my nervousness with outKeying Key, is I think that Key's smile has nearly served out its time. Smiling in the face of challenges only works for a while, there's a point where it starts to look idiotic. He's going to start getting asked hard, angry questions every day, from now on. Even our infotainment media has ended it's honeymoon with Key, as he orders the police to search their offices.
I think he's going to be wearing a war-face for a lot of this term. How is he going to smile off the eventual eviction of the Occupy movements? Or the likely outburst of public anger when mining of conservation land starts up? Or Winston Peters shooting his mouth off in parliament about the colossal pork-fest that is going to be involved in selling off the dams. Or minimum wagers laid off so that children can be paid less. Or rising unemployment and stagnant wages, 5 years after he took power? The alarming rise in non-homeless people turning up at food banks?
So I don't think looking for a friendly looking nice guy is going to be at the top of the list of Labour's priorities soon. It's going to be leveraging such firebrands as they have, committing to the sound policies that they released far, far too late, and seeking understandings with their strongest allies. They need hunger, and they need anger.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Have I told you about my theory that you should always bet against your own team in order to maximise your happiness?
It's an old Kiwi favourite. It's the thinking behind life insurance.
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
but mostly because I don’t think the judicial recount will go Bennett's way
Why not?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 467 468 469 470 471 … 1066 Older→ First