Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Sacha,
Looking far too likely. Wouldn't last 3 years, but who needs any more pain?
This is why I think if Labour won't play nice with the Greens they need to consider going with National. A National-Greens government would be far better for the country than a National-NZF govt. I think National would have trouble selling it to its members but for them it would make political sense - if they govern with the Greens moderating them they could likely win even another term; a coalition with NZF is basically conceding the next election and probably beyond that. Governments that ally with Winston pay for a long time afterwards.
Greens members wouldn't be happy propping up a National government. But the Maori party managed it. And I imagine their members would understand that if it's a choice between National-NZF and National-Greens then it's undoubtedly in the country's best interest to grit their teeth and do it.
Of course I would prefer a Labour-Greens government but I can't see it. I think Labour is planning to try and form an alliance with NZF and obtain confidence and supply from the Greens for a few tokens. Instead they could have allied with the Greens and aim to get 48% between them - say Labour 36% and Greens 12% or something similar. This should be easily achievable if they present a united front and offer a clear, vision and plan for the country. Instead though they once again chose the path of mediocrity.
-
My first thoughts on hearing about it this morning. Is Labour are clearly thinking they can redo 2005; go into coalition with NZF and negotiate abstention from the Greens for a few tokens.
What their mistake is is that the Greens will make up a much bigger portion of the parliament than they did in 2005. I think the Greens should initiate talks with National at least to prove to Labour they can't be taken for granted. And tbh I think I may well prefer a National-Green govt. than a Labour-NZF one - especially the way Labour have been operating.
-
Southerly: How I Became a Grumpy Old…, in reply to David Haywood,
Yes, well, I accept that there will be ongoing minor work, but I'd just like to get the big jobs properly finished so that I can fit other activities into my life.
Of course that is a different story and something hopefully achievable. There is a big difference between regular maintenance and big jobs.
-
Southerly: How I Became a Grumpy Old…, in reply to ,
finish the house.
I don't think a large house can ever be finished. By the time you are 'complete' something has inevitably broken somewhere else or if not something else will be due to be replaced/touched up. You can certainly envision how old houses can end up in such a state if they haven't been maintained for awhile.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to steve black,
Yep that's exactly how I wish it were framed.
My other big problem is the way reporters feel like they are being balanced by doing an article on climate change. They interview a scientist saying it's happening; so for 'balance' they go to a scientist who says it's not happening. Then they finish the clip. This leaves the impression that the science is divided.
Instead I wish they'd pick scientists at random and get this type of response: A says it is happening, B says it is happening, C says it is happening, D says it is happening, E says it is happening and that's all we have time for. If they want to have an opposing voice then they should cover the other 19 who say it is happening.
In their attempts for balance they end up distorting the picture. I've watched news clips like that before and heard someone say "Sounds like they can't agree what's happening. Why should we do anything." I think if people actually realised just how much the experts do agree there would be a lot more pressure.
How we've ended up in this situation I think is partly a result of the media's methods and the fact that the opponents have done an excellent (from their point of view) job at creating the impression of controversy.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
He says he is not the Party. He is the leader of NZFirst and would like others to treat him as that rather than the only one in the Party. He stressed that he is in a Party the last time I heard him. If that seems to be different from before perhaps that can be seen as different altogether.
I simply don't believe him. Based on past experience and the history of New Zealand First. He can say what he likes but again he's a proven liar.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to BenWilson,
On the question of "What will Winston do?", the data I think would be most relevant that could be collected is "What do NZF voters want him to do?". If a strong and clear majority want him to go with National, that makes it very much more likely. Because he'd lose a lot of support if he didn't do it.
In a normal world - yes. But with Winston I don't see it. Before the '96 election he railed strongly against National - he made it seem quite clear that a vote for NZF was a vote to boot National out. After the election everyone assumed he would go with Labour including all the media. People close to him said that he partly went with National because he was so annoyed with all the media assuming he would go with Labour (which was a perfectly valid assumption considering his preëlection statements). Another factor was apparently that National simply offered a lot more than Labour - I think this could happen again.
Anyway what I'm trying to say is I think Winston will do whatever he wants - he won't do what his supporters want(in fact he especially may not care about them since it's quite likely to be his last term) unless it coincides with his own interests.
-
Those are great graphics. Only thing is we don't really know what's going on in the background. Say in one poll. National loses 2%, Labour stays level and Greens gain 2%. The scatterplots would treat that as Greens taking votes off National right?
In reality what might be happening is Labour is taking 2% off National while Greens are taking 2% off Labour. Unless you had a panel you regularly poll and track the changes there would be no way of knowing.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to BenWilson,
You are right that the polls are only predicting if an election were held tomorrow - not the actual election. They show the current situation rather than what will happen on the actual election.
That being said the current polls don't give National a 99.5% chance of governing - the 99.5% figure only comes if you factor NZF as being 100% likely to go with National. If you say NZF is 50/50 between Labour and National then you get a likelihood of around 75% for National governing - which is curiously enough about where iPredict puts them.
And I think that's a fair reflection of the current reality. But the election is still a long way away and those numbers are bound to move between now and then.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to BenWilson,
and even if he's absolutely certain to go with them, the best chance they have is 75%.
I think you've gone wrong somewhere in that the labour clear win chance was 0.005. If Winston is absolutely certain to go with National then when you combine the National clear win and the Winston decides portions together you should get around 100 - 0.005 (Labour win) - hung parliament (??). Whatever the exact numbers are if you decide that NZF is 100% going with National then National would be well over 75% likely to win the next election.