Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
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.
-
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 ,
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,
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.
-
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Sacha,
40 is the new 30
What to do with my last month of life....?
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Moata T,
(On a )
Mandate
(with a)
Teapot
Nek Minnit...
Liquefaction
Munted
(my)
Groin
ContainerIf you'd managed to work 'occupy' (occupied) in there at the end, you would have won today's internet.
Love your work, btw.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Bart Janssen,
The content they used for the last six months failed, or at least some of it did. They know it failed because they have fewer seats in parliament.
You're drawing a direct link between the content and the result. Are you sure it was the content, and not delivery, or just the enormous lag that there is in trying to get a message through to millions of people?
I peer-review and question the conclusions you draw from the available data, science guy. More research is needed....
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to Lilith __,
Do football hooligans care about football? They seem to see it as an opportunity to get amped up and bash the crap out of other people.
Pretty much, yes. With the usual tribalism as the reason. Football hooligans, that is, not Kiwibloggers.