And this is why polls should be banned.
They are increasingly wrong, both inaccurate, that is they fail to predict the actual result, and imprecise, that is they are so variable that anyone with any statistical experience dismisses them as nonsense.
I can't agree with banning, though I wouldn't mind compulsory courses in Stats 101 for all politics journos. Right on cue, here's breaking news: the Greens' support has doubled!!!111!! In just 24 hours!
Obviously it hasn't. But Roy Morgan now has them at 9%. Except, it's late on a Friday night, and not on telly. So it doesn't count.
Is it true pollsters are still using land lines only? I haven't had a one for over 10 years and it wouldn't surprise me at all if land line users were now a minority of voters with a heavy demographic skew.
Never mind the polls. The political editors have there fingers on the pulse. Tracy Watkins’s 0pinion looks a bit like an obituary, that goes beyond the polite etiquette of not speaking ill of the dead.
The John Key-Bill English-led Government has reigned supreme for nearly a decade. It’s one of our most popular governments ever – freakishly popular, in fact.
It got us through the global financial crisis, the Christchurch earthquakes, Pike River. It clawed New Zealand out of recession. So voters forgave it for a string of mini-scandals – the GCSB spying debacle, ponytail-gate, ministerial resignations, the teapot tapes, John Banks, secret donations, dirty politics.
If you are correct then the actual election result will be significantly different than the polls before it. Let's see.
This poll which claims to include both landline and mobile has the Greens at 9% which is a whole lot different than 4%.
That said I dislike news reporting of polls - herd mentality and all that.
This poll which claims to include both landline and mobile has the Greens at 9% which is a whole lot different than 4%.
Where are those headlines proclaiming, "Greens more than double their vote"?
The polling period matters. I'm not sure (I've seen contradictory information) but I think the Roy Morgan poll includes earlier sampling than the Colmar Brunton poll does. Which might mean the trend is down not up. I'm hoping the CB poll is an outlier, but the next polls will be interesting.
Postponed. The pale stale males are still beating up on Metiria, including a very silly column by Garner. What do Tuku Morgans underpants have to do with anything anymore. Christ on a stick, get down from that high horse would ya!
Personally, I'm just going to do something weird and vote for the party whose policies I most agree with.
That's fine as long as you trust the party of choice to actually follow through and fight for or implement the policies as advertised.
I've found The Spinoff's Policy tool interesting, but mostly in terms of how I used it. It's built around selecting the policies you like after which it'll tell you which party has the most of your favourite policies, but I found myself looking at similar policies from different parties and second-guessing whether I thought that party actually had any genuine intent to push the policy in a way I wanted. eg. I had a strong bias against including much from National in my preferences, even if some appeared consistent with other parties, simply because I feel I'm already aware of how it's treating so many of those stated policies and that's part of the reason I'm really struggling to consider voting for it.
In NZF's case I wonder if many supporters like it for the one or two things they care about (if not simply Winston's attitude), yet strong in the belief that there's no way in hell that NZF will follow through with some of its other policies that those supporters might think are insane.
Personally, I’m just going to do something weird and vote for the party whose policies I most agree with.
I just finished trawling through the Labour Partys ‘announced’ policy’s. I’m looking for signs of innovation. Unfortunately, theres nothing very exciting for me. So it’s all down to the personality of the leader, and some of the other potential MPs. Education for instance, talks about how much money in billions will be added, and how that’s also going to ballence in the books. But there is no indication there is any plan to even review national standards. There is a lot of enthusiasm for getting young people ‘work ready’ which I suppose is why the Labour Party is called the Labour Party. I’m just concerned that all the emphasis on funneling children of working class families into ‘jobs’ Isn’t necessarily going upgrade there quality of life. We might end up just waisting lots of creative potential, to the factory’s. And these is absolutely no mention of my pet project – dyslexia which is part of the prison populations problem.
And the idea that every school aged child needs access to mobile digital devices, falls miles short of my expectations for technology literacy in the 21st century. iPads in schools as I said before is as far missing the point as misunderstanding the importance 3D printers.
The Greens have a hell of a lot more enthusiasm, but some of there policy documents have gone ‘stale’. Russell Norman is still listed as the co – leader, compleat with contact details.
Like Labour, the Greens are promoting the idea that any number of humans swimming in any fresh water lake or river system, is a good idea. So they cancel each other out there, along with the argument that it’s bad to have other mammals such as cattle and sheep trashing the habitat.
So I’m undecided, but open to being convinced. I realise the need for these people to not put all there cards on the table right now, so trusting there ability to adapt and evolve there plan is important to me.
Russell Norman is still listed as the co – leader, compleat with contact details.
I see thats an historic document, along with this “blueprint for the future”. If you would like, I can recommend the best brand 3D printer on the domestic market? But if we are talking about serious use of digital technology to manufacture our way to a clean Green and prosperous future, I suggest starting with education.
The minister for manufacturing is a good idea And again, education...
So, a historic press release then. We can access those online going back to the last century.
It's therefore unreasonable and misleading to cite that as an example of the Greens policy (and people) information being out of date. It isn't.
I think you might be missing my point. Click on your link. Then open minister for manufacturing. You will read: “For manufacturing to thrive and take advantage of new technologies like 3D printing, we need leadership across the whole sector now.”
Now open the “Read the full policy” link to that PDF. In there you will see some impressive looking graphs and a photo of a snazzy looking plastic thing; probably ABS which is the same thing as polystyrene. Again, 3D printers are at the bottom of the digital manufacturing list of useful tools. Thats why I say, technology literacy requires education, not flashy toys like iPads and of the shelf 3D printers.
There is a whole world of innovation available out there, 3D printing plastic trinkets isn’t it. laser sintering is a whole nother level. And I’m surprised nobody at Greens has mentioned it or anything else much to do with digital manufacturing.
Let’s not forget digital manufacturing has been around in New Zealand for decades, that why there are so many horrible MDF kitchens in our houses. Once upon a time it was all the rage to import expensive CNC routers. But almost nobody used them for anything innovative. It’s not only about the tools, it’s also important to unleash the populations creative potential. That’s what I mean by education. How is the education policies of any party helping that to happen?
Increase funding for universities in the engineering, mathematics, computer science,
and the natural, physical and material sciences.
But tell you what, your also going to need someone to design stuff.
Ok, here’s a hypothetical policy idea, which is basically what minor party policy’s are.
We are going to move some funds from someware unsexy, and put into sports!
We ‘the’ politics party, propose a model boat race around the southern ocean, from Bluff to Bluff. This would stimulate the development and utilisation of satalite comunication technology. Among other things... such as … 3D printing:-)
So it’s all down to the personality of the leader, and some of the other potential MPs. Education for instance, talks about how much money in billions will be added, and how that’s also going to ballence in the books. But there is no indication there is any plan to even review national standards.
This is the sort of problem I've been struggling with for TOP. The leadership's said lots of interesting stuff which I find engaging (plus the odd thing that makes me really mad at them), but there also seem to be big gaps in the written policy.
eg. I care about a variety of things, but one area I care deeply about is Conservation policy. I've repeatedly been referred to TOP's Environment policy, which is packed full of incentive-speak about things like river pollution and climate change, but says virtually nothing about management of 1/3 of the country that's Conservation Estate, nor even mention words like 'pest', 'predator' or 'conservation'. The only vague reference to it is about a $20 border levy for investment in biodiversity and local infrastructure. There's virtually no detail about expected outcomes, costs of administration, or... anything really about what TOP actually wants.
It's not that TOP doesn't care about conservation policy. Geoff Simmons says plenty at random all over the place, but as far as I can tell none of it's clearly written down or formalised. It's just his personality speaking. So if I'm to vote for TOP on that basis, I feel like I'm really just voting on some kind of enthusiasm and trust that the leadership will "do the right thing", whatever that is. Maybe people who choose TOP genuinely only care about the issues on which TOP's defined and announced comprehensive policies, but beyond that I'm not sure how it's different from someone who votes for Labour because they trust Jacinda, or voting for NZF because they trust Winston, which it seems to be trendy to criticise people for.
This is the sort of problem I’ve been struggling with for TOP. The leadership’s said lots of interesting stuff which I find engaging (plus the odd thing that makes me really mad at them), but there also seem to be big gaps in the written policy.
The leadership just went out and said an odd thing again.
I wonder how long it is going to take for it to sink in that TOP is nothing but the re-skinned libertarianism of a stale, pale old male rich enough to favour us with his eccentric solutions.
Gareth Morgan reminds me of that dangerous old fool of the Lange government, Trevor De Cleene.
TOP is nothing but the re-skinned libertarianism of a stale, pale old male rich enough to favour us with his eccentric solutions.
How did you arrive at that? Tom.
Jane Bowron goes completely off the rails in today’s Dominion Post (p3, “Motels, memorandums and dunny misalliances”; the online version has a different title). She starts promisingly enough by noting that Greens have NOT sought any electorate lifeboat from Labour despite “disaster polls” … but then spends four slanderous paragraphs imagining that Shaw did just that in Wellington Central, using her fabrication as a platform from which to mock the Greens as “unsustainable” and a “pity party”.
Is it too much to ask supposedly serious political commentators not to veer into pure fantasy? (Note also the exaggeration of “disaster polls” – I thought there was only one unexpectedly low result so far?)
Dunne done running...
There goes National's coalition, and after Seymour's ungrateful little broadside book he may not be currying so much favour...
...Paula Bennett may be regretting giving all those clothes away now, she might be looking for a job herself.
And yeah Jane Bowron is all over the place, a barely wadeable stream of consciousness!
That's weird, I was over in Ohariu just yesterday admiring the sensible mans hairdo. I will remember him affectionately as Mr Synthetic Cannabinoid man.
Every time I pop out for lunch a party leader resigns. Bill English may want to deliver sandwiches to my desk.
Back to Metiria's problem, the Guardian produced a useful summary of the situation today:
The crime for which this tide of hate would have been proportionate is hard to imagine: in fact, it was spurred by her admission that she committed benefit fraud in the early 90s, a confession she made freely to highlight how hard it was then, and is now, to raise a child as a single parent under New Zealand’s notoriously punitive welfare system.
More than half of all that country’s benefit claimants owe money to their work and income department, in what appears to be a version of Gordon Brown’s working family tax credit overpayments, where you identify the country’s poorest families, pay them slightly more than you intended by a metric you haven’t really explained, then saddle them with a debt they have no hope of repaying. When you get to the point that these debts affect 60% of claimants, this is no longer a glitch in the system: this is the system.
The departure of Dunn opens an opportunity for an anti 1080 champion. The Greens are not going to go there, becouse they moved on from Greenpeace style ideology/dogma.
National has finally started killing cats on Auckland island (about for fuck sakes time!). It would be very strange if they didn't use toxic shit.