Hard News: Why we thought what we thought
287 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Was discussing same with a recently elevated QC this morning and he believes that Odgers won't even want to come back to NZ anytime.
She's already done her civic duty by staying out of the country.
I would personally recommend Belfast as a good place to start. Her talents might be able to facilitate some real estate deals in Falls Road or the delightful suburb of Ardoyne.
Better than that... how about Jerusalem or Hebron? Belfast has gotten a bit boring lately.
-
Hey Russell. Nice interview this morning on Firstline
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Exactly, although Republicans persist in labelling Democrats as pinko liberalists hell-bent on introducing some radical form of socialism, next stop the gulag for all “right” thinking gun-toting god-fearing citizens.
Tussock beat me to posting up The Political Compass. To my mind, it provides a much better way of looking at things than a traditional left/right analyis, especially given what you’ve noted above. Republicans in the US, and other parties of the ‘right’ in other countries, have been sucessfully scaring the horses by labelling their opponents as screaming loony lefties for decades, all the while pulling the supposed centre-line to the right with all their might.
I was sourly amused by the stampede of pollies tripping over themselves to canonise Nelson Mandela. If you run the test yourself, you get to see where they think today’s main party leaders sit (see attached). They’re mostly clustered up along the right and towards the top-right corner. Nelson Mandela is down slightly bottom left.
Personally, I sit more-or-less bang on the Green Party. Which saves me from having to do anything boring and hard like read policy or think about my vote. Thanks, Political Compass!
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
The Native Affairs polls -- which consistently show that Maori electorate voters would strongly prefer the Maori Party to go with Labour if there is a choice will presumably not be lost on them.
It may take a large slice of humble pie, in the form of electoral oblivion, to make them realise that.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
although disappointed the PM appeared to bring it up in his press conference – just a little higher profile than I expected!
You get that with juvenile bullies, expose a frailty or weakness, an Achilles heel, they will exploit it like a predator, they will stub a cigarette out in your eye, slap you on the back with a knife in their hand, they are bitter, they are twisted, they grow up to be mean drunks and abuse the unfortunate, they go into politics, they rise like scum.
IMHO... -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Exactly, although Republicans persist in labelling Democrats as pinko liberalists hell-bent on introducing some radical form of socialism, next stop the gulag for all “right” thinking gun-toting god-fearing citizens.
The dominant ideology in today's US Republicans, by our standards, are a mutant hybrid of Colin Craig and Rodney Hide. And the Democrats, when all its various factions are taken into account, span the spectrum between National and Labour.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
I don’t think Labour does enough lefty stuff to be considered a centre-left party. I guess my impressions are still tainted by Rogernomics.
I don’t know where you fit a capital gains tax, for instance, into that perspective?
A capital gains tax is a completely centrist policy idea. I’m in favour of a cgt, but having a cgt is a bare minimum you need as part of your tax policy to be considered left wing. Having a cgt in your tax policy per se does not make you left.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
he’s sort of making less and less sense?
Is he ever? I’d have quite liked to hear some coherent discussion on the issue, but John Key’s (argumentum ad absurdum) contribution on raising the minimum wage (Press leaders debate 2014 was Taslovian):
“Make it $50! Make it $50!"<sarc>
He’s an animated masterclass in the art of misdirection.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
He’s an animated masterclass in the art of misdirection.
Only because the suckers think it’s all about money so ignore the fact the guy just waffles.
Sound bites and suckers -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The dominant ideology in today’s US Republicans, by our standards, are a mutant hybrid of Colin Craig and Rodney Hide. And the Democrats, when all its various factions are taken into account, span the spectrum between National and Labour.
Nail meet head. I am hearing from the God botherers of Mt Roskill that Craig is their man, these are the same people that would normally support Goff but have been suckered into thinking that Labour has turned into a ravenous bugblatter beast capable of nothing but destruction of the world as we know it. All thanks to the drunken ramblings of a wunch of bankers and lawyers. Did I say lawyers? try saying that with a broad Ulster accent and you will see what I mean.
ETA
The reason they used to support Goff was that they could see that caring for others was a Christian thing to do but now see Craig as making more sense, like what are the others actually for?, we cant all afford to have cleaners and gardeners. -
Ben Austin, in reply to
The Maori Party need to show some signs of independence I think, if just to remind their voters and potential coalition partners that they are still a force to be reckoned with. If they retain two seats this time around this may give them quite a solid bargaining position, especially given that their new leadership may want to strike their own path to distinguish them from the last two terms.
-
anth,
I've been phoned to do a poll by Curia, David Farrar's company so probably on behalf of National. The question that I found interesting was being asked to give scores to party leaders, with a list of Norman/Peters/Key/Cunliffe/English.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Not at all Paul. I made it public on Facebook so fair game for anyone in a sense, although disappointed the PM appeared to bring it up in his press conference – just a little higher profile than I expected! – which is why I did a brief press statement on it.
Best wishes with it, Matthew.
Likewise.
I'm a more than a little Catholic on these matters; he who is without sin etc.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
I’m a more than a little Catholic on these matters; he who is without sin etc.
To which sin do you refer? Greed, Averace, Guutony, Sloth, wrath?, I could go the full seven but.... National can hardly claim to be worthy of casting a school play let alone stones.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I've probably said this more than often enough, but take care about reading a lot into an infographic like that. It's 2 dimensional. Which is better in some ways than 1 dimensional, but it's a whole lot less than the actual dimensions of our political opinions. Are those two axes really important to you? Of course it's a big leap away from boring old left-right, but once you admit of a duality of dimensions, there's no real reason to stop at any particular number (other than that we struggle to draw or visualize it). Every question you could ask could form a dimension. And just as you can't really judge how close stars are to each other by their apparent clustering to the naked eye, so you shouldn't judge how close you are to a political party by how close they look on a flat projection. They aggregate a whole lot of questions into one dimension, and they just don't ask about a whole lot of things that could be important to you. Viewed with different axes the graph could be radically different.
It would be interesting, since they collect the data, for them to report not just the two aggregated dimensions relative to you, but also the magnitude of your distance in all the dimensions (a single number) to the main parties. Then your proximity can go back to one dimensional, but you don't get stuck with being pigeonholed next to people you disagree with just because someone else chose the projection axes. Whoever is closest to you is closest in a sense that captures as much information as they collected. Of course they could always collect more.
It's still an interesting tool. Just saying don't read too much into it.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
It would be interesting, since they collect the data, for them to report not just the two aggregated dimensions relative to you, but also the magnitude of your distance in all the dimensions (a single number) to the main parties
Not quite sure where you were going with that but how about they make a graph of how society changes over time?.
Everybody’s perspective changes over time, growing up, growing old. Some say that people get more Right wing as the get older, could be the ebbing of the optimism of youth, becoming more aware of risk. My Mother went from hard line Communist/international socialist to National conservative White supremacist over her life, me, on the other hand l make Gandhi look like Thatcher and people still despise me. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
And just as you can’t really judge how close stars are to each other by their apparent clustering to the naked eye,
I suppose you could call that the Z axis which in the case of what we are discussing would be the change over time (as distance over astronomical distances equates to time) unless, that is, you wanted to use time as the fourth dimension in which case I suppose your concept could indicate a spiritual element which means... erm... Oh... is that the time? gosh. I really should be asleep by now.
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
And just as you can’t really judge how close stars are to each other by their apparent clustering to the naked eye, so you shouldn’t judge how close you are to a political party by how close they look on a flat projection.
That's a brilliant image, Ben. Love it.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Are those two axes really important to you?
Well, if you could make sure you plot all the current election and polling data onto the surface of a four-dimensional hypercube in time for all of us to clarify our relative positions and make a properly informed voting decision before the election, we'd be grateful. Ta.
Important isn't the word I'd use. I personally find the two-axis model more useful, and it's sufficient for my purposes. It effectively divides one's political views into micro and macro: what is of benefit to one personally (plus a small circle of family/friends who you want to see benefit), and what you consider to be of benefit to society as a larger single entity (the economy, basically)*. I'm fairly extreme in my views when it comes to what I should/shouldn't be able to do with my own body: what I put in it, what I like to put it into, and whether I should be able to put it in harm's way for a personal thrill. This tends to align me with Libertarians. However, I'm diametrically opposed to them on any sort of economics issue, which always used to puzzle me. Similarly, I was always puzzled by those of 'the left' who were aligned with, or leaning towards, authoritarianism - I was more in line with their economics thinking, but didn't like being told what I could/couldn't do.
A two axis model helped explain a lot of that. And I think who you end up voting for depends quite a bit on the relaitve personal balance one takes between the micro and macro portions.
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's good enough for me.
Also, thinking of politics in a single-axis model tends to benefit a two-party FPP system more than a dual-axis MPP system. Various factions wthin each of the parties have to subsume to a large degree in order to stay in the tent (for example, the republican party has two seemingly diametrically opposed wings: fundy religious nutjobs who like telling people what they can and can't do, and libertarians). Two axes are pretty simple to grasp and helps to move away from that sort of unhelpful mindset, even if, as you've pointed out, it's still a hugely crude oversimplification.
*obviously these aren't mutuallly exclusive, there's considerable shading between the two.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Don’t forget The Press Leaders Debate is
Live on the web tonight from 7pmDid anyone actually watch the thing? Gave up after five minutes of Key and Cunliffe shouting over each other, which I'm sure was enormously entertaining if you were in the room but somewhat... unenlightening through not-great speakers on an elderly laptop. But there must have been something substantive in there. Yes? No? Maybe?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think O’Connor would be doing anything illegal if he had leaked Police video evidence to Slater, even if the motivation and morality involved is questionable. It’s certainly not a good look for the cops to be cosying up to a vile blogger to discredit the victims of the Urewera raids after charges against them had been dropped. But it’s much worse for the Minister of Police to be actively encouraging that sort of behaviour.
I'd actually disagree with you there, Alfie. O'Connor is the head of the Police union, and a reliable go-to for the media. He also has a pretty nasty habit of attacking any criticism of the Police (however mild) as hoddie-hugging from brainless cop-haters who wouldn't give a shit if police officers were slaughtered on a daily basis. Which I actually find rather offensive.
I'm sure many around here would strenuously disagree, but Greg O'Connor trades on the mana his members have (and for the most part deserve, IMO). At the very least, police officers -- and the taxpayers they're supposed to be working for -- should be asking some very hard and very public questions about how their union is representing them.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’ve been phoned to do a poll by Curia, David Farrar’s company so probably on behalf of National. The question that I found interesting was being asked to give scores to party leaders, with a list of Norman/Peters/Key/Cunliffe/English.
It included English? Interesting! Anything else you can recall?
-
simon g, in reply to
I WATCHED IT AND I LEARNED HOW TO DEBATE.
I WIN THIS THREAD. WHATEVER.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
it reigns, it pours...
...they go into politics,
they rise like scum.
IMHO…in some cases the froth becomes
the 'head' of the country... -
Jack Harrison, in reply to
At the end of the day Nu Zilders will see there's nothing to see.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.