Posts by Alex Coleman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Ccentrist views are only 7% removed from right-wingers' views, but 19% removed from left-wingers views. That means centrists think more like right wingers on that issue than like lefties, suggesting a standard leftie line on this issue will be less resonant than a standard right-leaning line."
Why assume there is a standardised Centrist view that is 'closer' to x than y? Why not start with '46% of them think this, 54 that' ( or whatever it is). Could be they really do think that. Centrists are probably in strong disagreement with other centrists. They are all centrists in their own particular way, with a spread of views over different issues that may be strongly held.
If the latter is true, then being making dole=bludger noises will make you look like whimps to the centrists that actually really do agree with the left, and the ones that agree with the right won't actually believe you anyway.
-
I'm an idiot, so be patient. But I see that as saying 46% of centrists buy the dole=bludger thing?
Isn't that actually less than the 51% magic number?
-
Clarity is always a good quality in a politician. Saying what they’re for, and saying why they’re for it in simple, accessible language, are cornerstones of good political communication. But you can have clarity, and be competent, no matter where you stand on the ideological spectrum. “Clear” does not mean “extreme.”
One thing I find endlessly frustrating about Centrists, or Blairists, or whatever we want to call them, is this repeated stating of the fairly obvious.
'
I mean, the advice like this post, and the criticisms of 'The Left' just keeps on rolling out. 'Here's what we would do, here is what it ought to sound like', blah blah blah.Get. on. with. it.
Show, don't tell. Look at what the Bl;arists are doing in the UK. Does their campaign actually follow their own advice? Or does it sound like complete vacuous waffle,just stating the effect they want to have, rather than saying things that might cause the effect.
Getting on a box and saying 'I'm a centrist who believes in what you believe sensible aspiration for happy days' makes you look like a grasping vacuous pillock. There is no there there.
If the centrists are actually so darned on to it about how to get the center, then why don't they just get on with it instead of lecturing their parties about how much they suck? Is that part of the plan? Does that actually send the clear concise aspirational messages shown to be effective in the literature with swing voters?
Sorry for sounding grumpy, but this has been going on for years now.
To me, from the outside, it looks like just more whinging and blaming. No different *at all* from what the centrists accuse the left of doing. It does have an added meta nature of being talk about doing politics, rather than just actually doing politics though. Which doesn't help.The party insiders and MPs and all the rest have to maintain the support of the party. Look at your graphs. It;s about a third in each of centre, left and right.
Pissing off the left to win 51% of the centre will not get you a win. The Blairists have to take the left with them if they want to move.
That's why that metaphor is stupid. The centre isn't a place, it's a group of people, and it's fluid. Shift a bunch of them over to supporting you (with policy, rhetoric, or whatever) and nothing has *actually* moved. It is a metaphor. You have defined 'a center' with whatever it is you shifted the voters with. The thing(s) you shifted them with will now be called 'the centre'. But you haven't moved to them, and they haven't moved to you. You've spoken to them, and they heard you. All this talk about moving is just a huge symbolic fail, imo. It's seductive, but it's bollocks.
Maps/territories
-
"In some of the reaction, self-appointed experts decided Labour had lost all its principles entirely, and instantly transformed itself into a pack of nihilist, racist, poll-driven Machiavellis. Those same activists decried those same Labour MPs in 2014 for being too PC, and too consumed with identity politcs"
What about the ones who didn't decry 'Labour MPs in 2014 for being too PC, and too consumed with identity politcs'? I'd say there are more of them among last weeks critics than the unnamed hypocrites you point towards. -
OnPoint: My last name sounds Chinese, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
And let us not forget the shameful reaction of the Labour Government when Maori asked for the return of rights to the foreshore and beaches
Indeed not. And while we are at it, let us remember that National claimed that shameful reaction was tantamount to giving in to Maori. That was a shit of an election for non-racist voters.
-
Hard News: Will the grown-ups ever…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
#NotALLmonarchists.
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Joe Wylie,
his otherwise excellent Herald pieces occasionally betray a disappointing academic unworldliness.
he bends over backwards to be unbiased
-
The cycle, or whatever, of 'engagement' rolls on now with Kills and Moon (but notably Kills esp) catching a stepped up level of, even more horrid, abuse on their social media accts, which is followed by the tutt tutting, and the 'what is wrong with people'.
I blame the parents. Or something.
-
Hard News: Haphazardly to war, in reply to BenWilson,
It's just surreal right?
The assault on Tikrit (homeland of Saddam and the Baathists etc) is being led by the head of the Badr militia, who literally fought for Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, who is being 'advised' by the Iranian Quds forces most famous general. And the PM is asking Tikrit tribes to 'just chill, you'll be fine, and BTW this is your last chance to support the government '.
That unity unicorn better show up soon.
-
Hard News: Haphazardly to war, in reply to Rich Lock,
Fair enough. Here's another response, from Bernard Haykel, the expert cited in it quite extensively:
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/
“If Muslims start criticizing these texts that ISIS is using, saying that they are no longer relevant or no longer applicable, ISIS would declare them apostate,” Haykel said. “If you start telling ISIS that following a tradition of the prophet has been abrogated, has been superseded by some other tradition or some other verse, or that it’s no longer valid, or that it applies only to the seventh century but not today because we’re modern, you will be declared an apostate on the spot by ISIS.”
The issue, Haykel says, lies in ISIS’s “ahistorical” theology, which justifies their horrific actions by essentially pretending that the last several centuries of Islamic history never happened.
“This is something I did point out to [Wood] but he didn’t bring out in the piece: ISIS’s representation of Islam is ahistorical,” Haykel said. “It’s saying we have to go back to the seventh century. It’s denying the legal complexity of the [Islamic] legal tradition over a thousand years.”