Daily Review 10/11/2016

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 44 comments
Categories: Daily review

hillary-clinton

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

44 comments on “Daily Review 10/11/2016”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          I don’t care who did it. It’s not an article that should be published as it tends to influence people.

          I even think publishing polls needs to be banned.

          I’m not saying that either the polls or the research should be banned or the results not made available – just that they shouldn’t be published* because of the influence that they have on voters:

          During elections, and major public policy events, much of the media coverage focuses on the “horse race,” or fluctuations in support for a candidate or policy. Reporting on public opinion not only affects support, but levels of engagement: donations, volunteering and turnout. These bandwagon effects can make polls self-fulfilling prophecies; the predictions of the polls come to pass because the polls not only measure public opinion but also influence public opinion and engagement.

          And note that you can’t directly compare National with Labour anyway. Labour has multiple parties in direct competition with it while National doesn’t.

          So, we have the MSM peddling influence that it shouldn’t and a poor comparison to boot. So, yeah, not something that should be in the MSM or even blogs.

          * I’m differentiating here between being made available via an academic website which people can go look at if interested and that of being published in a widely available medium such as the MSM and blogs.

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            Interesting take, something to think about.

            But how far would you take it? also ban politic opinion pieces in the MSM during election year? they could also influence people.

            Influence could also be interpreted as informing?

            Banning polls could also lower voter turnout, as what would be the incentive for say a Labour voter to vote if they “think” they have an election in the bag? when a poll may tell them every vote is required. It works both ways…

            1. 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Opinion pieces should be discouraged because good reporting involves journalists reporting facts, not interviewing their keyboards, twitter, or the penguin.

              The Herald now operates in the quality band once occupied by The Truth.

            2. 1.1.1.1.1.2

              also ban politic opinion pieces in the MSM during election year?

              No, I’d pretty much leave it at polling.

              Banning polls could also lower voter turnout,

              I support compulsory voting as voting is a duty, not a right. And it may actually improve voter turn out. Articles like this one won’t be putting people off of voting.

              And I didn’t say that I’d ban polling, only the publishing/mentioning of those polls in mainstream media and blogs. So parties and academics could still do their own polling.

              1. 1.1.1.1.1.2.1

                Absolutely bang on there DTB, I left a message for RNZ one particular morning after week of indoctrination and no longer able to bear the lines “commanding lead for National…..Labour sliding downhill” almost every day for a week. I ranted on about trying to hypnotise us, and manipulation, and perhaps tell us who and how they measure instead, some actual facts maybe?
                The one joy of the US election is that it proved the polling pundits to be WRONG, so,perhaps our poll sheep may not decide to follow them after all next time.

      2. 1.1.2

        I won’t read the Herald piece but think the chances of Labour winning in 2017 are negligible.

        The reason is that the “average punters” in the ordinary places I frequent see no reason why they should vote Labour. The corruption of the present Government is insignificant to most and for all the difficulties with housing and some being on the bones of their arse, most people don’t care.

        Mix a prevailing streak of sadomasochism (amply symbolised by Gerry Brownlee who people in Christchurch will still vote for), stupidity and apathy, and Key will be a shoe in.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          Labour ought to have gained some traction from their recent conference big announcements but have been plagued by trying to fudge the costs and by wanting to further tax employers.
          Nothing will happen at Parliament between now and Christmas. Over summer there will be no talk of changing the government. In the New Year the Cabinet will be refreshed and a new crop of talent will make their mark. The economy will keep growing and thousands more houses will have been built. I sense absolutely no mood for change.

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            Labour ought to have gained some traction from their recent conference big announcements but have been plagued by trying to fudge the costs and by wanting to further tax employers.

            You know, because you’ve been told before, that such announcements take weeks before they show up in the polls.

            1. 1.1.2.1.1.1

              I doubt these ones will show up in the polls at all.

              For big new policies, they were decidedly peripheral and unimpressive. Not something to get excited or change your vote over.

    2. 1.2

      Haven’t we just seen a result in an election far far away that defied the polls? I wouldn’t be counting any chickens just yet.

    3. 1.3

      assuming the good professor is correct about early voting indications then Labour (or potential support) need to successfully engage at least some those 30% non voters and disrupt the model……not an easy task however

      1. 1.4.1

        yes, I saw that and assume that she is considered biased judging by ScottGN’s comment however it remains possible her assertion is correct and engaging some of the non vote would be advantageous correct or not.

    5. 1.5

      The polls did shit all for the US elections, poor Hilary thought she would be a shoe in – people are sick to death of polls and obviously in the US were lying to the pollsters – if they phone me I shall be telling them to mind their bloody business how I vote. Personally I think polls should be banned – it was like the flag debate – shoving it in our faces night and day, the electorate should be allowed, in their own good time, to make their own minds up.

      Pollsters remind me of Real Estate Agents hounding the death out of people night and day on the phone to sell their homes. Its insiduous and shouldn’t be allowed the way they try to influence people. How desperate are these pollies to keep demanding polls all the time.

  2. 2

    Had a phone call from a concerned friend. They were phoned by Colmar Brunton on behalf on WINZ, and were asked to answer some questions. Needless to say they felt very uncomfortable out it.

    Is it common practice for Colmar Brunton to ring WINZ clients, WINZ supplied them with their name, phone and DOB

    2. 2.2

      WHat?

      You tell your friends this, never answer personal questions to anybody that rings YOU.

      Did they get any personal information..? full name age dob address, oh please do not say bank acc and pin..

      Geez cinny tell them to sharpen up.

      very effective in a really grumpy voice is this

      f**k you, you could be a clown for all I know, dicxkhead and slam the phone down.

      I like playing a grumpy old man, oh I am a grumpy old man..damn

    1. 3.1

      hi rr, yes it is good news, although belated.
      just shy of two months this has taken.
      absolutely hearless and disgusting.

      perhaps if farrar’s polling was a little quicker then action could of happened sooner. sarc.

          1. 3.1.1.2.1

            I agree that she should be released – but we should remember she is not a nice person and she prayed on low income people trying to get a home.

        3. 3.1.1.3

          neither you or i james, have a time machine so we are left with what did occur.

          she did get a terminal disease and the heartless state dragged it’s heels and not till the family went public did action occur.

    2. 3.2

      This whole sorry saga comes down to the overreaching influence that Garth McVicar and the SST has had over corrections policy for the past 15 years or so. He has propagated the idea that those who break the law must serve eternal penance for what they did, to the point where they shouldn’t receive adequate healthcare in jail.

Comments are closed.