- Date published:
5:30 pm, May 25th, 2023 - 31 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:
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 …
The Queen is Dead, long live the Queen.
It's one of those creative genius+bastard things..
You can't go past the fact that the music Tina turner made with Ike is her best..
The later commercial successes are pop songs filtered through the pop sensibilities of the time..and are the lesser for that..
None of them come within a bulls roar of river deep mountain high…that song just plasters you to the wall.
And exploration of that early stuff with Ike..reveals gem after gem..
Perhaps (like many things to do with musical taste) it's age dependent.
Generalizing wildly, it's the music from your teens and early 20s that most people tend to think is the greatest.
It is, I think, noteworthy, that Tina had enormous musical and commercial success after the breakup of the duo. Whereas Ike …. basically went nowhere.
Nah..my taste in music goes from way before I was born..up until today..
And commercial success does not also automatically mean creative excellence..
I would gladly never again hear those later pop songs she did..they grate..
Whereas I am perfectly happy to hear her 80s blockbusters on just about every radio station over the last few days.
Luckily, there is no right or wrong when it comes to musical taste.
Interesting the amount if aroha for Tina from NRL (League) greats.
The 'Simply the Best' marketing campaign was the first in league and nothing has come close since. She was on the field in '93 after the final with the premiership winning Broncos.
A real legend.
For those of you interested, here is a link to John Mearsheimer’s recent speech in which he makes predictions for the future in Ukraine. The introduction and Mearsheimer starts talking at 6:30.
The speech is well worth listening to.
In summary, he sees no prospect for peace.
There was back when George Kennan advised what should replace the Cold War containment policy.
It is a very interesting talk.
The way that includes many is wide – but of course only by eliminating war, famine and disease (and GW) will we die of old age, one at a time.
Act has a bilingual option on its events page. Te Reo Māori recognised, those woke warriors! Oh no, oops… it's Mandarin…
I'm guessing, but the presumption is that those residents who read in that language have more money to donate to ACT.
Luring the Chinese resident vote from the 70% that voted Nats in 2017. The Nats, in the meantime, have been pushing for the Indian vote, which was greatly behind the coalition in 2020, due to generous and readily accessible covid subsidies. Luxon has been rarking the dairy ram-raid narrative:
Big Hairy News talks NZ crime stats with Trevor Bradley, criminologist
20 min, but 1.5 x speed is still listenable
New poll out. 1News Kantar.
Greens in freefall.
Difficult situation for Labour with the largest of its two potential coalition partners riven with internal differences and the other intent on pushing an agenda that appears to lack resonance with a significant portion of the electorate.
The Greens are ‘riven with internal differences’ and ‘intent on pushing an agenda that appears to lack resonance with a significant portion of the electorate.’
They will not make 5%.
I think that if they were going to suffer a major drop in core voters (the 5-7% of the electorate who tribally vote Green) – that we'd be seeing this in the polls.
It looks more as though they are dropping back to that core vote.
While they may be (and, I think, almost certainly are) losing some of their traditional core vote (for reasons which have been widely discussed on TS). I think that they are also attracting voters for the same reasons – although perhaps not in quite the same numbers. The question is whether that support will translate into votes in the ballot box – will this younger, rather narrowly socially-conscious demographic actually vote?
However, polls have under-estimated the Green vote in the past. At almost every election they pick up more seats than their pre-polling would indicate.
I wouldn't rule them out of parliament at all – certainly not on the current polling figures.
Looks like a result in line with the rest of the polling this year, with the Greens between 7-11%
Although with a possible trend downwards – the last 2 polls (setting aside the Horizon one which seems to be totally out of touch with all of the others, in a number of ways) – had them at 7 & 8%
Even on the current numbers – they'll be on around the same number of MPs as they currently have – hardly a freefall.
And bearing in mind both that the polling results have a margin of error of around 3% – and that the Greens, traditionally, have done better at the election than pre-polls would indicate.
No, the margin of error on 7% is ± 1.6%. The oft-quoted margin of error of 3.1% with 1,000 people polled is at the midpoint, i.e., at 50%.
"the Greens, traditionally, have done better at the election than pre-polls would indicate.".
That is not true. They generally do worse than the polls in the last month before the election would indicate. I would note the following polls and results at the election for the Green Party. I can't find the enthusiasm to calculate whether the results are statistically significant but I have looked at the polls in the last month before the election for the last few elections.
This shows the number of polls where the Green vote was above the final election tally (+) and the number where the poll results where the number was less than the final election result. They are all taken for the Wikipedia articles on election polling.
2002 +10, -1
2005 +8, -2
2008 +9, -3
2011 +12, -5
2014 +14, 0
2017 +5, -5
2020 +5, -3
In nearly every case there are more polls in the last month where the Green Party polls above the final result than ones where they poll below the election outcome.
So, just looking at the polls for September-October 2020 (1 month before the election)
I make it 7 polls in total. 5 had the Greens below their election result. 2 had the Greens above their election result (and one of those was almost identical 8% poll 7.9% result)
Are we looking at different data?
Historically the Greens perform worse at elections than polls predict (just as NZ First have done the opposite)….whether that trend continues into the future remains to be seen.
That historical effect was determined not by individual polls but by accumulated polling data pre elections and likely signified the lower completion of intention by the younger demographic that have traditionally supported the Greens.
Swordfish would no doubt be able to provide the historical data were he still commenting here.
You are right I put the numbers the wrong way round for that year. I should have said +3 and -5 and I should not have included the next poll in the list where it was, at 11.5% but actually finished before the one month cutoff I nominated.
That was the exception though as every other election supports my hypothesis doesn't it?
1 Greens get a bump in the campaign
2 Their election night total is a disappointment
3 They do well in specials
They get what the polls indicate before the election campaign.
That story is OK as far as the numbered points go. However the results as reported in those Wiki articles are for their final result after the special votes are counted. The don't end up doing as well as the polling numbers for late in the campaign would suggest.
The number given by Wiki is 7.9%, which was the final result. The election night number was 7.6%
What I think it does show, is that the Greens are not attracting the climate-concerned vote. There are a heck of a lot of people out there who are either suffering directly from the weather events, or wondering if they'll be the target for the next one.
Why are these people not considering the Green Party? This is (or should be) their opportunity to be growing their vote numbers substantially.
Well as you said earlier the Green uptake is fallen away for reasons that I thought we knew off.
To hazard a guess I think people who were looking for leadership from the Greens on climate, ecological matters may be somewhat put off by their focus on getting a transwoman into a women's toilet, women's changing room or women's sports team near you.
Then there is the shooting in the foot by Marama Davidson and her 'cis' men comment etc.
They just seem to have lost focus on climate change/environmental matters with their work not being picked up by MSM, despite James Shaw working hard.
I think though without any more bloodletting, feet shooting and a greater focus on 'gingering' up the parties on climate & environmental issues that we will (hopefully) see their resurgence. People affected by, or thoughtful about, climate change are keen to see a party speaking for them.
This is oligarchy.
Billionaire Harlan Crow, Benefactor to Justice Thomas, Rebuffs Senate on Ethics Probe. (Per WSJ) Harlan Crow, the Texas billionaire and GOP megadonor with close ties to Clarence Thomas, refused to answer questions from a Senate committee about his years of gifts to the Supreme Court justice.
SCOOP: Here's the letter that Justice Clarence Thomas's benefactor Harlan Crow sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee last night. His lawyers, from top firm Gibson Dunn, are arguing Congress doesn't have the authority to investigate the Supreme Court. https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/
I guess they should set to investigating ol Harley then. They have the power to do that I guess.