Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Your analysis is based on an assumption that a two-term Labour opposition will increase its vote share by 45.6%. In assessing whether this is likely, we can look to history to see how common it is for two-term Labour oppositions to achieve such a turn-around.
Two-term Labour oppositions have contested four elections: 1954, 1966, 1981, and 1996
[Remember, we’re looking to see whether a ~45.6% increase is likely]
1954: 3.7% decrease
1966: 5.3% decrease
1981: 3.5% decrease
1996: 18.7% decreaseHmmm. Maybe I’m being a little unfair in limiting this to two term Labour oppositions. Maybe we should look at the result of the Labour Party in every general election they have ever contested:
1919: first contest election (an ∞% increase)
1922: 2% decrease
1925: 14.8% increase
1928: 3.7% decrease
1931: 30.9% increase
1935: 34.4% increase
1938: 21% increase
1943: 14.7% decrease
1946: 7.8% increase
1949: 8% decrease
1951: 3% decrease
1954: 3.7% decrease
1957: 9.5% increase
1960: 10.1% decrease
1963: 0.7% increase
1966: 5.3% decrease
1969: 6.8% increase
1972: 9.5% increase
1975: 18.2% decrease
1978: 2% increase
1981: 3.5% decrease
1984: 10.2% increase
1987: 11.6% increase
1990: 26.7% decrease
1993: 1.3% decrease
1996: 18.7% decrease
1999: 37.4% increase
2002: 6.5% increase
2005: 0.4% decrease
2008: 17.3% decrease
2011: 19.2% decreaseIn short, your assumption is heroic. You are building into your calculation a swing toward to Labour Party from one election to the next that they have never ever achieved in the history of ever. You may be right. Don Brash achieved a monumental turn-around for National in 2005 (an ~87% increase in vote share).
But if you want to use the argument you have used to make the claim you are making, you are first going to need to establish that this Labour Party is the best improved Labour Party ever. And not just a little better than every previous Labour Party, but a lot better.
The biggest ever vote turnaround for the Labour Party is a 37.4% vote share increase. Perhaps you would like to redo your numbers based on that, and show us what would happen if Labour got ~37.5% of the vote at the upcoming election. Otherwise, I’m pretty sure most of us will assume this was simply an example of partisan hackery.
edit: that took longer than intended, I see the commentary has advanced somewhat.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Tet Yoon Lee,
IANAL, but my understanding is yes.
Yes. A complainant can be compelled to give evidence in court. Seems unlikely it would happen, but it could.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to nzlemming,
But a complaint still needs to be laid. Graeme may correct me on this ;-)
Done.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to izogi,
Police do not need a complaint before they will investigate (or lay charges) in respect of any offending.
People will now note, of course, that the police have been investigating for quite some time.
However, they do need sufficient admissible evidence of offending before they lay changes. Depending on the charge, the type of evidence needed to meet the standard will differ. If they have video of someone having sex with someone who is obviously a child, then I would be very surprised if they did not lay charges, even if the child refuses to make a statement, or is unknown.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to izogi,
According to the just-released statement from Police, the Facebook site “did not provide evidence that could be put before a court”.
I read the statement which on my reading includes the words:
"did not provide evidence which would allow the case to be put before a court."
as indicating that it would be evidence that could be used in court, but would not be enough by itself to lay charges that wouldn’t get thrown out very quickly.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Mark Thomas,
The internet’s way of saying, no shit sherlock.
Well, I just voted: "it should at least be investigated further", and it's unchanged, so I think the Herald are playing with you.
-
"Leaving aside that what is being described here is very clearly rape, it seems pretty clear that it's also making an intimate visual recording without consent in terms of s 216 of the Crimes Act."
Also, honestly, two years?
What do you think the penalty for taking upskirt photographs should be?
-
Hard News: The Future of Television, in reply to Craig Young,
I just wish they’d get rid of Choice...
And where would the good shows that are, or have been, on Choice go? They've aired quite a few BBC Documentary series that wouldn't otherwise have aired free-to-air here, why do you want these gone?
-
Hard News: The Future of Television, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The peoplemeter has become a relic of the analogue TV age, and AC Nielsen et al haven’t bothered to update their methodologies & technologies.
What makes you say that? On-line viewing, and time-delayed viewing are no commonly included in ratings measures.
-
Hard News: The Future of Television, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
They already do, and a lot of good telly comes out of it. Back Benches, the Exponents doco, the Shearing Gang (which is the sort of awesome series One used to make), and many more. Have a search through the NZ On Air funding decisions.
Is The Shearing Gang fundamentally different from reality TV staples like Motorway Patrol, Airline, and Bondi Rescue? Day in the life of group of people employed in a particular line of work?