Secular seasons' greetings and best wishes for 2016 to all. Since this site started a few years ago, I've developed a strange habit of posting something every Christmas Day. As I may be too busy playing chess badly in early January to post all that much around then, I've taken the risk of going early with this year's prize for the unwise, the Ehrlich Awards for the wrongest predictions in a field of interest to this site made in or concerning the year 2015. The Ehrlichs are named for Paul Ehrlich, the ecological don of doom whose failed resources bet with Julian Simon and poor excuses for losing it (and litany of other false "scenarios") have given heart to those who snort derisively at the claim the world is rooned ever since. For previous instalments, and to see the groundrules, just click on the Ehrlich Awards tab at the bottom.
As usual we briefly glaze over hard-to-quantify bogus puffery from politicians of all varieties, spearheaded this year by Bill Shorten's commitment to the National Press Club "that Labor will be defined in 2015 by the power of our ideas." In fact, Labor was largely defined as a mirror of the government it opposed: popular by default while Tony Abbott clung to power then deeply unfashionable once he was given the boot. A few Labor policies attracted public attention (emissions targets, voting age, smoking excise) but it was not always the right kind of attention, and some of these were pilfered from the Greens. Labor has been releasing policies but none are especially original and so far hardly anyone has noticed. Mostly they smack of a strategy tried without success against John Howard: when you have nothing just trot out the usual, cover it with a sudden interest in technology and science and say you've discovered something new.
ELECTORAL, POLLING AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS, COMMENT AND NEWS FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CLARK. THIS MACHINE KILLS BAD ELECTORAL SYSTEMS. IF USING THIS SITE ON MOBILE YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK "VIEW WEB VERSION" TO SEE THE SIDEBAR FULL OF GOODIES.
Showing posts with label Bob Ellis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Ellis. Show all posts
Friday, December 25, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
What Is Independent Australia Independent Of?
Quality control, consistency, accuracy and editorial skill.
At least, if my own encounters with its opinion-polling coverage are any guide.
According to its "About Us" page, Independent Australia is "a progressive journal focusing on politics, democracy, the environment, Australian politics and Australian identity".
Further on:
"IA supports quality investigative journalism, as well as citizen journalism and a diversity of voices. It believes Australians are short-changed by the mass media - and so dedicates itself to seeking out the truth and informing the public.
Independent Australia believes in a fully and truly independent Australia, a nation that determines its own future, a nation that protects its citizens, its environment and its future. A country that is fair and free".
Which all sounds well and good, as troubled as the often pretentious use of the term "progressive" in the left has often been. IA also claims to support independent candidates and oppose partisanship, though the waters here are slightly muddied by its endorsement of the curious so-called "Australian Independents" party. But the real problem starts when we get to this:
"IA also features an exclusive weekly column by the Australian literary legend Bob Ellis".
At least, if my own encounters with its opinion-polling coverage are any guide.
According to its "About Us" page, Independent Australia is "a progressive journal focusing on politics, democracy, the environment, Australian politics and Australian identity".
Further on:
"IA supports quality investigative journalism, as well as citizen journalism and a diversity of voices. It believes Australians are short-changed by the mass media - and so dedicates itself to seeking out the truth and informing the public.
Independent Australia believes in a fully and truly independent Australia, a nation that determines its own future, a nation that protects its citizens, its environment and its future. A country that is fair and free".
Which all sounds well and good, as troubled as the often pretentious use of the term "progressive" in the left has often been. IA also claims to support independent candidates and oppose partisanship, though the waters here are slightly muddied by its endorsement of the curious so-called "Australian Independents" party. But the real problem starts when we get to this:
"IA also features an exclusive weekly column by the Australian literary legend Bob Ellis".
Sunday, January 25, 2015
2014 Ehrlich Awards For Wrong Predictions
This supposedly annual end-of-year feature is a little overdue, which I blame partly on the snap Queensland election and partly on the field being uninspiring compared to the 2012 and 2013 ensembles. But while I wait for another poll to shed light on public response to what seems to be a ragged week for the LNP in the Queensland campaign, here we go. This site awards the Ehrlich Award early every year (unless I decide not to) to the "wrongest" public prediction I observe in or relating to the previous calendar year.
There are a few groundrules, for instance predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess factually whether they have come to fruition), and predictions that carry a stated chance of falsehood are not included unless that chance proves to be ludicrously low. The first of these, for instance, excludes Tony Abbott's pledge that in 2014 his government "every day [.. ] will keep building the stronger, more prosperous country that all Australians want and deserve" - not only are the terms of such platitudes undefinable, but those making them will continue maintaining they were true. Likewise, I have so far been unable to find an empirical unit for measuring whether or not the President of Russia has been "shirtfronted".
There are a few groundrules, for instance predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess factually whether they have come to fruition), and predictions that carry a stated chance of falsehood are not included unless that chance proves to be ludicrously low. The first of these, for instance, excludes Tony Abbott's pledge that in 2014 his government "every day [.. ] will keep building the stronger, more prosperous country that all Australians want and deserve" - not only are the terms of such platitudes undefinable, but those making them will continue maintaining they were true. Likewise, I have so far been unable to find an empirical unit for measuring whether or not the President of Russia has been "shirtfronted".
Labels:
2014,
2014 state,
Abbott,
Bob Ellis,
Ehrlich Awards,
fluff,
Huon,
MH-370,
PUP,
Tasmania,
Tasmanian Times
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
2013 Ehrlich Award For Wrong Predictions
Not much going on in the world of pseph with all the polls still asleep (though Morgan is showing some signs of waking up soon) so not much to report lately. I am hoping to soon publish a review of Cory Bernardi's oxymoronically-titled "The Conservative Revolution" but this depends on me being able to obtain a copy without paying for it. (If any readers can help out with this, that would be great. I promise to take appropriate medical precautions prior to opening its pages.)
===================================================================
This article unveils the second annual Ehrlich Award, which at or about the start of each year will be given to the "wrongest" published prediction I observe relating to (or made in) the previous calendar year.
There are a few groundrules - for instance the predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess objectively whether they have happened), and secondly predictions that carry a stated assessment of chance of falsehood are not included unless that assessed chance is ludicrously low. After all, even odds-on favourites do get beaten sometimes.
===================================================================
This article unveils the second annual Ehrlich Award, which at or about the start of each year will be given to the "wrongest" published prediction I observe relating to (or made in) the previous calendar year.
There are a few groundrules - for instance the predictions need to be meaningful (in terms of being able to assess objectively whether they have happened), and secondly predictions that carry a stated assessment of chance of falsehood are not included unless that assessed chance is ludicrously low. After all, even odds-on favourites do get beaten sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)