All Round Arseclown Tim Wilson

[QuietB]

No more postals accepted after today. It is not going to happen.

 

[CM86]

As you'd know, the AEC goes to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the election and valuing the right to vote.
All informal votes are collected and recorded.

The implication that informal votes are being counted by the AEC for Daniel is a clear accusation of election interference.
This rhetoric has already had a huge impact on the AEC staff and volunteers in previous elections, leading to new guidelines for personal safety and how to handle abuse.

“knock out informal votes that are being counted for the Teals”​

This is clearly an accusation.

I'm not a fan of Wilson, but having just read the actual quotes I was wrong with this.


I'm not saying it's good.
But it's not the attack on the AEC, or the implication of election interference I interpreted from the partial quote I'd seen.


It looks like he's pointing out that he believes Daniel's scrutineers are being incredibly effective and proactive in identifying reasons to strike a ballot as informal, if it's a vote for Wilson. And he is urging his scrutineers to do the same.

“They are knocking out votes for us with extreme precision,”
“If a full recount occurs, we will need a massive scrutineering team because every vote will need to be scrutinised and it will be a race to see who can knock out the most votes,”
“If the teals keep knocking out votes and we are not doing the same. The votes will be the votes. The difference is whether we have scrutineers to knock out informal votes that are being counted for the Teals.”​

​

Training material from Daniel’s campaign instructs scrutineers to pay careful attention to Wilson’s votes.​

“We only challenge Tim Wilson’s votes,” the training manual says. “No need to check that Zoe’s ballots are formal. Tim’s scrutineers will do that.​

This is not an implication of the AEC interfering or even AEC incompetence. It's actually saying that if you can find any reason to dispute a vote for Daniel, then try to do it.

 

[The Punter]

Also, not for nothing, until you have scrutineered or worked on a vote count, you have no idea the scope of stuff written on ballot papers. There's the entertainment to be sure, but missing numbers, eastern european numbers, attempts to fix mistakes, changes of mind mid ballot, numbers outside boxes, ticks, crosses, letters, words...

 

[The Punter]

 

[Not Important]

I'm not a fan of Wilson, but having just read the actual quotes I was wrong with this.


I'm not saying it's good.
But it's not the attack on the AEC, or the implication of election interference I interpreted from the partial quote I'd seen.


It looks like he's pointing out that he believes Daniel's scrutineers are being incredibly effective and proactive in identifying reasons to strike a ballot as informal, if it's a vote for Wilson. And he is urging his scrutineers to do the same.

“They are knocking out votes for us with extreme precision,”​

“If a full recount occurs, we will need a massive scrutineering team because every vote will need to be scrutinised and it will be a race to see who can knock out the most votes,”​

“If the teals keep knocking out votes and we are not doing the same. The votes will be the votes. The difference is whether we have scrutineers to knock out informal votes that are being counted for the Teals.”​

​

Training material from Daniel’s campaign instructs scrutineers to pay careful attention to Wilson’s votes.​

“We only challenge Tim Wilson’s votes,” the training manual says. “No need to check that Zoe’s ballots are formal. Tim’s scrutineers will do that.​

This is not an implication of the AEC interfering or even AEC incompetence. It's actually saying that if you can find any reason to dispute a vote for Daniel, then try to do it.

you were correct the first time, in my view. it was clear the prayer room boy was making an accusation of shiftiness, perhaps more directed at zoe than the aec. why else would he have done so in the form of words used in what he apparently thought was a private chat to colleagues?i have now spoken to two peeps who were acting as scrutineers on election night - one was for the labor candidate, who came to the conclusion you first came to.

 

[DapperDon]

Pity she fell short, happy the worm got a scare before he once again grifts off the public.

He should make the most of the next 3 years as the Old Liberal crowd of Goldstein aren't getting any younger.

 

[Not Important]

he's most likely right, but antony has had a poor farewell record.

 

[Not Important]

i guess it depends on whether you are a progressive or reactionary, how you read the last sentence from the prayer room boy.

 

[Not Important]

 

[MJG14]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

 

[Chief]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

Fantastic. Great move. Well done Tim.

 

[Gough]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

They come up to me with tears in their eyes and say sir...

 

[Father Jack]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

Only missing the bloke having tears in his eyes and the rest of the punters in the car park clapping

 

[western royboy]

Only missing the bloke having tears in his eyes and the rest of the punters in the car park clapping

Some of the replies to his post are absolute gold

 

[Not Important]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

is that a parody account?

 

[Festerz]

God this bloke has massive tickets on himself

Love this and Tony Martin's response..

 

[Not Important]

ArchedEyebrow (@archedeyebrow.bsky.social)

Tim Wilson shares with his therapist the visions he's been experiencing since his narrow re-election victory. #AusPol

bsky.app

 

[Not Important]

some of the shit that was circulated during this campaign was disgraceful. and i’m looking at you, catholic schools organisation, for the misinformation - apparently at the behest of the reactionaries - you allegedly sent to parents of children at your schools claiming the teals wanted to withdraw funding.

 

[The Punter]

some of the shit that was circulated during this campaign was disgraceful. and i’m looking at you, catholic schools organisation, for the misinformation - apparently at the behest of the reactionaries - you allegedly sent to parents of children at your schools claiming the teals wanted to withdraw funding.

Is this it, where the NCEC marked the Teals a ? on their questions because only one of them responded?

Federal Election Scorecard - NCEC

Catholic Education asked the Australian Labor Party, Liberal National Coalition, the Australian Greens and key Independent candidates to provide their response to our priorities for Catholic education. Here’s how they scored… Read their full responses below. Australian Labor Party Liberal...

ncec.catholic.edu.au

 

[Not Important]

Is this it, where the NCEC marked the Teals a ? on their questions because only one of them responded?

Federal Election Scorecard - NCEC

Catholic Education asked the Australian Labor Party, Liberal National Coalition, the Australian Greens and key Independent candidates to provide their response to our priorities for Catholic education. Here’s how they scored… Read their full responses below. Australian Labor Party Liberal...

ncec.catholic.edu.au

STATEMENT – Misleading Letter To Catholic School Parents - Zoe Daniel

Zoe Daniel MP responds to a misleading letter sent to Catholic school parents, urging transparency and integrity during the election campaign.

zoedaniel.com.au

 

[The Punter]

STATEMENT – Misleading Letter To Catholic School Parents - Zoe Daniel

Zoe Daniel MP responds to a misleading letter sent to Catholic school parents, urging transparency and integrity during the election campaign.

zoedaniel.com.au

Ms Daniel and MACS are entitled to their views of what transpired and are also entitled to speak publicly on those views.

But no where in either Ms Daniel's statement or MACS public utterances is a lie. There is assertion and analysis, opinion and discussion.

Make no mistake, political misinformation laws will restrict free speech and be weaponised to curtail the speech that is not to the approval of those seeking to do the curtailing.

Someone says something you don't agree with: call it out.

Someone says something libellous against you: take them to court. The political line for defamation has definitely and successfully been crossed.

 

[Not Important]

Ms Daniel and MACS are entitled to their views of what transpired and are also entitled to speak publicly on those views.

But no where in either Ms Daniel's statement or MACS public utterances is a lie. There is assertion and analysis, opinion and discussion.

Make no mistake, political misinformation laws will restrict free speech and be weaponised to curtail the speech that is not to the approval of those seeking to do the curtailing.

Someone says something you don't agree with: call it out.

Someone says something libellous against you: take them to court. The political line for defamation has definitely and successfully been crossed.

frankly, as a so-called insider, you either aren’t across all the low campaign tactics - read monique’s full article in the saturday paper as a starting point - or you choose to ignore them. my guess is it’s a more the former.


btw. there was a time when there was a separation of powers between church and state on such political matters

 

[western royboy]

frankly, as a so-called insider, you either aren’t across all the low campaign tactics - read monique’s full article in the saturday paper as a starting point - or you choose to ignore them. my guess is it’s a more the former.


btw. there was a time when there was a separation of powers between church and state on such political matters

Lots of dirty tricks in the Wannon campaign - when quizzed the best the incumbent could offer was “everybody does it”

My question is does that make it ok?

 

[The Punter]

btw. there was a time when there was a separation of powers between church and state on such political matters

This was an organisation advocating for a maintenance of the current government funding arrangement and when Ms Daniel was asked about whether she would support the maintenance of that funding arrangement, she was equivocal (for whatever reason).

 

[The Punter]

Lots of dirty tricks in the Wannon campaign - when quizzed the best the incumbent could offer was “everybody does it”

My question is does that make it ok?

You get to make a decision on that with your vote. We're not talking about illegality here, are we? By reading your previous posts, I think you did make that decision with your vote.

But everyone gets to play by the same rules.