All Round Arseclown Tim Wilson

[Not Important]

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?

of course not, mate. it's an age old response. but it’s got to a new low. especially with the advent of these low-life right-wing lobby groups. like advance, i.p.a ,australians for prosperity – a coal-lobby funded group fronted by former liberal mp jason falinski, then there was the plymouth brethren christian church - the libs are being investigated for providing them with personal voter information, australian christian lobbly. the sooner we heavily regulate these types of groups, the better.

from monique’s piece:

“The Liberals’ negative ad campaign, “Teals Revealed”, was rolled out in electorates held by the community independents. In Kooyong, the six Teals Revealed pamphlets and flyers distributed to all households over a six-month period contained inaccurate and deliberately misleading claims about my policies and actions as the member for Kooyong”.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

Taking someone to court is difficult particularly when all you can target is some shadowy organisation (advance) who probably have little assets to strip

 

[The Punter]

Taking someone to court is difficult particularly when all you can target is some shadowy organisation (advance) who probably have little assets to strip

I don't like Advance and have said so. I think they should be able to say whatever they like, but if I were to suggest a legal remedy for groups like this, it would be to prevent their anonymity rather than curtail their ability to speak. Political speech should be made by real people, political donations should only be made by real people and both should be clearly attributable to real people. But no to an independent authority deciding what is acceptable and not acceptable political speech, unless it is inciting violence or libellous under existing statutes.

 

[Not Important]

Taking someone to court is difficult particularly when all you can target is some shadowy organisation (advance) who probably have little assets to strip

putting to one side the enormous cost of litigation, the fact is that often those found to be at fault aren’t deterred. blot was found guilty of publishing articles (plural) that “contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language”. to me, that says lies and divisiveness. and my memory is that when he walked out of the court, he said it was an infringement of freedom of speech. wut!

i’m not sure what will deter people from wilfully lying (spreading dirt), but there needs to be a strong measure directed at people and/or organisations who wilfully spread false narratives designed to skew the political process. those standing for office need some protection from lies and distortions other than expensive litigation. we’ve seen what it leads to in the u.s.

wilfully harming is antithetical to the democratic process as it can and does adversely affect elections, in both a personal and party sense.

one possibility that appeals to me is an independent organisation (including some returned judges) with the power to act promptly and impose fines that materially punish those who deliberately widely (professionally) spread false narratives designed to disrupt the political process. there is a proliferation of these lobby groups bc they know they can get away with lies and distortions and affect election results. i’d like there to be one covering the media, too. the press council is a toothless tiger.

 

[Not Important]

 

[The Punter]

putting to one side the enormous cost of litigation, the fact is that often those found to be at fault aren’t deterred. blot was found guilty of publishing articles (plural) that “contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth, and inflammatory and provocative language”. to me, that says lies and divisiveness. and my memory is that when he walked out of the court, he said it was an infringement of freedom of speech. wut!

i’m not sure what will deter people from wilfully lying (spreading dirt), but there needs to be a strong measure directed at people and/or organisations who wilfully spread false narratives designed to skew the political process. those standing for office need some protection from lies and distortions other than expensive litigation. we’ve seen what it leads to in the u.s.

wilfully harming is antithetical to the democratic process as it can and does adversely affect elections, in both a personal and party sense.

one possibility that appeals to me is an independent organisation (including some returned judges) with the power to act promptly and impose fines that materially punish those who deliberately widely (professionally) spread false narratives designed to disrupt the political process. there is a proliferation of these lobby groups bc they know they can get away with lies and distortions and affect election results. i’d like there to be one covering the media, too. the press council is a toothless tiger.

Right throughout this post you use terms that mean different things. Lying is not spreading false narratives (whatever than means) and wilfully harming is something else again (beating your opponent in an election is causing that person harm anyway because they want to win and you work to deny it). But some judges deciding what is acceptable political speech...

 

[Crankyhawk]

Right throughout this post you use terms that mean different things. Lying is not spreading false narratives (whatever than means) and wilfully harming is something else again (beating your opponent in an election is causing that person harm anyway because they want to win and you work to deny it). But some judges deciding what is acceptable political speech...

Harm can be psychological or reputational (look at pesutto) though that was outside of an election context. I’d limit “lies” to that which clearly is not opinion (errors of fact) or hyperbolic undeliverable promises (trumpets 3% interest rate)

 

[The Punter]

Harm can be psychological or reputational (look at pesutto) though that was outside of an election context. I’d limit “lies” to that which clearly is not opinion (errors of fact) or hyperbolic undeliverable promises (trumpets 3% interest rate)

But everything the Trumpets said was a lie by that caveat because they were never going to win the election and they knew it.

 

[Not Important]

Right throughout this post you use terms that mean different things. Lying is not spreading false narratives (whatever than means) and wilfully harming is something else again (beating your opponent in an election is causing that person harm anyway because they want to win and you work to deny it). But some judges deciding what is acceptable political speech...

it's hard to know where to start with this pedantic trumpery..

to save you buying a dictionary, the macquarie dictionary defines false as "not true or correct, erroneous, uttering or declaring what is untrue".the oxford dictionary "wrong, not correct, untrue". a legal definition is a "statement that is known or believed by its maker to be incorrect or untrue and is made esp. with intent to deceive or mislead" - ipso facto lie.

my thoughts were that an oversight body could include retired judges. your post seems to suggest that the present system of telling porkies is ok, or at least preferable, and if anyone is put out, your recourse is expensive litigation. i guess not surprising that the party of the ipa, advance, the coal-lobby funded group australians for prosperity, various christian front groups, including the plymouth brethren - to whom the liberal party allegedly gave confidential voter information, j-united, a community activist group partnered with advance in anti-teal messaging. though i don't like the catch-all phrase, as they are a group of independents - mainly conservative btw

you claim to not like advance, but seem to want to do squat about the falsehoods and divisive misinformation they spread.

i asked you to read monique ryan's piece in the saturday paper to be better informed, which you clearly haven't done. she concluded the piece by saying :

"We must do better to protect the process, to protect candidates and to protect voters – from disinformation, lies and negative campaigns...."

it seems winning at all costs is your thing. sad really.

 

[Not Important]

expected. dispiriting nonetheless. still, the prayer room boy has managed to turn a blue ribbon liberal seat into one of the most marginal.

 

[Crankyhawk]

But everything the Trumpets said was a lie by that caveat because they were never going to win the election and they knew it.

Pretty much, though would allow things that they could do (eg cut immigration that is a policy not a lie) There is no mechanism in reality for 3% home loan rates

 

[ep2018]

expected. dispiriting nonetheless. still, the prayer room boy has managed to turn a blue ribbon liberal seat into one of the most marginal.

He just won a seat back from a teal, that's seems a big deal.

 

[Not Important]

He just won a seat back from a teal, that's seems a big deal.

wilson oversaw taking a blue ribbon liberal seat to one of the most marginal in aus - what was his margin, a little over 120 votes - then we’ll agree to disagree. and it took an alleged $2m from the libs (cormack foundation?) plus the mountain of undeclared donations to do it.

 

[Nikita Blue]

expected. dispiriting nonetheless. still, the prayer room boy has managed to turn a blue ribbon liberal seat into one of the most marginal.

128 and given slippery Tim involved any chance of a recount?

 

[nut]

128 and given slippery Tim involved any chance of a recount?

I still have James McGrath repeating “just wait for the pre polls” ringing in my head.

 

[The Punter]

it's hard to know where to start with this pedantic trumpery..

to save you buying a dictionary, the macquarie dictionary defines false as "not true or correct, erroneous, uttering or declaring what is untrue".the oxford dictionary "wrong, not correct, untrue". a legal definition is a "statement that is known or believed by its maker to be incorrect or untrue and is made esp. with intent to deceive or mislead" - ipso facto lie.

my thoughts were that an oversight body could include retired judges. your post seems to suggest that the present system of telling porkies is ok, or at least preferable, and if anyone is put out, your recourse is expensive litigation. i guess not surprising that the party of the ipa, advance, the coal-lobby funded group australians for prosperity, various christian front groups, including the plymouth brethren - to whom the liberal party allegedly gave confidential voter information, j-united, a community activist group partnered with advance in anti-teal messaging. though i don't like the catch-all phrase, as they are a group of independents - mainly conservative btw

you claim to not like advance, but seem to want to do squat about the falsehoods and divisive misinformation they spread.

i asked you to read monique ryan's piece in the saturday paper to be better informed, which you clearly haven't done. she concluded the piece by saying :

"We must do better to protect the process, to protect candidates and to protect voters – from disinformation, lies and negative campaigns...."

it seems winning at all costs is your thing. sad really.

A narrative is not a fact. I didn't read the Saturday Paper piece because I have no desire to subscribe to it, and had to do so to read the piece.

I claim not to like the Australian Labor Party, but I don't want to curtail their political speech either. When they say something that is not true or possibly misleading, my suggestion for recourse is to get in front of a microphone and explain how it wasn't true. I don't want to take the ALP to court over Mediscare but that is obviously the kind of thing you are talking about prohibiting through your suggestion for regulated political speech.

Edit - so I've managed to get access to Ryan's piece and taken a look. This is in the fourth paragraph:

"I’m told that half the Victorian Liberal Party’s membership lives in Kooyong."

Now, the assertion there is not true. I'm happy to concede Dr Ryan was told that, but the person doing the telling is incorrect. There is no legal recourse for that mistruth because you cannot defame an organisation, and rightly so. But Dr Ryan wrote it and the Saturday Paper published it.

In my view the piece contains the sort of political assertion that a regulated speech regime seeks to limit or could be used to limit. I have no issue with Dr Ryan's ability to write the piece, although the fact The Saturday Paper printed it is a reason I don't subscribe. But I don't want The Saturday Paper shut down by some government authority.

 

[Not Important]

A narrative is not a fact. I didn't read the Saturday Paper piece because I have no desire to subscribe to it, and had to do so to read the piece.

I claim not to like the Australian Labor Party, but I don't want to curtail their political speech either. When they say something that is not true or possibly misleading, my suggestion for recourse is to get in front of a microphone and explain how it wasn't true. I don't want to take the ALP to court over Mediscare but that is obviously the kind of thing you are talking about prohibiting through your suggestion for regulated political speech.

Edit - so I've managed to get access to Ryan's piece and taken a look. This is in the fourth paragraph:

"I’m told that half the Victorian Liberal Party’s membership lives in Kooyong."

Now, the assertion there is not true. I'm happy to concede Dr Ryan was told that, but the person doing the telling is incorrect. There is no legal recourse for that mistruth because you cannot defame an organisation, and rightly so. But Dr Ryan wrote it and the Saturday Paper published it.

In my view the piece contains the sort of political assertion that a regulated speech regime seeks to limit or could be used to limit. I have no issue with Dr Ryan's ability to write the piece, although the fact The Saturday Paper printed it is a reason I don't subscribe. But I don't want The Saturday Paper shut down by some government authority.

nice little change to the goal posts there. the point in question was you putting you can’t equate “false” with “lie”. which is nonsense as i pointed out.

the medicare commentary was based on lots of evidence of the reactionaries long-held negative view of it, as confirmed by comments by dutton and which appear in one of the threads here. i’m not keen on embellishment as labor has done, but it’s light years from spreading lies about a candidate being anti-semitic in an electorate with quite a high jewish population. or a party feeding a lobby with lies about a group of candidates wanting to withdraw funding from their schools, and that organisation then writing to the parents, perpetuating the lie.

if what monique was wrong about the size of the liberal party in her electorate, and she said during the campaign, she should be called out on it. i’m sure she would have withdrawn it, but had she not, and oversight authority could have acted. but that’s comparitively piddling stuff candidly.

and selectively quoted a sentence of no real consequence while conveniently avoiding the thrust of the piece which related to personal vindictive and the wilful falsehoods circulated by the half a dozen right-wing organisations with links to your party.

maybe you can’t see it, but we are fast heading down the u.s track where there seems to be nothing that is off limits. frankly, your laissez-faire attitude indicates a “oh well that’s politics”. i’m concerned about the personal attacks, wilful falsehoods that besmirch our system and would like to see action to at least curtail it.

what you call “regulated speech”, i regard as aiming for reasoned debate.

 

[The Punter]

nice little change to the goal posts there. the point in question was you putting you can’t equate “false” with “lie”. which is nonsense as i pointed out.

the medicare commentary was based on lots of evidence of the reactionaries long-held negative view of it, as confirmed by comments by dutton and which appear in one of the threads here. i’m not keen on embellishment as labor has done, but it’s light years from spreading lies about a candidate being anti-semitic in an electorate with quite a high jewish population. or a party feeding a lobby with lies about a group of candidates wanting to withdraw funding from their schools, and that organisation then writing to the parents, perpetuating the lie.

if what monique was wrong about the size of the liberal party in her electorate, and she said during the campaign, she should be called out on it. i’m sure she would have withdrawn it, but had she not, and oversight authority could have acted. but that’s comparitively piddling stuff candidly.

and selectively quoted a sentence of no real consequence while conveniently avoiding the thrust of the piece which related to personal vindictive and the wilful falsehoods circulated by the half a dozen right-wing organisations with links to your party.

maybe you can’t see it, but we are fast heading down the u.s track where there seems to be nothing that is off limits. frankly, your laissez-faire attitude indicates a “oh well that’s politics”. i’m concerned about the personal attacks, wilful falsehoods that besmirch our system and would like to see action to at least curtail it.

what you call “regulated speech”, i regard as aiming for reasoned debate.

That's not the basis for my view at all.

I've been consistent in my view that the people decide. That's the basis of democracy. They get all the information (and it's never been more accessible) and can make that decision.

If someone else decides what information is acceptable and not acceptable, then they're in charge. If they're not elected by the people, that's moving away from democracy. Most moves away from democracy come from non-malicious motives.

Dr Ryan was able to call out and criticise through a widely read media outlet. She is demonstrably not able to stick to facts any more or less than any other politician it would seem. Your proposal would be just as likely to be weaponised against her as it would against any other.

And, of course, your defence of the Mediscare campaign is "but this one was right". Medicare was as present in 2022 as it was in 2016 when the original claims (through that bastion of in-depth contextual analysis: the text message) were made. Then "selectively quote a sentence of no real consquence"... so is the issue the mistruth itself or its likely impact? I thought this was an issue of principle.

My principle is clear: the way to fight misleading political speech is via political speech. Our voting system still drags the polity to the centre, which is a lesson that should be learned by people on my side of politics but they are struggling to. It very much looks like we are being held accountable for our failings, both practical and rhetorical, but like many around here, some won't be happy to we are a one party state (which the long-term future of Australia without a mass-appeal Liberal Party).

 

[Not Important]

I've been consistent in my view that the people decide. That's the basis of democracy. They get all the information (and it's never been more accessible) and can make that decision.

that would include political activist groups who sling muck like there's no tomorrow and are becoming emboldened by the week. what a good idea. laissez-faire, as i attributed.

If someone else decides what information is acceptable and not acceptable, then they're in charge. If they're not elected by the people, that's moving away from democracy. Most moves away from democracy come from non-malicious motives.

what an independent oversight body would do is examine complaints and make calls after a thorough investigation based on the evidence. it’s not such a departure from what the aec is supposed to do now, but with the staffing to do it and with punitive teeth.

Dr Ryan was able to call out and criticise through a widely read media outlet. She is demonstrably not able to stick to facts any more or less than any other politician it would seem. Your proposal would be just as likely to be weaponised against her as it would against any other.

you’d need to do way better than the piddling quote you posted before to make such a sweeping approbrious comment to have any merit. monique is one of the most honest politicians i have encountered. and there have been a lot of them. you did not refer to her referring to the activities of 4 or 5 right wing groups who the reactionaries use to spout shit and intimidate. or the lib supporting surgeon who performed what was widely regarded as a gross misogynistic act. that’s the level we’ve reached. and without some action, we’ll end up like the tin tanks. wouldn’t that be great?

And, of course, your defence of the Mediscare campaign is "but this one was right". Medicare was as present in 2022 as it was in 2016 when the original claims (through that bastion of in-depth contextual analysis: the text message) were made. Then "selectively quote a sentence of no real consquence"... so is the issue the mistruth itself or its likely impact? I thought this was an issue of principle.

where did i say “this one was right”? in fact, i said i didn’t like the embellishments. however, the fact is the libs have a record of showing misgivings (to be polite) about medicare. and dutton added to that fact by some of his comments during the campaign.

My principle is clear: the way to fight misleading political speech is via political speech. Our voting system still drags the polity to the centre, which is a lesson that should be learned by people on my side of politics but they are struggling to. It very much looks like we are being held accountable for our failings, both practical and rhetorical, but like many around here, some won't be happy to we are a one party state (which the long-term future of Australia without a mass-appeal Liberal Party).

what a great idea. let’s allow those upright cits in the political fray (including those take-no-prisoners activist lobby groups) to throw as much muck as they like and let the system sort it out. that’s working well, init.

i’m about attempting to clean up what has been deteriorating for ages. and has contributed to peeps tuning out of the political process and pollies’ reputations withering further by the day. the take home message is you appear to want to sit on your hands as the political debate becomes further and further fetid. i want to attempt to lift it out of the present mire.

 

[Saint]

My principle is clear: the way to fight misleading political speech is via political speech. Our voting system still drags the polity to the centre, which is a lesson that should be learned by people on my side of politics but they are struggling to. It very much looks like we are being held accountable for our failings, both practical and rhetorical, but like many around here, some won't be happy to we are a one party state (which the long-term future of Australia without a mass-appeal Liberal Party).

On the contrary, I think the country needs many more parties rather than a two-party (definitely not one-party) system which means when one party is in peril, the other party gets away with doing some very moronic stuff. I haven't heard anybody espouse a one-party state as a solution.

The problem with our current democracy is the media landscape being both terribly open, but also horribly opaque. I'm not sure our democratic systems were set up for it. I don't think the AEC has the sophistication or ability to monitor or regulate behaviour in the current political landscape. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's a big problem.

Perhaps the Westminister system of Govt/opposition is bound to result in a two-party duopoly and needs to be changed.

Should massive, overseas media companies be allowed to regulate what political message get through to people?

Is it the media consumer's fault?

 

[The Punter]

you’d need to do way better than the piddling quote you posted before to make such a sweeping approbrious comment to have any merit. monique is one of the most honest politicians i have encountered. and there have been a lot of them. you did not refer to her referring to the activities of 4 or 5 right wing groups who the reactionaries use to spout shit and intimidate. or the lib supporting surgeon who performed what was widely regarded as a gross misogynistic act. that’s the level we’ve reached. and without some action, we’ll end up like the tin tanks. wouldn’t that be great?

Dr Ryan mentions a lot of the stuff here in her piece and the fact that the police need to be dealing with this stuff. A lot of it sounds like criminal behaviour which I don't or ever have condoned, and if that impression has been taken by some, then I apologise. But criminal behaviour should be the responsibility of the police. You know, like ripping a sign you don't own off private property.

Central to a whole bunch of this is this: many teals and their campaigns, want politics done differently, claim to be "not from politics", engage in politics done the same way as everyone else, then complain when politics is done the way it has always been done. Septic tank boogie man rhetoric aside, this is the crux of the matter. Either stay above the fray or stop denying being a politician.

 

[The Punter]

On the contrary, I think the country needs many more parties rather than a two-party (definitely not one-party) system which means when one party is in peril, the other party gets away with doing some very moronic stuff. I haven't heard anybody espouse a one-party state as a solution.

The problem with our current democracy is the media landscape being both terribly open, but also horribly opaque. I'm not sure our democratic systems were set up for it. I don't think the AEC has the sophistication or ability to monitor or regulate behaviour in the current political landscape. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's a big problem.

Perhaps the Westminister system of Govt/opposition is bound to result in a two-party duopoly and needs to be changed.

Should massive, overseas media companies be allowed to regulate what political message get through to people?

Is it the media consumer's fault?

1. I'm on the record - the death of the Liberal Party or it's relegation to minor party status will result in indefinite Labor government IMO. That's what I meant.

2. We're in the most rapid technological change era ever. No one has the sophistication or ability to deal with it. I'd love to take a breather and have everyone only discussing the merits of policy, but either everyone (and I mean every single one) agrees or no one agrees.

3. Ima gonna stick with the current system while we keep hearing "I'm not sure what the solution is"

4. Regulate is an inappropriate word in this context. Also, there are massive, overseas media companies all around the spectrum.

5. It's not about fault.

 

[KAYNE]

This was a great win by Wilson. He did the hard work with old fashioned campaigning in the community.


Daniels was rarely sighted in person but had thousands of plastic posters all over Goldstein. (Really good look for a climate party.) Listening to the community with the need for kids (mainly girls) upgrades to facilities. Crime was another issue that was discussed and Daniels tipped her toes into saying it was a problem with a tweet.

While the Liberal party as a whole is completely lost and has no direction Wilson listened to his community and won the votes.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

This was a great win by Wilson. He did the hard work with old fashioned campaigning in the community.


Daniels was rarely sighted in person but had thousands of plastic posters all over Goldstein. (Really good look for a climate party.) Listening to the community with the need for kids (mainly girls) upgrades to facilities. Crime was another issue that was discussed and Daniels tipped her toes into saying it was a problem with a tweet.

While the Liberal party as a whole is completely lost and has no direction Wilson listened to his community and won the votes.

I don't live in the seat and don't have much reason to travel to locations in that seat, but when I did travel through suburbs that are within Goldstein a few months ago, there seemed to be as many, if not more, corflutes for Wilson on main roads in the suburbs as there were for Daniel.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

This was a great win by Wilson. He did the hard work with old fashioned campaigning in the community.


Daniels was rarely sighted in person but had thousands of plastic posters all over Goldstein. (Really good look for a climate party.) Listening to the community with the need for kids (mainly girls) upgrades to facilities. Crime was another issue that was discussed and Daniels tipped her toes into saying it was a problem with a tweet.

While the Liberal party as a whole is completely lost and has no direction Wilson listened to his community and won the votes.

Didn't he steal a bouquet of flowers from a local football club, stick his name over theirs and present it at anzac day ceremony?

Or am I confusing him with a different Tim Wilson?