All Round Arseclown Tim Wilson

[The Punter]

It was only one example.

Nobody should be able to influence political decisions and public money for personal gain.

Nobody.

It’s a ridiculous premise.

I guess nobody votes for a party that promises increased rates of welfare they receive either.

The idea that human nature needs to be denied is also a ridiculous premise. Or that humans in one job can entirely ignore the needs of other humans.

But by all means, get involved.

 

[Sphynx]

I guess nobody votes for a party that promises increased rates of welfare they receive either.

The idea that human nature needs to be denied is also a ridiculous premise. Or that humans in one job can entirely ignore the needs of other humans.

But by all means, get involved.

I don’t think it’s a denial of human nature.

There’s a multitude of other examples in other industries where there are similar anti corruption safeguards in place.

 

[The Punter]

I don’t think it’s a denial of human nature.

There’s a multitude of other examples in other industries where there are similar anti corruption safeguards in place.

I'm happy for you to provide some of that multitude of examples in other industries where taxpayer's money is used in the way you have described rather than private money.

The argument is academic however: neither of our plans will come to fruition. Largely because the ALP is the political wing of the union movement, and they will protect that relationship (both organisationally and financially) with every fibre of their being because it is the primary reason the ALP even exists.

 

[Sphynx]

I'm happy for you to provide some of that multitude of examples in other industries where taxpayer's money is used in the way you have described rather than private money.

The argument is academic however: neither of our plans will come to fruition. Largely because the ALP is the political wing of the union movement, and they will protect that relationship (both organisationally and financially) with every fibre of their being because it is the primary reason the ALP even exists.

Thats not what I said.

I said that there ware limitations put on freedom of choice (which is what you raised) when there’s a requirement to prevent corruption.

The use of public funds is a seperate discussion, however I don’t see it as an issue at all.

It would simply be progressive election reform. It doesn’t need to have a precedent to be good policy.

There’s nothing to say that we need election marketing spending at their current levels either.

I’d argue if you asked the average Australian, they’d probably like a big reduction in it the amount of messaging parties attempt to ram down their throat.

There would be complete oversight as to where the message is being driven from.

Do you think the average Australian knows who or what Climate 200 or Advance are?

 

[The Punter]

Thats not what I said.

I said that there ware limitations put on freedom of choice (which is what you raised) when there’s a requirement to prevent corruption.

The use of public funds is a seperate discussion, however I don’t see it as an issue at all.

It would simply be progressive election reform. It doesn’t need to have a precedent to be good policy.

There’s nothing to say that we need election marketing spending at their current levels either.

I’d argue if you asked the average Australian, they’d probably like a big reduction in it anyway and not to have parties ram message down their throat.

I'd argue if you asked the average Australian, they'd prefer a way to be governed which was competent and uneventful but didn't come with all the minor inconvenience of elections. Most Australians aren't interested in politics and find it an annoying distraction.

The only thing indicating that election marketing spending is required is that it is important to win elections because if successful, you get to govern. I'm sure we could all make reasonable choices about soft drink without all that marketing spending either.

Also, not for nothing, but limiting election marketing might not be entirely constitutional. The High Court has made rulings on implied freedom of political speech. It's sort of the argument of the Teals at the High Court right now (and one I kind of agree with: if they can procure the donations, they good luck to them, but the current Victorian rules restrict pretty much everyone other than the ALP from raising any sort of money through donations. The ALP can raise money via donations if the money is donated to Trades Hall).

 

[Not Important]

I'd argue if you asked the average Australian, they'd prefer a way to be governed which was competent and uneventful but didn't come with all the minor inconvenience of elections. Most Australians aren't interested in politics and find it an annoying distraction.

The only thing indicating that election marketing spending is required is that it is important to win elections because if successful, you get to govern. I'm sure we could all make reasonable choices about soft drink without all that marketing spending either.

Also, not for nothing, but limiting election marketing might not be entirely constitutional. The High Court has made rulings on implied freedom of political speech. It's sort of the argument of the Teals at the High Court right now (and one I kind of agree with: if they can procure the donations, they good luck to them, but the current Victorian rules restrict pretty much everyone other than the ALP from raising any sort of money through donations. The ALP can raise money via donations if the money is donated to Trades Hall).

put the electorate to sleep, ha? like napthine did. while i agree most electors are uninterested day-to-day, ambivalent and/or distrustful, i do think most want their lives improved and more equality. activity is required to achieve that.

 

[The Punter]

put the electorate to sleep, ha? like napthine did. while i agree most electors are uninterested day-to-day, ambivalent and/or distrustful, i do think most want their lives improved and more equality. activity is required to achieve that.

The fact you mentioned Napthine and not his immediate predecessor is educational. Napthine's was a satisfactorily active government, but he has nap in his name so it make funny.

 

[Not Important]

The fact you mentioned Napthine and not his immediate predecessor is educational. Napthine's was a satisfactorily active government, but he has nap in his name so it make funny.

here's a thought, perhaps spend your time clarifying what you mean rather than placing your presuppositions, agendas, and biases on what others post. it's called eisegesis.

the "nap" issue did not cross my mind. i have posted many times about how his gov't was a do-nothing one. i was one of many who expressed the same view, including some of your people. one being a former liberal premier, ted baillieu. the relevance was it marked the first time in 6 decades that a victorian state gov't was defeated after only one parliamentary term, and it was a shift to a can-do gov't.

 

[Not Important]