![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/carlton.png)
zeggie
You can't kick goals when you're unconscious.
Let's do it together. Saddlemanbags you in? Let's have a discussion.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Alright you startLet's do it together. Saddlemanbags you in? Let's have a disccusion.
This is pathetic lolYou raised the topic first and have vast knowledge. Give us a low level overview.
I don't feel that the centralisation of corporate power is undermining Government and culture.Alright you start
This is pathetic lol
How do you define corruption vs supporting interests, and employing people with gainful knowledge and experience?I think the political wing is already owned by business interests, particularly those who either employ directly a significant number of workers or those who represent a significant number of workers to the political class. That's not to say corporate interests control political discourse but capital does - it's all about money - either to a business or to the employees.
When that particular lobby group has the ability to influence the voter base it spooks the political class.
The money corrupted the system as soon as the politicians benefited from making legislation and policy that benefited, or at least did not harm, lobby groups.
I think the solution is for legislation allowing a regular person to sue a business entity for corruption and to allow the state to investigate a business for corruption when they employ a former political figure to access their connections, possibly favors, possibly biased treatment prior to leaving office.
Take the onus off the politician to be honest and put the full weight of the corruption onto the business, make the law force the business to pay for the investigation to clear the politician to work for that company.
The higher up in politics you go the more you could influence, so someone representing a state seat probably wouldn't see corruption opportunities above helping out specific local interests but someone serving as premier probably doesn't have any market they can work in post holding their position of influence over all of them.
This is more of an exercise in suggesting that businesses don't wear the flack when a politician is corrupt but if they did then the politicians would be finding it a lot harder to source some illicit gains as companies like BHP will dodge the risk of hiring someone.
How do you define corruption vs supporting interests, and employing people with gainful knowledge and experience?
Again, I totally agree.That the line could be blurred is reason enough to me to make sure it's kept well away from. The political class weilding the power of the state should be beyond question, not debating whether something was above board or not.
Again, sorry that I'm treating you like a child.If they are paid enough, they don't need to work anymore.
Can you expand on that?I think it could be tied to the amount paid in welfare, perhaps a multiplication of it.
But it will keep the two linked forever.
If you'd like to discuss your original opinion and post, I'm actively here for it, and have responded as evidence.Welfare is linked to politician pension/payments so that those who make the laws feel the effect the people on welfare do.
Your position is to connect a political position's income to welfare.I'm not sure what position you have on it. I suggested that the discussion for what would be enough to pay politicians to compensate for not being able to work in fields they potentially had influence over was to link it to the amount people on welfare would receive, even a multiple of it, so that a by-product of increasing pay to politicians will increase the money to those on welfare.
Seems like a system that would cultivate a culture of working for the people more.
Your position is to connect a political position's income to welfare.
Political income is already a source of anger and resentment. Adding that to that anger and resentment towards Welfare recipients, why would you view it as a positive direction?!?
At what point have you ever supported Welfare income, let alone political income?
If you're never supported it, why are you asking me to find reasons to make you support a position that you've only ever opposed??
Yeah if you are going to start a new thread can you actually provide an opening post?Let's do it together. Saddlemanbags you in? Let's have a discussion.
I support welfare and have said as such previously. I would have thought that politicians pay and pensions being directly linked to those at the bottom is a sign of a connected and circular system that can't leave people behind.
?????Your position is to connect a political position's income to welfare.
Political income is already a source of anger and resentment. Adding that to that anger and resentment towards Welfare recipients, why would you view it as a positive direction?!?
At what point have you ever supported Welfare income, let alone political income?
If you're never supported it, why are you asking me to find reasons to make you support a position that you've only ever opposed??
OK, just for my own clarity...I don't think it would add any resentment to welfare recipients to have the amount they are paid linked to politicians.
Feel free to engage in one of the many posts that have been made in this thread.Yeah if you are going to start a new thread can you actually provide an opening post?