Simon Sheikh was the only senate candidate I saw out and about the lake on Canberra Day (not saying that’s a scientific survey, just saying).
But Liberal head kicker the Tasmanian Senator Eric Abetz is kicking up a fuss over the former GetUp! founder being involved in GetUp! events while running for the Greens in the Senate.
GetUp! has been caught red-handed promoting Simon Sheikh’s candidacy for the Greens.
Despite claiming to be ‘independent’ GetUp! was as late as yesterday promoting a ‘GetUp Simon Sheikh’ event next week at Fraser, in Canberra’s north.
GetUp is up to its usual trick, pretending to be ‘independent’ while blatantly supporting the Greens.
Its so-called ‘Gettogethers’ are cynically aimed at funnelling unwitting people concerned about particular issues into being foot-soldiers for the Greens during the election campaign.
GetUp was always going to be in the absurd position in the ACT of pretending not to campaign for their former national director.
Dangerous precedent Erica’s setting. Plenty of like minded groups do events with Liberal candidates around the place.
Loading ...
There is a subtle difference between GetUp hosting an event to support Simon, versus GetUp hosting an event to which Simon is invited.
I think GetUp is getting a little carried away with supporting the political aspirations of their founder. This will end in tears.
GetUp always have been, and always will be, a bunch of jerks.
Poor Eric… always having a sex change with just a slip of the keyboard.
or the tongue
GetUp! is one of the worst activist groups I’ve come across in a while. They lurch from one topic to the next in quick succession and in some cases raising money for awareness in one particular issue but then use that same money raised for yet another issue unrelated to the one the money was raised for.
If you’ve ever contemplated giving them money, save it for organisations that actually follow through with their activities.
It’s a tricky one. GetUp was to give a voice to the many who found themselves voiceless, faced with Laboril, or the Greens. The Greens are the only big alternative voice, but again they don’t speak for eveyrone who finds that LibLab no longer represent their views.
I expect that Sheikh chose the Greens as they are a wide church, and allow members to follow their own position on most things, rather than parroting a party position like LibLab. And hooking onto an established party presence was a better option wiht more chance of success than trying to start his own party.
GetUp’s various stances are best reflected by the Greens, but they’re not in lockstep, and GetUp range a bit more widely. It’s a tricky one though.
Abetz is a greasy idiot, but it seems that most of us nowadays buy whatever is reported and don’t look at who said it, why, when etc.
Getto-gethers
Targeting the ghetto vote is he?
I doubt it matters – the Greens seem to be stinking it up all over Australia – GetUp! or not.
So the Liberals really are concerned about their ACT Senate spot – they should be. I assume this was put out by Abetz because he is leader in the Senate, but it is difficult to think of a prominent federal Liberal (other, perhaps, than Abbott) whose criticism of GetUp! and Sheikh would be more likely to win votes for Sheikh in the ACT.
EvanJames said :
word of the day
GetUp are just a whiney rabble with a soapbox.
Simon Sheikh was giving out lollipops to the kiddies at the Canberra Show.
Personally, I preferred the reptile display.
Dilandach said :
All these types of groups (charity’s included) work this way.
To hone in on the second part of your second sentence. What do you want these organisations to do, stand around and wait for the cash to roll in before they can go and purchase goods for the flood/fire/earthquake/famine victims?
They have a pool of funds lying around which they allocate on an as needed basis and people who donate for a specific purpose are replenishing that pool for the next need. So while technically your money isn’t used directly for the purpose for which you donated, it is in a roundabout way. It’s how the model works.
That said, I wouldn’t give GetUp! the time of day.
They lurch from one topic to the next because children have short attention spans. Now, where did I put my glasses?
poetix said :
Could you tell the difference?
A real conflict is what happened in late 2008 when Simon Sheikh applied for the job at GetUp!, after Brett Solomon moved on to Avaaz. Evan Thornley is a founding director of GetUp! During Sheikh’s interview for the GetUp! job, Thornley was on the selection panel, while also serving as a Victorian Labor MP and member of Cabinet.
Because someone almost inevitably mentions their own pet conspiracy statement about the GetUp are feeding votes and money to the Greens…
Feel free to tell the Australian Electoral Commissioner that they have been wrong on multiple occasions and have incompetently neglected their mandated role, but come armed with whatever evidence you have, so that their stance can be formally reconsidered (yet again).
Until then, be silent.
“[GetUp] do[es] not appear to be controlled by one or more registered political parties, nor do[es it] appear to operate wholly or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more registered political parties. In particular, the currently available information does not show a real or actual benefit to any party or parties, nor does it show a sufficiently direct link between the entities and any political party or parties.”
Source: AEC’s position on GetUp in 2005
“AEC conclusion: The AEC has reviewed the previous information in its possession together with the additional material that has come into the public domain since 2006. The results of this review are that there is still no information or available evidence to show that GetUp meets any of the six grounds set out in the definition of an “associated entity” contained in subsection 287(1) of the Electoral Act.
…
The AEC has also considered the previous information in its possession and the lists of all the GetUp campaigns set out on its website. The AEC readily acknowledges that many of GetUp activities could be reasonably regarded as of some “benefit” to the ‘left’ parties (e.g. the anti-Coalition Senate campaign in the ACT prior to the 2007 election). However, the AEC also notes that many of the activities of GetUp appear to be solely issue based rather than supporting or advocating support for a particular registered party political.
…
The AEC is of the view that the present information and available evidence is unlikely to be sufficient to enable a Court in a criminal prosecution to find that GetUp is operating “wholly, or to a significant extent” for the benefit of either/both the Australian Labor Party and/or the Greens.”
Source: The AEC’s more thorough position as at 2010 when the matter was again referred
As for comments criticising GetUp! for “lurch[ing] from one topic to the next in quick succession”. If GetUp! was a charity, focused on a single issue then I think this would be a valid criticism. But GetUp! is a political activist group not a charity.
The whole point of GetUp! is to allow progressive, politically engaged citizens to coordinate a rapid and effective response to the many issues of the day. It is participatory democracy in action and so necessarily must deal with the wide variety of issues as they arise.
Perhaps those criticising just don’t agree with the positions held by GetUp! members, rather than the method used.
howeph said :
So letting a bunch of lefty hippies bitch on a website = ‘participatory democracy in action’…?
Um… ok…
Skidbladnir said :
Exactly. Use your got ham intelligence instead of parroting jones and Hadley. Or admit you have zero intelligence. Either way, the smart peeps win.
milkman said :
You are one of the biggest bitchers on this website. You really have no clout to comment on others bitching.
milkman said :
Well your comment sounds like “bitching on a website”… not mine.
howeph said :
To take one such issue they took on regarding the internet filter, when it was first announced GetUp! rallied for the IT professionals to pony up some cash so they could help raise awareness. Simon went as far as jumping on whirlpool to stir people into action directly.
On one day they raised $30,000 and obtained 75,000 signatures within 3 days. What was the result? A half hearted website that could have been knocked up in 10 minutes. What ended up happening? The money being funneled to their less fundraising friendly efforts such as a TV spot for refugee action and bidding on a ‘surf lesson with abbott’.
People were pissed and understandably so.
…and the irony is that they were censoring comments on their forum regarding the filter that they found unhelpful to their fundraising efforts. Along the lines of ‘well the internet filter will most likely not get through but its not a huge deal to get around anyway… here’s why (insert technical explanations).
howeph said :
I’m not the one trying to change the world by raising awareness.
milkman said :
Look at it as a counter-balance to the bunch of rabid right-wing tea-baggers bitching on moderated radio stations. Democracy finds a way.
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Skid,
Is the legal criteria of this a balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt? It says criminal prosecution on your link so I’m assuming its the latter.
I don’t think, as the AEC says, that they would be benefiting a particular party to a significant extent but I also don’t think that Getup are completely free of political party interference or bias. They are very issues based but it does seem that a lot of their major lobbying is coming from a generally left ( or at least what’s perceived to be left) position.
A leftie organisation supporting a leftie candidate? What has the world come to?
Diggety said :
Like in the Kimberley, perhaps?
IP
EvanJames said :
+1 to all that.
Dilandach said :
The only financial details that I can find on this particular GetUp! campaign is what’s on their website, that they raised a total of $125,000 and that this was used to “put [the] Censordyne ad on the air.” [‘Save The Net Campaign: http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/campaigns-archive?page=5.
Developing, placing and promoting adverts cost money – the mining industry’s $12M campaign comes to mind – so $125K sounds cheep to me. If anyone is interested you can see the ad and its level of coverage by a google search: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Censordyne
Dilandach, If you have different information on how the campaign money was actually spent (e.g that it was used on other campaigns) please provide links or references.
P.S. The campaign was also a success. The government quietly dropped the net filter policy. Do you still think that you didn’t get value for your money.