Do you want your questions answered?

bigfeet said :

I think the reason the main parties have not answered is due to questions 6 and 10.

6) Jivrashia asked: If a man says something, and the wife isn’t there to hear him, is he still wrong?

I understand the attempt to add some humour to the questionnaire, but it gives the candidates an excuse to opt out on the grounds that this is not a serious inquiry.

Best question in my opinion as it giave insight into the respondents’ composure, self-control and tact – all qualities needed for a career in politics.

I did sent an email and Hannah Paris sent a response. That’s enough to get my vote!

This is the first time I have read the questionnaire, and its really not up to the par of previous years… 🙁

bigfeet said :

The sentiment and intent of the question is fine, but the reference to “Witches” and “fundy nutsacks” is probably enough to have the parties Tactics Committee ban the candidate from answering.

I think that the “Witches” comment was actually pretty fair, since CTF Ministries specifically stated that their intention was to get rid of the witches, bringing a clear “one religious group persecuting another” activity to Canberra.

I get what you mean about “fundy nutsacks” though, I can hardly see the major parties wanting to alienate them, especially since the Liberal leader is one.

bigfeet said :

I think the reason the main parties have not answered is due to questions 6 and 10.

6) Jivrashia asked: If a man says something, and the wife isn’t there to hear him, is he still wrong?

I understand the attempt to add some humour to the questionnaire, but it gives the candidates an excuse to opt out on the grounds that this is not a serious inquiry.

10) Pommy bastard asked: Witches on Mt Ainslie, should their freedom of expression be protected from interference by fundy nutsacks?

The sentiment and intent of the question is fine, but the reference to “Witches” and “fundy nutsacks” is probably enough to have the parties Tactics Committee ban the candidate from answering.

I would agree with this.

Similarly, part of the appeal of RA is that it does allow a very high degree of freedom of speech. That’s great and it should continue to be applauded and encouraged. However, in this context it does bring with it an element of discourse that would have any campaign strategist recommending the site be avoided at all costs.

What is the political cost of saying no to a RA questionnaire as opposed to an interview on 666, for example?

I think the off-the-wall questions could get through if there was a stronger relationship in general with RA and the candidates. Maybe JB has tried hard behind the scenes to work on this, I’m not sure.

I’m also not sure how savvy some of the candidates would be to RA, sure they might know it exists, but how well do they really understand the site and how/why it operates?

/2¢

Sorry, what was the question?

Google ads are showing Labor atm. That’s good enough for them

How long til the ACT elections? Might get answers from the same people then. Giulia may be back!

Saw Gai Brodtmann on the street in Kingston handing out flyers. Poor thing looked quite stressed.

They probably think that the people who frequent this website have already made up their minds and can probably find the information they are looking for easily elsewhere on the net. Why should they waste their time?
They’d be correct!

I think the reason the main parties have not answered is due to questions 6 and 10.

6) Jivrashia asked: If a man says something, and the wife isn’t there to hear him, is he still wrong?

I understand the attempt to add some humour to the questionnaire, but it gives the candidates an excuse to opt out on the grounds that this is not a serious inquiry.

10) Pommy bastard asked: Witches on Mt Ainslie, should their freedom of expression be protected from interference by fundy nutsacks?

The sentiment and intent of the question is fine, but the reference to “Witches” and “fundy nutsacks” is probably enough to have the parties Tactics Committee ban the candidate from answering.