22 September 2008

Election Wrap - 22 September

| johnboy
Join the conversation
33

Greens:

The Canberra Times reports that the Greens’ Amanda Bresnan is going to push for more ethical investment of the millions of our dollars the Government currently invests on our behalf in tobacco and cluster bombs. Amanda’s statement has now gone online

Labor:

Andrew Barr is accusing the Liberals of plotting to return entry fees to Floriade. (*GASP*)

Katy Gallagher’s promising to sort out locum GPs in aged care facilities if she gets another swing at the pinata.

John Hargreaves reckons that he’s already delivering “most” of what the Motorist’s Party is promising.

Katy Gallagher has also decided that she can afford to promise a $12 million “multi-pronged and workable plan” (as opposed to what dare we ask?) to support local doctors, particularly the endangered General Practitioners.

Motorists Party:

The AMP have produced a laundry list of things they’d like to do with roads. Starting with “take direct control of all planning and decisions regarding investment in, and development of, Canberra’s road infrastructure.”

They’re also promising to harmonise ACT rego with NSW.

Richard Mulcahy’s Canberra Party:

The Canberra Party have rediscovered their website and pumped out 16 media releases today. Here’s a quick look at them:

Liberal Aged Care policy is no good.
Richard would like to debate Jon Stanhope if anyone cares.
Richard sneers at Zed’s demands the Canberra Party declare who they’d support to form government.
Richard would like to know more about Labor knobbling the WIN newsroom.
Richard would like two nurses specialising in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Richard wants to know if the Liberals are really as bone-headed as he is on drug paraphenalia.
Richard is worried that Green Square is going to be ripped up.
Richard is worried about internal divisions in the Liberal party.
Richard think both the major parties are arse and you should vote for him instead.
Richard thinks the ALP and Greens are silly for not agreeing with him on the sale of drug paraphenalia.
Richard has a chuckle about his nemesis Bill Stefaniak walking out on the Liberals.
Richard says Bongs are Bad M’kay?.
Richard thinks you’re paying too much tax.
Richard is worried about limiting the power of body corp nazis.
Richard didn’t think much of Nicola Roxon’s speech last month.
Richard thinks parties should take it easy with election promises.

Join the conversation

33
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Gungahlin Al said :

Jakez, the ACT has a suite of measures such as the Robson rotation, modified Hare-Clark, etc that are designed to ensure that everyone has a more even chance of being elected.

I view the signage laws as part of those measures. Plastering signs all over the place costs a fortune. If 1/ bigger parties do not plaster $000s worth of signs illegally everywhere and 2/ rangers enforce the laws, then the little person who doesn’t have said $000s behind their campaign has somewhat of a more even chance at election.

If the laws are ignored, then those with the $$$ are logically that much more likely to win. Therefore it is the election result itself that is at risk if the laws are ignored – a little more than “pencil wounds” as you put it.

I believe the ACT has one of the fairest electoral systems in the country, I value the cornerstones of our democracy, and therefore hold enforcement of such laws as very important.

(I actually wrote more and better, but RA’s database flakiness has got the better of my more erudite musings on more than one occasion today…)

I absolutely agree with you Gungahlin Al. I thinkwe have a great system (except for Robson rotation). Unfortunately Hare Clarke has been subverted by very disciplined and ‘united’ major parties but nothing is perfect.

I’m not saying that the signage is good. I’m not saying it’s fine. I’m simply saying that it represents a small wrong in a sea of gigantic wrongs.

We probably have radically different views of what constitutes good government and it is through that prism that you should analyse my views. I’m not saying this is great, I’m simply saying that the way things are, it’s not a big issue for me.

You are of course free to value this differently and I respect that even though I don’t agree.

Gungahlin Al4:49 pm 22 Sep 08

Granny, the exact words I said to myself immediately after I clicked Post (bracketed by other words that raised eyebrows at this end…).

Gungahlin Al, you have to copy your text before you post.

Gungahlin Al4:26 pm 22 Sep 08

Jakez, the ACT has a suite of measures such as the Robson rotation, modified Hare-Clark, etc that are designed to ensure that everyone has a more even chance of being elected.

I view the signage laws as part of those measures. Plastering signs all over the place costs a fortune. If 1/ bigger parties do not plaster $000s worth of signs illegally everywhere and 2/ rangers enforce the laws, then the little person who doesn’t have said $000s behind their campaign has somewhat of a more even chance at election.

If the laws are ignored, then those with the $$$ are logically that much more likely to win. Therefore it is the election result itself that is at risk if the laws are ignored – a little more than “pencil wounds” as you put it.

I believe the ACT has one of the fairest electoral systems in the country, I value the cornerstones of our democracy, and therefore hold enforcement of such laws as very important.

(I actually wrote more and better, but RA’s database flakiness has got the better of my more erudite musings on more than one occasion today…)

Gungahlin Al said :

Ah I see – so all laws are not created equal? So what other LAWS should our *law-makers* be able to disregard Jakez? Where do you draw the line?

And the potential for another candidates who obeys the signs laws not getting elected as a result of their obeyance, while someone who breaks the law does get in, landing themselves a quite handsome 6-figure salary to boot – that doesn’t bother you? Free-for-alls cheerfully accepted?

I think taking a well known adage that was clearly facetious, and pretending it was my comprehensive policy on electoral laws is patently absurd.

Like I said, I view a tyrant who obeyed the election rules worse than a non tyrant who nuffed the rules. There are so many terrible terrible things a politician can do that I simply cannot afford to worry about this. If a mugger holds up a gun and a pencil, I for one would not be particularly concerned about pencil wounds.

Hence my previous statements about there being a range of measures to inhibit abuse of incumbency.

(PS: I’d be saying the same thing regardless of what party the signs belonged to. Would you?)

You may not know but I am a Liberal. This is why I added the following to my previous post.

“The ALP, Greens, or LDP could break these rules up the yin yang, but considering the real damage politicians can do on a number of issues once they get in, it would not register as a factor in my voting.”

So yes, I would be saying the same thing no matter who it was.

In fact I rather the roadside signs to running the gauntlet of (insert Lib, ALP, CAP Raving Loony) party volunteers trying to shove election campaign material up my snout everytime I walk into a local shopping centre.

This, times infinity.

Gungahlin Al said :

Ah I see – so all laws are not created equal? So what other LAWS should our *law-makers* be able to disregard Jakez? Where do you draw the line?

Since the “Your Rights at Work” corflutes were disregarded by the *law-makers* for so long I can only agree that all laws are not created equal ….

how long till we see signs in front yards of staunch lib / ALP / green supporters? at least you don’t have to water them.

In NSW & Qld, the law is the signs cannot be on public land, or obstructing street-signs.
I assume it is the same here, and therefore they cannot be on the roadside tied to light-poles.

Gungahlin Al2:21 pm 22 Sep 08

I think there’ve been too many “sings” put around by candidates too Thumper – and they should stop that too – please?

oh; and the ‘unethical’ investments are according to my understanding (from a CT article a while back) part of the super scheme for public servants not just the govt making extra cash or saving for a rainy day.

for me roadside signs are a bit of a non issue; wont change my vote either way (rather vote on policy and experience etc) but i guess for most people they’d be a good way of boosting name recognition.

in my opinion if you want to stop the practise then actually fine the people who put them out instead of the current fee to get confiscated ones back. (98 bucks each or 3 bucks for a new one…tough call)

can someone confirm exactly what the rules are? my understanding is they can be on the side of the road (not on the median strip) andmust be up under their own steam, not leaning on anything etc. can anyone confirm this?

Gungahlin Al1:56 pm 22 Sep 08

Ah I see – so all laws are not created equal? So what other LAWS should our *law-makers* be able to disregard Jakez? Where do you draw the line?

And the potential for another candidates who obeys the signs laws not getting elected as a result of their obeyance, while someone who breaks the law does get in, landing themselves a quite handsome 6-figure salary to boot – that doesn’t bother you? Free-for-alls cheerfully accepted?

An election is too important – fairness, equity and level playing field are critical.

Hence my previous statements about there being a range of measures to inhibit abuse of incumbency.

(PS: I’d be saying the same thing regardless of what party the signs belonged to. Would you?)

Gungahlin Al said :

I note an interesting story in the CT a couple of days back about the sheer volume of Liberal signs that have been confiscated by the government, accompanied by a photo of one independent who also helpfully collected a bunch and returned them to the Liberal offices.

Now sign wars are a common thing in most elections. However in ACT there are some very definitive laws governing what one can and cannot do in relation to election signage.

I remind people that these candidates are asking for you vote to make them the law-MAKERS of the ACT.

So what sort of law-makers would someone make who themselves can’t (or worse – won’t) even follow this most basic of laws?

Well as they say, rules were made to be broken.

The ALP, Greens, or LDP could break these rules up the yin yang, but considering the real damage politicians can do on a number of issues once they get in, it would not register as a factor in my voting.

Or Stanhope staffer and graffiti ….

jakez: Or perhaps, actual in-depth analysis has suggested that forseeable future expenses are likely to exceed incomes (say, a sharp drop in stamp tax income led by a housing market slump?), so it’s prudent to put money aside now to cover that?

On the rego thing, rather than harmonise I think we should undercut the other states’ rego and then offer to register vehicles from anywhere in the country – could be a good little earner…

Gungahlin Al1:07 pm 22 Sep 08

I note an interesting story in the CT a couple of days back about the sheer volume of Liberal signs that have been confiscated by the government, accompanied by a photo of one independent who also helpfully collected a bunch and returned them to the Liberal offices.

Now sign wars are a common thing in most elections. However in ACT there are some very definitive laws governing what one can and cannot do in relation to election signage.

I remind people that these candidates are asking for you vote to make them the law-MAKERS of the ACT.

So what sort of law-makers would someone make who themselves can’t (or worse – won’t) even follow this most basic of laws?

Yes, it is all a bit thrilling really, isn’t it!

LOL

Or be beaten to death with embroidered doilys.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!! not the doilies, anything but the doilies.

Mind you in the grand scheme of things, if entry to Floriade is a deciding factor in this election then we are all in all sorts of trouble.

I’ll have to update my Government Directory, now that it’s apparent that Andrew Barr makes announcements on behalf of the Liberal Party.

What next? Maybe Andrew will announce that the Libs intend to charge people to enjoy the sunlight.

I thought Labor were struggling a bit, but thought they will still be re-elected in what remains a Labor town. But now I know for certain that people are getting desperate. Well, Barr boy at least.

Almost everywhere else has 30 year C-in-C expirations for State documents, the ACT is just wierd.

Go ahead and have a drink, Jakez! You’ll feel temporarily better.

*chuckle*

Granny said :

They would probably also have to answer to a pot pouri wielding lynch mob of preselectors who like their Floriade entry to be of the libertarian persuasion.

; )

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Cheers Granny, that was the best laugh I’ve had in a while.

….and now after thinking about it, I’m kind of depressed.

Actually, I withdraw the above and wholeheartedly apologise .
I have just realised its been 11 years since the document was submitted as C-in-C, so is no longer classified (ten years by ACT Law).

Go ahead people, fight all you like.

bah.
… Pages 47 and 48 of Directions on Cabinet Procedure might be worth reading.

Minor points on Andrew Barr’s history lesson:
Who is Deborah Frankham, why is Octavo Graphic Design in Kingston handling cabinet-in-confidence documents (both from the document properties of Barr’s PDF), and why is the current government dredging cabinet-in-confidence documents from a previous Government of a different party (or been allowed to by whatever the ACT version of a Chief Archivist is), when its not really a continuity-of-administration issue, and is instead being used as part of an election campaign?

Pages 47 and 48 of Directions on Cabinet Procedure might be worth reading.

I guess we’ll find out in a couple of weeks.

The Liberal campaign is showing every sign of being a marketing, rather than political, product.

Who knows, maybe it’ll work?

Something different.

Mind you the presidential thing is just to get maximum contrast between Zed and Stanhope, that’s just playing it smart in the current climate.

Indubitably!

*chuckle*

They would probably also have to answer to a pot pouri wielding lynch mob of preselectors who like their Floriade entry to be of the libertarian persuasion.

; )

What makes you think the lines originated from HQ?

Candidates being allowed their own corny line seems to be the sole remaining element of what Hare Clarke (and liberal believe in individual conscience) was meant to allow us.

Note that you could recite the corny lines, and therein lies their value.

Unrelated somewhat, however what is up at Liberal HQ with their quiky little tag lines for the candidates. “a betta fella for Brindabella” Gulia with a G, Jack and I do live here (could be infringing on copyright for a certain beverage).

I mean didn’t we get enough of that purile crap when Hlen Cross ‘dazzled’ us with Don’t put a tick, don’t put a cross. C’mon Mr Heath if you can’t do better than that then what hope do your candidates have?

We could have Amanda Bresnan determine our investments, OR we could realise that if the ACT Government is investing in cluster bombs and tobacco it clearly has too much money and should return said money to the ratepayer for said ratepayer to use in a manner most efficient for them.

Barr’s media release is the stupidest thing I have ever read. What was going through his staffers mind when they wrote that silly drivel.

However I have to say that if the Liberals did bring back entry fees, it probably would be a vote clincher for me.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.