| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> The 0.7% Democracy http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1313657841 Message started by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 6:57pm |
|
|
Title: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 6:57pm
A big chunk of advertising on TV currently is anti-government and comes from the Coal Association of Australia and Imperial Tobacco Australia.
While I am all for freedom of speech and democracy, something about this situation doesn't sit well for me. Normal advertising is fine, you are selling a product or a service. But businesses coming in and turning the people against a government for their financial gain? Who are these businesses? We didn't elect them.. Are they even Australians? I know Imperial Tobacco Australia is a big chunk Philip Morris which is Hong Kong. Why is Hong Kong deciding government issues in Australia? Is it appropriate for these businesses to control the government for their own financial gains? Does this still constitute a democracy? People want to bring the government down for a 0.7% rise in the cost of living. All this fuelled by a massive advertising campaign from unelected, obscured, and unaccountable private consortiums (owned by which countries?) that want to preserve their bottom line. Private companies are in control of Australian politics. It's a 0.7% democracy.. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by cods on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:09pm azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 6:57pm:
SO DID YOU FEEL THE SAME WHEN THE UNIONS SPENT $30mILLION ON ADVERTISING FOR 12 MONTHS IN 2007 TO GET RID OF THE lIBS... or was that different???????.. talking about cost of living... what will it be in July 2012....have you checked it out lately...I am already having almost $70 per pay extra go out of my funds on direct debits.. thats without the grocery and petrol and car costs and maintenance and insurance.. and it goes on and one.. everything goes up... some things you can avoid.. but others there is no way..give me a break if you think cost of living will go up in July 2012 by o.7% then you are brainwashed..you really are.. the pollies have already given themselves 3% rise plus $1500 tax free B&B..thats now.. ahead of any CARBON TAX... they are already geared to combat their rent may go up poor dears..and the Big Lunches In Manuka . ACT will most definately cost more .. again poor dears. are we being prepared by being given raises NOW ahead of time.. ????? |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by GoddyofOz on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:20pm cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:09pm:
How, pray tell, did you come to lump Trade Unions in with Corporations? I believe one is there to protect workers and the other is there to make money. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:36pm cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:09pm:
The unions are political organisations of / for Australian workers and actually represent part of our society. They are not blindly driven by money. Big bad who knows who owns them companies lobbying government directly is fine. The government is accountable to us and meant to deal with that. However, big bad who knows who owns them companies from over seas coming in and interfering with our democracy, there is something seriously wrong with that. They are not accountable like the government is and they are not elected. They are completely driven by money and we don't even know if those people can vote in this country. They can cause disasters and just vanish. And Tony Abbott is all about embracing this 0.7% democracy. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by freediver on Aug 18th, 2011 at 8:18pm
So what do you suggest we do about it? Ban certain companies from speaking out in their own interest?
The coal and tobacco companies are taking a huge risk with this. You cannot actually buy public opinion and the risk of backfire is not insignificant. Our democracy is mature enough to handle this. We have far bigger problems with companies donating to political parties. That is where your concern should be. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 10:30pm freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 8:18pm:
Hmm, hit a nerve hey? Who is your sponsor? BTW, this is how a little noticed issue becomes a bigger one. Bullying. Don't like it at all. Being told what to think or what to be concerned about. Not a fan. In your opinion our democracy is "mature enough to handle it"? Yet you nudged me to a less popular thread when my thread was as political as you can get.... Is this sort of "censoring" your version of a "mature democracy"? I can see what sort of democracy you subscribe to. Fair enough. I suggest we ban foreign companies from political interference with our democracy. Who the bugger do they think they are? Our society is not about their multi billion dollar profits. People who cannot vote in this country really ought to have no word in how it is run. Isn't what they are doing in breech of media laws? I think it is. You can buy public opinion, what a crock. Now, how can I make this vomitus affront to our democracy backfire? How can I increase their risks? Guess I will start poking around and waking people up. Thanks for bullying me into action :) |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:00pm
So now I have emailed these concerns to the PM and all the Greens Senators.
Hope it doesn't backfire like you suggested :) |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:02pm azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 6:57pm:
Actually Philip Morris International is a competitor to Imperial Tobacco... And PMI is headquartered in New York, and Imperial is headquatered in Bristol... The only Hong Kong connection is a licensing deal with British-American Tobacco over brand names in HK....whhich in turn gives them rights under the Australia-Hong Kong Biliateral Investment treaty... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:18pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:02pm:
Not exactly responsible, concerned Australian citizens though?... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:21pm azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:18pm:
But neither are they Hong Kong based... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by Belgarion on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:39pm
The isue here is freedom of speech, not the nature of the messenger or the message that is being promoted.
|
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:44pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:21pm:
They aren't based in Australia. Thanks for qualifying my "who knows who from who knows where" statement. You did all the work for me :) |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by astro_surf on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:06am
Why the bugger was this thread moved???? How much more randomly arbitrary can you get, Mozz? How is this not as relevant to Aus politics than anything else posted thee everyday? I could understand if you were trying to maintain some standards and have the board running like it may have once been set up to work. But that would require consistency. You know, attract traffic to the General Board by moving all intelligent threads too and keeping the material that should be classed under politicians sucking by putting leaving the rates and hate-posts in the Politicians Suck forum, designating to the trash can of discourse that it is. Instead, you are arbitrarily moving random posts from the one forum that attracts any traffic and essentially silencing a point that is very effing valid and important to Australian politics. No wonder this place is so f*cked. You mods are complete idiots.
|
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by astro_surf on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:15am freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 8:18pm:
How about restricting the amount of money ALL companies can spend on political advertising? How about making ALL political advertising dependent on public funds so that particularly wealthy and powerful companies can't unduly influence the democratic system? There are many ways to regulate our democracy without impinging on the rights of companies and individuals to have their say. but there is no reason why there should be a natural right to use wealth and power to manipulate the political system. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:34am azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 11:44pm:
No problem.. But if you're going to go off about a company, or companies.....it's a good idea to have the right info about them....other wise you end up having to do 'retraction theads'... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:38am astro_surf wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:15am:
It's not really political advertising though......they aren't coming out in favour of one party or the other......they're simply saying an action by the Government is harmful to their business...Not all that different to "The Burgers Are Better at Hungry Jacks".... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by astro_surf on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:44am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:38am:
Yes it is. If you are trying to influence the political system then it is political advertising and should not be left to the devices of the free-market. Everyone should have an equal say in a democracy and, like it or not, the media is the 4th estate and should be regulated as such when it comes to affairs of the state. Political parties, unions, companies and every other entity on the planet that would seek to promote it interests within the political system should be subject to the same rules. And those rules should involve public funding, capped at a certain level to give everyone within the Great Franchise to have an equal say. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:46am astro_surf wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:44am:
Which would include the shareholders and management of companies affected by regulation changes... |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by astro_surf on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:52am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:46am:
Exactly. But they shouldn't be allowed to use their financiql advantage to unduly influence the electorate above and beyond the ability of others to do the dsame thing. Democracy shouldn't be about the power of those with more money to have a bigger say. So publicly fund ALL political advertising, even out the playing field. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:20am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:38am:
One is against the carbon tax right? The other calls it a nanny state right? Tony Abbot has made it abundantly clear he will do whatever big business want. The government is standing against it. It's totally in favor of Tony Abbott. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:22am gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:34am:
My retraction thread was completely voluntary. Nobody caught me out on anything, I caught myself out and was honest about it. Here, more than half of the threads ought to be retraction threads. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:29am azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 6:57pm:
WHO IS THIS GOVERNMENT? WE DIDNT ELECT THEM. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:30am GoddyofOz wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 7:20pm:
The last time I looked, Freedom of Speech wasnt dependant on who you worked for or what business you ran. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:35am azulene wrote on Aug 18th, 2011 at 10:30pm:
and you wonder why I think you are astro-turd when you put up crap like this? You are just like every other left-wing idiot that cries foul when someone speaks up against them. If you believed in free speech you would not be saying what you do. Like so many other lefties you find true democracy - with all its freedoms - a little inconvenient at times. Why do you think so many left-wing governments are just dictatorships with single candidate elections? Because lefties proudly claim the 'democracy' lable and then trounce it at every opportunity. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:38am astro_surf wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:15am:
so that companies and individuals need PERMISSION from the government for political commentary and advertising? You lefties really do love your CONTROLS, dont you. Why do you hate democracy and free speech so much? |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:40am astro_surf wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 12:52am:
So I personally should be given the funding ($12M thanks!) for a national anti-carbon-tax campaign? That IS what you are saying, after all! |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by bobbythebat1 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 9:33am longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:40am:
Hi Longweekend, How much did Howard spend on the GST adverts? Unchain my Heart |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:05am
The campaigns are ILLEGAL!
They are NAMELESS AND FACELESS AND UNLIKELY TO BE BY AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS THEY ARE UNDEMOCRATIC http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm#req Requirements for format and presentation The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 set out the rules for the format and presentation of political advertisements in Australia. The Electoral Act contains the following requirements for the presentation of political advertisements: s. 328(1): any advertisement, handbill, pamphlet, poster or notice must carry the name and address of the person who authorised it, and, where the advertisement is not in a newspaper, it must also include the name and place of business of the printer s. 328(1A): any video recording containing electoral matter must have the name and address of the person who authorised it at the end of the recording, and s. 331: where an advertisement contains electoral matter, the proprietor of the journal in which it appears (‘journal’ here meaning newspaper, magazine or other periodical, whether published for sale or free distribution) must print the word ‘advertisement’ as a headline to the advertisement. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:20am longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:38am:
Check out the law, it actually protects free speech with accountability. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by WESLEY.PIPES on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:30am
BAT and other baccy comapnies have every right to call a spade a spade, or a stupid idea a stupid idea. It's paid for out of their pocket after all. I'd be more concerned about governemnts launching hundred million $ ad campaigns, at our expense, to sell us their crap policies.
|
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by Grey on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:32am
i) Moving this thread was undemocratic and purely served the POV of the moderator.
2) you can't stop corporations advertising without a blanket ban on all paid for political advertising, which would really be a good thing. 3) you can fight back! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8 |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by Templar on Aug 19th, 2011 at 1:15pm
I think you have to have some faith in your fellow countrymen, no amount of advertising is going to sway me to the pro-smoking side etc. The only gripe I have is that their adds tend to be boring and repetitive, hardly any use humour.
As already mentioned political donations to our parties are a far more pressing concern. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 4:53pm azulene wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:05am:
for someone who trys to come across as intelligent and educated you can be REALLY DUMB. you confuse ELECTORAL advertising with POLITICAL advertising. the difference is enormous and you shoudl be capable of understanding it. Your problem remains that you are so bigoted you dont believe anyone has to right to loudly proclaim a viewpoint you dont support. That is undemocratic. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 19th, 2011 at 4:55pm azulene wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 10:20am:
dumb response. you are still proclaiming that political advertising should be BANNED. Thats what they do in totalitarian states. Not a great fan of opposing opinions, are you? |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 7:50pm Templar wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 1:15pm:
I knew the smoking campaign would not work for getting people to suddenly support smoking. Unfortunately, like smoking itself, I believe it had some nasty side effects. It portrayed the government in a very aggressive, negative, selfish, unaccountable and intrusive way. An obnoxious woman wearing something that appeared to be a Nazi uniform, making harsh demands over someone who "sounded" reasonable. What percentage or proportion of the advertisement said something about smoking and what proportion said something else? Do you think most people came away from that advert thinking smoking is a good idea? Or were they thinking on some level "God that Gillard woman is real nasty and the government really gets up my ass?". I am lucid aware of how these things are designed and I still fell for it on some level. Then you come to places like this and some people have subconsciously picked up on the notion of things like "nanny state", and they say things like they are sick of the government interfering with their lives. I am completely unaware of how the government has become any more intrusive in recent times. Maybe I don't see it. Have there been any new laws or any actual changes of this sort lately? The advertisements are easily dismissed on the lucid rational level but I can assure you they do have an emotional effect on anyone capable of feeling empathy. This is how they can change the way people feel and it gives them access to tipping issues in their favour. The advertising people have realised that instead of making us buy things we don't need on an individual basis, they can make us unite (by making us all feel the same way) and force the government to do what the corporations want. This is very scary and disturbing. The reason it is going on so easily without people noticing is because we are conditioned to relatively harmless consumerism in this way, pretty much all our lives. Uniting to try to bring down the government for the good of corporations is a terrible abuse of the power of media. Such a thing happening controlled by people outside of our democracy is even more disturbing. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by jakub on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:14pm longweekend58 wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 4:55pm:
No, not at all. What I am saying is that any sort of direct advertising produced to affect the image of this countries parliament (not including news), be it negative or positive is political and must have an accountable persons name and address attached to it. This is the law in Australia. In the coal association advertisements the people are presented as workers from a given industry and state, leaving out the company they work for. At the end of the advertisement their name and the coal association and state is given. They are not identified as required by law, or two conflicting identifications are given. The coal association has a considerable number of non-Australian companies and their message is political and anti-government. This fits into the category of "foreign interference". |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 12:58pm azulene wrote on Aug 19th, 2011 at 8:14pm:
no it is NOT the law. that refers to ELECTORAL advertising, not political advertising. and your comment on foreign interference is pathetic. you seem to have little understanding of Freedom of Speech and an even poorer understanding of the Law. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by bobbythebat1 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 1:01pm
How much did little Johnny spend on political advertising?
Unchain my heart - Joe Cocker made a killing out of it. |
|
Title: Re: The 0.7% Democracy Post by longweekend58 on Aug 20th, 2011 at 5:34pm Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2011 at 1:01pm:
he took the GST to an election. that makes all the difference. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |