cobran20

Advanced members
  • Content count

    10040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Excellent

About cobran20

  • Rank
    Inimitable

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Better start burning more coal! USA weather: SNOWMAGGEDON - prepare for a WORLD RECORD big freeze La Nina winter
  2. Unless both parents (worse still for single parent) are reasonably good money, the cost of child care is such that one of them might as well stay at home and look after them. Otherwise, just about all the after tax income goes to pay for child care.
  3. I can relate to that. Up to the point where they started part time work in their late teens, they complained that we didn't buy many things they asked, as if money grew on trees. Once they started part time work and they could only buy their 'desperate needs' with their own money, attitudes changed!
  4. Billions of Dollars Later, Minnesota Shows Us How Wind Power Can Fail Colossally
  5. That unfortunately sums it up perfectly.
  6. Chinese buyers of Australian property set to increase with higher taxes no deterrent – Credit Suisse
  7. I would have no problem in banning financial donations (either direct or indirect by a large group providing free labour and absorbing expenses). It removes any conflict of interest.
  8. No, it can apply to any planning decision. At the end of the day, a person/entity should not be donating to whoever makes a decision that needs to focus on the public interest and that person/entity has a direct financial interest in the outcome of such decision. Industry (or individuals) has every right, as an example, to request for better infrastructure to improve business, create jobs, etc. But when somebody owns land that can skyrocket if it gets rezoned for Meriton valleys or for a highway to go through it, then there is a clear conflict of interest if donations are given to the party in power that makes those planning decisions. The awarding of contracts for the development stage is subject to government policy for an open tender to be undertaken. Those making decisions are required to disclose any conflict of interest and as I understand, need to exclude themselves if they disclose a conflict. So politicians should also be on the ban list for any decision making where they have a conflict of interest that impacts their assets. The rule/law needs to be applied impartially across the board.
  9. The law can be generic enough to apply to any person/body that has a clear financial interest in the planning decisions of government. It can equally apply, for example, to mining companies who may have an interest in government allowing underground mining over farming land. At the end of the day, a government needs to make decisions in the interest of the electorate rather than a specific vested interest.
  10. As per current situation, the small fish will have to have financial backing to get into politics, but this time not from 'should not donate' persons/entities. The change is most applicable to the larger political parties, where decisions/laws are made.
  11. As I understand, the current system refunds political parties after the election results are in, based on performance. I'm saying that political parties (which require a minimum membership number before they can register) can be given a government loan that requires an equivalent security posted against it,for government funding prior to the election. After the results, the loan is fully or partially paid based on the election results. The balance must be repaid to the government. The main parties would probably fund their election campaigns from public monies. New parties can try their luck, but if they fail to get enough votes, they need to repay the loan. This is not meant to fund a one person political party.