You're right the bill does not do that. The point I'm making is that the way in which you remove money from politics is important, not just the removal of it. If the bill essentially removed the ability for any other group to run other than the two major parties then it's not a good bill.
Do you think that donations are the only way of biasing a party or candidate? How many have gone to work for consultants afterwards?
Would it be a good bill if donations were banned but only the two major parties get public funding?
I think the YouTuber Professor Dave just did some videos about her encouraging science denialism. The podcast Decoding the Gurus has also done an episode on her with similar commentary, "good science communicator but also encourages denialism" is the tldr.
/j on swimming. Realistically you can get away with any skills, though I always liked pistols since you can scope/laser sight the standard pistol and run around headshotting everything.
GEP gunning everything is also hilarious.
The secret is to level the swimming skill exclusively.
Advance has already said they will be targeting the Greens this election, and given both parties opposed the "truth in political advertising" bill you can bet it's going to be a shitshow of misinfo.
Borderline corrupt behavior by the corruption commissioner okay because he didn't mean it. Ok.
Isn't this a clear demonstration of corruption by the ALP?
Fair call. It would be nice if QLD had an upper house to hopefully block proposals like this.
It's not clear to me that moving to optional is what he means:
“Preferences should not be a thing in Queensland elections, and it won’t be if government changes,” he said.
This quote suggests to me he wants to get rid of preferences all together.
The Australia Institute also has a new youtube video on this bill.