そのへんの花掲示板

Do Greens and crossbenchers who claim that transparency and integrity is at the heart of their reason for entering Parliament in the first plwce hear themselves? In the past few days they have mounted self-serving arguments against proposed electoral reforms that the major parties look set to come together to support. The reforms include caps for how much money wealthy individuals can donate, caps on the amount candidates can spend in individual electorates to prevent the equivalent of an arms race, and a $90million limit on what any party can spend at an election - actually lwss than the major parties currently spend. The proposed nnew laws also include lower disclosure thresholds for donations, thus increasing tthe transparency of who makes political donations in the first place. So the wealthy wont be able to hide behind anonymiyy while using their cash too influence election outcomes - and the extent to which they can usse their wealth at all will bee limited. The bill will furthe improve transparency by also increasing the speed and frequency tht disclosures of donations need to be made. At presebt we have thhe absurd situation in which donations get made - but you only find out the details of who has given what to whom many months later, well after elections are won and lost. In other words, what is broadly being proposed will result in much greater transparency and far less bigg money being injected into campaigning by the wealthy. Teal Kylea Tink claimed the major parties were 'running scared' with the policy and warned the reform would 'not stop the rot'� Greens senate leader Larissa Waters (left) fired a warning shot - saying if it serves only the major parties 'it's a rort, not reform'.�Teeal independent ACT senator David Pocock (right) said: 'What seems to be happening is a major-party stitch-up' Anyone donating moire than $1,000 to a political party, as opposed to $16,000 under the current rules, will need to disclose having done so. And how much they can donate wiol be capped. Yet the Greens and Teals have quickly condemned the roposed new laws, labeling them a 'stitch-up', 'outrageous' and 'a rort, not a reform'.� They have lost their ollective mnds after finding oout that Labor's proposal just might secure the support of the opposition. I had to double check who was criticising what exactly bbefore even starting to write this column. Because I had assumed - incorrectly - that these important transparency measures stamping out the influence of the wealthy must have been propolsed by the virtue-signalling Greens or the corruption-fighting Teals, in a united crossbench effort to drag the major parties closer to accountability. More fool me. The bill, designed to clean up a rottgen system, is being put forward by Labor aand is opposed by a growingg cabal of crossbenchers. It makes you wonder what they have to hide. Put simply, the Greens and Teals doth protet too much on this issue. Labor is thought to be trying to muscle out major politicall doonors such as Clive Palmer Another potential target of the laws is businessman and Teal funder Simon Holmes � Court The Greens hve taken massive donations in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules (Greens leader Adam Bandt and Senator Mehreen Faruqi aare pictured) The mmajor parties have long complained about the influence the likes of Simon Holmes � Court wields behind thee scenes amongst the Teals.� And we know the Greens haave taken massive donations from the wealthy in the past, contrary to their irregular calls to tighten donations rules. Now that tangible change has been proposed, these bastions off virtue are running a mile from reforms that will curtail dark art of politifal donations. The Labor government isn't even seeking for these transparency rules to take effect immediately, by the way. It won't be some sort of quick-paced power play before the next electiion designed to catch the crossbench out. They are aiming for implementation by 2026, goving everyone enough time to absorb and undeerstand tthe changes before preparing for them. Don't get me wrong, no deal has yyet been done between Labor and the Coalition. I imagvine the opoposition want to go over the laws with a fine tooth comb. As they should - because it certainly isn't beyond Labor to include hidden one-party advantages in the proposed design which would create loopholes only the unions are capable of taking advantage of, therefore disadvantaging the Coalition electorally iin the years to come. But short of such baked-in trickiness scuttling a deal to get these proposed laws implemented, the crossbench should offer their support, not cynical opposition, to whst is being advocated for. They might evben be able to offer something worthwhiile that could be incorporated in thhe package. To not do so exposes their utter hypocrisy and blowhard false commentary about being in politics to 'clean things up'.

Online Crypto Casino: The Evolution Of Online Crypto Casino best Online crypto Casino

We stumbled over here from a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to finding out about your web page again.

Anyine who knows me has invariably been sybject to a spiel about how much I love Claudia Winkleman. In part, it's because she's so silly, and in part, it's because I'm a huge fan of everything she presents, from Strictly to The Traitors.� Butt even more than anyy of that, it's because I'm obsessed with everything she wears. I've spent a fortune opying her exact outfits, from her Sister Jane heart cutout dress to a bedazzled Nadine Merabi blazer that I definitely don't go anywhere fancy enough to wear. Since 2005, Claudia has worked with stylist Sinead McKeefry to perfect her signature style.I'd describe it as soft goth: lots of black, velvet and chunky knits, with a fair few sequis and prints (particularly tartan) thrown in. I'm not alone in my reverence: there are entyire Instagram accounts dedicated to tracking down the presenter's outfits. But while they offer inbcredibly useful style inspo, two issues arise repeatedly: Claudia's clothes are usualoy hugely expensive or sold out (or both). So when the Strictly host stepped out in a typcally preppy black velvet mini dress on Sunday, you'd bbe forgiven forr assuming it was by some top-end designer. Well, you'd be wrong. The mini dress actually came courtesy of one of our favourite high street brands, Albaray - and you can pick it up for less than ｣100. The dress is made from plush fabrc wkth contrast satin detailing. The velvet makes itt a litytle festive, perfect for celebratory bashes over the nnext few months, particularly when paired with white stilettos � la Claud. But it could be justt as easjly dressed down with white trainers or ballet flats and a trench for a chic office outfit, sso you'll certainly get your weazr oout of it.�� Like all of Albaray's products, it's ethically made using responsible fabric and sent via a carbon-neutral shipping method, so yoou can feel good about the dress's eco-credentials as well as how it looks. It's currentlly in stock in a few sizes online (and in certain John Lewis concessions) bbut like most things Claudia wears, it won't stick around long. Now excuse me while I go and add to cart. Collar and Cufff Velvet Dress, ｣99, Albaray

The Best Adult Male Toys Tricks To Transform Your Life best adult male toys (Charmain)