Simple Foxy.

Howard increased the electorate printing allowances to some astronomical figure close to the $150k pa figure, from memory, and as you can see, the ALP is not complaining about that now they govern.

So, incumbents in all parties get the ATO to fund their re-election directly via this slush fund, as well as the $$$ per vote afterwards, and the tax deductions on donations to political parties, plus the under-the-counter donations I assume they all get.

The short answer is that you pay, and so do I.

The price of freedom, and democracy.

Oh, nearly forgot.

The Senators of all parties use their postal allowances to splurge paper nonsense out to you too, and you'd probably find that your Fed ALP candidate's A4s were coming from a state member's offices or one of your ALP Senators.

Probably against the rules, but it's only tax money after all, and there's plenty of that to throw around, except when it comes to providing useful services to the mug-punters.

TBC

Our local member got into bother allegedly by using his then in govt fed allowance to bolster state party interests (candidates).

I do note that he often used the then local councillor(later state candidate) as a public head in most of his literature.

All

Given that I consider the entire electoral system as broken i.e. party policy takes precedence over local needs. What we finish up with is a local party branch office whose primary purpose is to extol the party virtues and spin regardless. Truthfully most 'local' offices are run by usually devoted party specific oriented staff.

I challenge anyone to prove to me that “a local member's office” couldn't run at least as effectively handling govt electoral business with good P/S and without the member, particularly if he/she is a back bencher. I've tested two opposing party local offices in out of govt and measured the differences. They tend to do the real issue work anyway.

Conclusion: the result depends on member's (party) benefit .

I have seen elector's confidential issues find their way to the public domain to help another party candidate. I have seen local electoral marketing 'targeted' on the basis of confidential information given to members in their job.

NB this has happened from both majors.

If one examines Member's 'reports' to the public on what they've done one wonders at how much time we pay for that they spend on 'party' business or is simply undefined.

A pox on both parties and their useless local members.

NB This doesn't necessarily always apply to their offices.

Julia Gillard herself is a local Candidate and unless you live in her Electorate you will never vote for her. Local Candidates make up the House of Parliament, so choose the local Candidate that will do the best for your Electorate and forget Party Politics.

I feel your pain, Ludwig. If it didn't mean putting a tick next to Mooney's name and stroking his enormous ego, I would have been willing to give Gillard a shot at office (not that my one vote would get her there or otherwise).

The trouble with towns like Townsville is that we all know our candidates and, if we don't know them, we know somebody who does. They are open to much more scrutiny than the somewhat anonymous candidates from larger cities. I remember Mooney as a 'small projects man': if Townsville consisted of nothing more than the Strand and Palmer Street, you could say he did wonders for the city. It's just that he left everything else to waste away while focusing on one or two showcase pieces. Before amalgamation, you could tell where Townsville ended and Thuringowa began just by looking at the condition of the roads, the streetscaping and the general liveliness of the community. While Mooney was fiddling away, his 'provincial bumpkin rival' was turning the western suburbs into a real city with real amenities. The moral of the story, then, is that Mooney has a track record of doing very little at a very high price. And the 'very little' wasn't a sustainable 'very little' - it was an apathetic one. He can't escape that track record - Townsville has a long memory.

Dear TBC,

Too simple for some, it would seem...

You've missed the point.

In my electorate it's the Liberal candidate who is
spending up big. Labor by comparison, is being
very responsible, and not misusing public funds.

Whereas, the Libs are the ones accusing Labor of
"spending," in the media. Oh, the hypocrisy!

But Thanks for your input, nevertheless!

Oh my, thank you Foxy... did I read this wrong?

"I live in a safe Liberal seat with
an established candidate who wins every
election. And, just
like TBC, it gives me the sh**ts that
Labor can't come up with a serious candidate
you'd give this Lib. a run for his money."

It is the Liberal who is spending his/her vast resources then, as I suggested, and the poor relative in the ALP who would, probably, be getting his/her A4s via a Senators office, or the local members office if that is an ALP one.

That the Libs are fibbing about the ALP extravagance should not be a shock to you, they fib all the time about everything.

Why not write to both seeking information on their printing costs.

I am sure in the interests of 'full transparency' both will readily oblige.

But how do you know this about the ALP "not misusing public funds"... is the candidate one of those rare keen-as-mustard true believers who self-funds?

My, my, that is impressive!