SM, I haven’t skipped any of those steps.

I haven’t defined the problem?

I haven’t stated how important I think it is?

I haven’t suggested solutions?

Done them all.

Crikey, I don’t know what you are reading in my posts if you think I haven’t done this.

Now, don’t you think the onus should be the other way around – on you, to indicate that there is no issue here?

This issue is as obvious as dog’s balls. Everyone I’ve ever encountered either thinks this or is just not interested. You are the only one has poo-pooed the very notion of there being an issue here at all!

You hold the unconventional view, which is contrary to that of the vast majority. Surely then, you need to thoroughly corroborate your position.

What we should be discussing here is how we best deal with the bias engendered by donations and other influences of the profit-motive-driven big business sector. How do we break the stranglehold that they have over government?

Discussing whether there is even an issue here or not is just too silly for words!

Define: = State or describe exactly the nature, or scope.

No, you have not defined the evidence for the problem, nor the scale nor consequences.

No, you have not considered the solutions and their impact or unintended consequences.

You have only given a vague hand waving description of what you think is a problem, and one solution with no regard for cost or consequence.

This is typical of Labor's thought bubble policy process, which is directly responsible for every policy of theirs being a complete stuff up.

Well SM, I’m sure that you, being a political animal, know full well that this is indeed a significant issue.

I think that your assertion that it isn’t is disingenuous.

So would you like to discuss how we might turn the political lobbying arena into a bit more of a level playing field? Or is this the end of our discussion?