Accessability in politics

[weemadando]

This is brought on by the fact that Julia Gillard (the Aussie PM) in on Q and A at the moment getting questioned by a live studio and internet audience.

Including an amazing ambush in the form of a video question/treason accusation by Julian Assange.

Does this kind of access exist in other nations? And "town halls" don't count because that's not exactly a real discourse.

[Mr Bean]

Does this kind of access exist in other nations? And "town halls" don't count because that's not exactly a real discourse.

Why not? People crowd in to the hall, the representative or senator gives a little speech then people stand up to ask him or her questions and depending on the format have a chance for a followup. Is it not a discourse if we don't angrily interrupt our representatives ?

Or is not a discourse unless people can ask questions via the internet? For that problem I blame the average age of politico's in America plus the trailing edge nature of government.

[Dalton]

I disagree: I believe town Halls DO count because it's the same thing. A politician is asked a question, they give an answer. I get the feeling, though, that the attendees of such events, at least in the US, are pre-screened along with their questions to ensure the politician involved isn't caught off guard. Mustn't embarrass our elected officials, heavens no. They might have to go off script and potentially damage their poll numbers and political campaign contributions.

[Mr Bean]

I disagree: I believe town Halls DO count because it's the same thing. A politician is asked a question, they give an answer. I get the feeling, though, that the attendees of such events, at least in the US, are pre-screened along with their questions to ensure the politician involved isn't caught off guard. Mustn't embarrass our elected officials, heavens no. They might have to go off script and potentially damage their poll numbers and political campaign contributions.

Pre-screening requires lots of staff and the support of local law enforcement which is simply not possible for a state senator or state Representative. Sure some members of the US congress might be able to pull that kind of detail overview off or aim for it by advertising the event only in the right locations (IE Bachmann advertising a town hall only in certain tea party bloggers websites and friendly republican areas) but at the state level town halls are an open affair if nothing else because they lack the tools to prescreen the crowd in large numbers.

I won't disagree that Presidential town halls and those for the office of President are nothing less than well staged kabuki theater but even then honest questions sneak through from time to time.

[General Zod]

I disagree: I believe town Halls DO count because it's the same thing. A politician is asked a question, they give an answer. I get the feeling, though, that the attendees of such events, at least in the US, are pre-screened along with their questions to ensure the politician involved isn't caught off guard. Mustn't embarrass our elected officials, heavens no. They might have to go off script and potentially damage their poll numbers and political campaign contributions.

Wasn't there a bunch of negative press a few years back about Bush only allowing registered Republicans into his press conferences?

[weemadando]

I was more thinking of the fact that every town hall meeting that we see on TV in Australia ends with chanting and abuse of some sort.

Not really the public discourse that I'm referring to.

[PainRack]

China premier recently held an internet forum discussion live.

So................ yeah... China...

[bobalot]

This is brought on by the fact that Julia Gillard (the Aussie PM) in on Q and A at the moment getting questioned by a live studio and internet audience.

Including an amazing ambush in the form of a video question/treason accusation by Julian Assange.

Does this kind of access exist in other nations? And "town halls" don't count because that's not exactly a real discourse.

What annoys me about that Assange douchenozzle is that thousands of dollars are being spent by Australian diplomatic officials (just it would on anybody other citizen*) on providing him with assistance and he continually whines about how Australia is letting him down. I like wikileaks but fuck Julian Assange.


* Unless its a conservative government and the citizen is Muslim.

[weemadando]

This is brought on by the fact that Julia Gillard (the Aussie PM) in on Q and A at the moment getting questioned by a live studio and internet audience.

Including an amazing ambush in the form of a video question/treason accusation by Julian Assange.

Does this kind of access exist in other nations? And "town halls" don't count because that's not exactly a real discourse.

What annoys me about that Assange douchenozzle is that thousands of dollars are being spent by Australian diplomatic officials (just it would on anybody other citizen*) on providing him with assistance and he continually whines about how Australia is letting him down. I like wikileaks but fuck Julian Assange.


* Unless its a conservative government and the citizen is Muslim.

To be fair, spending money on legal assistance only counts for so much when the PM is always calling you a criminal. There's mixed messages there.

[bobalot]

BTW, where is the evidence for Assange's claim that the Australian government swapped evidence about citizens? Or that the PM committed Treason?

I don't mind people asking politician's unscripted questions, but this is bullshit. He was just making wild claims.

[weemadando]

The Age ran details this morning of info passed to the US as part of an intel sharing agreement. I'm assuming that'd be what he was referring to

[bobalot]

The Age ran details this morning of info passed to the US as part of an intel sharing agreement. I'm assuming that'd be what he was referring to

Was the information directly about him? Or is a general agreement that most allies have? I'm seriously not impressed by Assange's vague claims.