Lets look at a few corporates pushing the Yes vote - CBA who have been closing their regional banks accessible to Aboriginal communities, Qantas who do very little in the way of regional flights, leaving supporting aboriginal transport to companies like Rex, AFL who would not sponsor jerseys for local regional teams. They’ll put millions into this marketing campaign but are withdrawing support for the regional communities most in need. Boycott them.
How we the voters supposed to take seriously amendments to better our community when its evident that all our institutions have been manipulated undermined and corrupted by the corporates national security isn't just about an imaginary military threat with our biggest trading partners
I've just listened to the Albanese interview on 3AW where he admitted he has not even read the full Uluru Statement from the Heart. How can a Prime Minister be pushing a Referendum for constitutional change, when he doesn't even know that background of why it is being requested? Forget debates about whether it's 1 page or 26 pages, the PM has only read the 1st page. I am still trying to process my incredulity.
With so many undecided voters, corporate intrusion risks backfiring and being seen as tokenism or virtue signalling. But, as Wesley has perceptively noted in this video, corporate backing is also a signal to government - it may form part of that business’s regulatory strategy. I, too, am glad that the biscuit companies haven’t waded into this one 😉
A primary question is does corporate involvement in social and political issues improve shareholder value. That is the primary function of a listed company, not social political activism. I say Qantas, Bunnings, Big W and other high-profile companies are owned by shareholders, and they should focus on shareholder value not social activist issues. Sporting bodies, this is a swamp for them, a quagmire because taking the high moral ground is not the same as taking the right path. Pitching self to be morally right about a cold hard legal fact about constitutional change shows bias and ignorance. These constitutional issues are best solved by public debate in a civilised moderated environment, not on the back of a bus. And defiantly in schools where the students are too young to vote. In schools, this amounts to indoctrination, not learning about civic responsibilities.
Trying to convince someone is OK, but coercion (in any form) is not. IMO, corporations seeking to influnnce a political outcome, shows very poor judgement.
Great video Wes. A company has the legal status of "a person", but the law also discriminates between "a person" and "a natural person" recognising that a company does not have the human traits of thinking, experiencing happiness, sadness, guilt, holding ideologies or beliefs, etc. It's the directors/senior management behind the company that impress their political and personal ideologies on the public, etc, through the operations of the company in a way that is disingenuous, much the way that the ABC carries out on-going radio and television brainwashing through management and presenters wrongly using the national broadcaster to push their personal ideologies onto Australians. We should object vehemently to this abuse of power and resources. We can, and should, make up our own minds without undue influence.
Given the US example of Bud Lite, I would expect every company to be much more careful. It just seems odd to take such huge risks with little to no chance of significant gains.
100% correct. I've avoided Qantas for over 20 years after a lousy flight from LA where weren't fed until 2hours from Sydney. Service is not their strength and their virtue signalling is nauseating.
Thank you for demolishing corporate virtue signalling with some simple yet hard logical analysis - something that does not enter the minds of our corporate geniuses. Anyway, now that it is all over there must be some rethinking going on - or are they clinging to post election/referendum disaster denial?
The Yes campaign could take some notes, and if they cared we would here a lot less from them "telling us how to vote". Jordan's comment is telling - and made voluntarily, Big W on the other hand had to be embarrassed into pulling their announcements. I am sure shareholders are not happy, shoppers certainly weren't.
Each vote is for the individual alone. It is one of the few chances we get to influence how we want to be governed and that's as it should be. I would like to see it illegal for companies etc to try to influence how we vote.
I don't like being dictated to by companies that are in bed with the government, who the hell do they think they are? Any business I step foot into that shows me by broadcasts or advertisements that I should be voting yes; will lose my patronage immediately and it doesn't matter what kind of business it is. I'M OUT THAT SHOP IN AN INSTANT and I'll vote no if I choose too.
Companies should be neutral and keep out politics. Also should not force staff to take one side or the other.
Lets look at a few corporates pushing the Yes vote - CBA who have been closing their regional banks accessible to Aboriginal communities, Qantas who do very little in the way of regional flights, leaving supporting aboriginal transport to companies like Rex, AFL who would not sponsor jerseys for local regional teams. They’ll put millions into this marketing campaign but are withdrawing support for the regional communities most in need. Boycott them.
Simply WRITE the word NO
How we the voters supposed to take seriously amendments to better our community when its evident that all our institutions have been manipulated undermined and corrupted by the corporates national security isn't just about an imaginary military threat with our biggest trading partners
No, NO and NO.
PUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION FIRST BEFORE VOICE VOTE NO
I've just listened to the Albanese interview on 3AW where he admitted he has not even read the full Uluru Statement from the Heart. How can a Prime Minister be pushing a Referendum for constitutional change, when he doesn't even know that background of why it is being requested? Forget debates about whether it's 1 page or 26 pages, the PM has only read the 1st page. I am still trying to process my incredulity.
I’m totally against it. The next step is to say they support the Labour Party at the next election.
Thank you for your most informative comments.
With so many undecided voters, corporate intrusion risks backfiring and being seen as tokenism or virtue signalling. But, as Wesley has perceptively noted in this video, corporate backing is also a signal to government - it may form part of that business’s regulatory strategy. I, too, am glad that the biscuit companies haven’t waded into this one 😉
A primary question is does corporate involvement in social and political issues improve shareholder value. That is the primary function of a listed company, not social political activism. I say Qantas, Bunnings, Big W and other high-profile companies are owned by shareholders, and they should focus on shareholder value not social activist issues. Sporting bodies, this is a swamp for them, a quagmire because taking the high moral ground is not the same as taking the right path. Pitching self to be morally right about a cold hard legal fact about constitutional change shows bias and ignorance. These constitutional issues are best solved by public debate in a civilised moderated environment, not on the back of a bus. And defiantly in schools where the students are too young to vote. In schools, this amounts to indoctrination, not learning about civic responsibilities.
Trying to convince someone is OK, but coercion (in any form) is not. IMO, corporations seeking to influnnce a political outcome, shows very poor judgement.
Well done. I love your content.
Great video Wes. A company has the legal status of "a person", but the law also discriminates between "a person" and "a natural person" recognising that a company does not have the human traits of thinking, experiencing happiness, sadness, guilt, holding ideologies or beliefs, etc. It's the directors/senior management behind the company that impress their political and personal ideologies on the public, etc, through the operations of the company in a way that is disingenuous, much the way that the ABC carries out on-going radio and television brainwashing through management and presenters wrongly using the national broadcaster to push their personal ideologies onto Australians. We should object vehemently to this abuse of power and resources. We can, and should, make up our own minds without undue influence.
I would think the board of directors are beholding to the shareholders and if the shareholders do not support their stance
Vote No
Given the US example of Bud Lite, I would expect every company to be much more careful. It just seems odd to take such huge risks with little to no chance of significant gains.
Very good and interesting video...well done! 😊
How about QANTAS usually they have Aboriginal motifs on plane which is great BUT now have YES 2023 on planes. Shit service from QANTAS anyway.
100% correct. I've avoided Qantas for over 20 years after a lousy flight from LA where weren't fed until 2hours from Sydney. Service is not their strength and their virtue signalling is nauseating.
The "yes" is also surrounded by a rainbow outline of Australia
Boycott qantas. Go woke go broke.
Can corporates tell us how to vote? They think so. But I think they’re actually achieving the opposite.
Thank you for demolishing corporate virtue signalling with some simple yet hard logical analysis - something that does not enter the minds of our corporate geniuses. Anyway, now that it is all over there must be some rethinking going on - or are they clinging to post election/referendum disaster denial?
No !
The Yes campaign could take some notes, and if they cared we would here a lot less from them "telling us how to vote". Jordan's comment is telling - and made voluntarily, Big W on the other hand had to be embarrassed into pulling their announcements. I am sure shareholders are not happy, shoppers certainly weren't.
Good and balanced advice!
Each vote is for the individual alone. It is one of the few chances we get to influence how we want to be governed and that's as it should be. I would like to see it illegal for companies etc to try to influence how we vote.
Corporations might try to tell me how to vote, but they had better not get offended when I tell them to "take up sex and travel"
Wes you articulated what is in my head but can't put to words. Thanks mate. What! No iced vovo?
Thanks for this video.
They sure as heck can IF YOU LET THEM❗️❗️❗️
Thank you.
In reality, no company has any legal way of finding out which way you vote so it's a moot point they're trying to make.
Should big companies be supporting any political move when the company shareholders may not so in that respect No they should not
The ABC needs to have you on one of its biased programs for some balance. You do an excellent job Wes.
I don't like being dictated to by companies that are in bed with the government, who the hell do they think they are? Any business I step foot into that shows me by broadcasts or advertisements that I should be voting yes; will lose my patronage immediately and it doesn't matter what kind of business it is. I'M OUT THAT SHOP IN AN INSTANT and I'll vote no if I choose too.
PUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION FIRST BEFORE VOICE VOTE NO
Thank you