I've been meaning to comment on the Liberals selecting the IPA's James Paterson for its top Victorian
For a party that likes to rubbish career politicians with no "real life" work experience outside of politics on the Labor side (Young Labor, university student politics, brief stint at Union or political staffer, politician), how on Earth do they justify the exact equivalent on their side as being a good idea? (See this short article about him at The Australian.*)
What's more, haven't they learnt from recent experience that the drier than dry right wing economic views that come from the IPA aren't actually that popular in the electorate?
I don't really recall seeing Paterson on TV all that often, but I have the feeling what times I did see him I found him rather dull and overly earnest. Chris Berg by far is the most personable of the IPA kiddy crew, but as I have said before, you can't really trust the ethics of anyone who is willing to be paid by a mob out to deceive the public on climate change and supporting the tobacco industry to make more money.
* I see that he is married already, too. As is Berg. Why do the heterosexuals who work for the IPA seem so keen on youthful marriage? Not that there's anything wrong with that! Just a bit odd...