The ELECTION Thread

[bnwt]

Stumbling Gillard spooked by spectre of Rudd


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/stumbling-gillard-spooked-by-spectre-of-rudd-20100730-10z1c.html

[*r3830*]

A "Faceless" Man!


In Richo's footsteps, Labor's new Mr Fix-it



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/in-richos-footsteps-labors-new-mr-fixit-20100729-10y5j.html

[*smee*]

for those that didnt get to see Calrke and Dawe last night

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2968230.htm

click on the video link in the right hand column
( typically funny as you would expect from these pair of clowns )

[bnwt]

a newie and even more relevant


http://youtu.be/yidl7o3hU0M

[*r3830*]

Thanks bnwt. I needed that. LOLOL

And this followed on on the 'tube

Labor's Deal With The Greens: A Carbon Tax Is Coming


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRCw8fHfh7k

[bnwt]

[*smee*]

a newie and even more relevant


http://youtu.be/yidl7o3hU0M

unfortunatley one of those pages that my pc just point blank refuses to open for some reason either through link or cut and paste of url into a new browser .....

[bnwt]

my electorate Robertson


http://www.smh.com.au/multimedia/federal-election/belinda-neal-calls-it-quits/20100729-10xnd.html

[Rebel*1*]

Gillard warns leakers: I'll sack you


lololololololollololololollolololololololololololol

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gillard-warns-leakers-ill-sack-you/story-fn59niix-1225898443420

And so they should be, whatever party.  It breaches the law in some aspects, and on others, it completely breaches every oath of office.  So that's OK is it?  The very fact that the informant remains 'anonymous' and the information unsubstantiated, makes it not only destructive to the ALP, but to the Process of Govt and the Australian People themselves. 

Laurie Oaks should substantiate his story or retract it.  We all saw the Godwin Grech issue unfold almost by the same means, in a similar Liberal led ankle tap against Rudd.  How is this any different?   Like Oaks' political leanings are any secret? 

I think the guy needs to put up, or shut up.  I can't believe you at times bnwt.  You seem to think that 'the (unsubstantiated) end, justifies the means' in this issue.  i.e. that it's quite OK for a journalist to stop reporting the news and actually BECOME the news.  You also seem to overlook the fact that the informant if they exist, blatantly breached cabinet confidentiality with intent, and every oath of office in the process?   

The very act of breaching that confidence makes any Politician untrustworthy to their party, and therefore, it's quite reasonable to sack them.  For your info, if the informant comes forward, they could also be charged if Gillard pursues the issue.  Any wonder why they're not so brave when it comes to facing the consequence of their actions? 

It seems to me that the objections being leveled at Gillard on this thread are more to do with subjective issues, and negative media propaganda, and nothing to do with the election issues or the 'alternative' we're gonna get with Abbott.

e.g.  MM, don't expect any real debate over the M/river mining projects (2 of them actually) if Abbott gets in.  At the moment the ALP can't ignore their own policy on marine reserves and you at least have a hope of getting the M/River mining curtailed.  Under Abbott, the whole thing will be thrown out, and It will be a free for all , with the mining companies getting off scott free on fair remuneration. 

At least if people are going to put the boot in, try criticising Gillard on her skills as a leader and the election issues she's putting forward, vs what awaits us under Abbott. Not her hair colour, marital status, religious beliefs or anything else so thoroughly subjective and discriminative.  Tony Abbott is doing a good job of that already.

You do realise that a persons marital status, religious beliefs, sexuality (and anything similarly personal being dragged into this election by the Opposition leader), actually forms the basis for Discrimination in every State in Australia.  Indeed if any employer were to ask these things of an applicant or employee or discriminate against them in any way over these factors, they'd find themselves before an anti discrimination tribunal.   Abbott has no class even going there, it degrades the political system altogether.   

Those who think that is what constitutes a good leader, well, you're entitled to your vote and opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.   I can only hope the majority of Australians, look a bit deeper than media and opposition smear propaganda however, when casting their vote on issues of much greater National Significance.

[bnwt]

Rebel

my laughter was directly at ms gillard ........... it's easy to say "I'll sack you"

but firstly you need to know who it is that is leaking and more importantly     WHY   are they leaking

if she can't control her own party how the hell can she run the country

[Rebel*1*]

I'm frustrated we don't have more choice in leadership, policy's and party's... It's like being given two short straws in a hand and asked to pick one...........  short straw you loose..

Brilliantly summarised.  That's it in a nutshell.  Which wrong is more right?  If Pollies have election Slogans, then I'd say that's a good one for the voting party.  Us. 

[Rebel*1*]

Rebel

my laughter was directly at ms gillard ........... it's easy to say "I'll sack you"

but firstly you need to know who it is that is leaking and more importantly     WHY   are they leaking

if she can't control her own party how the hell can she run the country

bnwt, betrayals made on the basis of whatever personal gain this person (if they exist) might have been motivated by, are outside of the control of any leader.  It's down to the individual themselves.  If they can't trust themselves to have integrity and abide by the three oaths of office they took when they were entered into public office, then nobody else can trust them either, and they should be ejected from any cabinet.  

There are already enough deterrents in place, morally, ethically and even legally and STILL, this person (if they exist) made a PERSONAL choice to betray all of that to undermine a Federal Election outcome?  If we were talking about this 100 or so years ago,they'd probably be HUNG for treason.  

[Rebel*1*]

but firstly you need to know who it is that is leaking and more importantly     WHY    are they leaking

It HASN'T been proven that they are. This whole smear fest has been perpetuated on the basis of an 'anonymous' informant, based on UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations.  I at least expect evidence that the allegations are real before jumping on the Abbott slang wagon and hanging the accused (whether Gillard or the 'alleged informant) without a fair examination of the facts.

The first question to be asked in light of the Godwin Grech controversy is whether the source can be relied upon. 

[*smee*]

more than likely truth be known , the leaker has already been sacked , coz if it did happen , and there is no reason to believe it didnt or Laurie Oakes had a very clever guess that Julia queried the 2 things in question, then more than likely in was Rudd , and Labor would want to hope that it was him coz they already said they dont trust him so if its someone else then thats another party member they cant trust although labor do have a history that once they start sacking cabinet members then they usually go the full hog and have a decent flush out

[Rebel*1*]

If the informant were sacked smee, Laurie Oaks would be trying to 'be the news again' and plastering it all over the media.  No, she won't go 'flushing' the person out, but Fed Police will more than likely be looking into it as they did in the Grech affair.  I hope they throw the book at this person because they didn't assist the National Interest in this disclosure (if it's even real). This person has breached the law and undermined an election campaign.  It's not a good look and if anyone is going to be the bad guy, it's the 'informant'.  They have already 'hung' themselves by their own indiscretion.  

As for Gillard, she denied that she'd made the comment about the elderly voting Liberal as an argument against any increase outright, and unequivocably.  Now the accuser needs to PROVE that she made those remarks and show themselves, = facing the consequences of those devious actions.  

As for her questioning the increase to pensioners in Cabinet (as part of what she had a good faith belief in were 'CONFIDENTIAL' discussions) and as the deputy leader, not the leader at the time, her explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me.   I would expect any elected official to  apply economic costing to anything they intend to get behind.  You can't rob from Peter to Pay Paul was her message.  It had to be an affordable increase.   Fair enough right?  The POINT IS that pensioners got this increase, and no other Govt has ever done that before.  Do they deserve thanks for that at LEAST?

You don't seem to realise that if this kind of conduct is tolerated, it undermines the whole concept of Pollies voicing their real feelings against their own colleagues within the confines of confidence.  i.e. they won't be able to speak up for their constituents or real concerns, if it might come back to bite them.  In that regard this has undermined the very concept of Cabinet Confidence and the Political process itself.

[*smee*]

if the informant were Rudd .... he has already been sacked !

[*smee*]

As for her questioning the increase to pensioners in Cabinet (as part of what she had a good faith belief in were 'CONFIDENTIAL' discussions) and as the deputy leader, not the leader at the time, her explanation seems perfectly reasonable to me.   I would expect any elected official to  apply economic costing to anything they intend to get behind.  You can't rob from Peter to Pay Paul was her message.  It had to be an affordable increase.   Fair enough right?


yes fair enough if that is in fact what she was doing , but she has to say she is in favour of them now even if deep down she still isnt, becuase of this .....

Ministers are bound by a principle of Cabinet solidarity, meaning that once cabinet has made a decision, all ministers must publicly support and defend that decision, regardless of their personal views on the subject.[4]

[Rebel*1*]

if the informant were Rudd .... he has already been sacked !

"IF".  and exactly who's pushing that line?  Rudd has denied it emphatically and I believe him.  He knows that the Feds will be looking into it Smee.  He's simply NOT that stupid and NOT that emotionally motivated.  Rudd knows it would be political death.  It's not him.  But until Laurie Oaks stops trying to 'be the news' and gives some substance to this otherwise, deliberate undermining of an election campaign, then the public itself is being lied to.  By Oaks.  He should put up, or shut up.  What he's done is much more damaging to the National Interest.  If he can't prove it, I hope the Feds charge him too for his deliberate misuse of the media to push  his own political agenda without real evidence.   

This whole thing SMACKS of Liberal toe cutting, but Tony isn't up against Pauline Hanson this time is he?  He's up against someone ten times more articulate and STILL he's playing the same dirty politics? Please Explain? 

[Rebel*1*]

yes fair enough if that is in fact what she was doing , but she has to say she is in favour of them now even if deep down she still isnt, becuase of this .....

Well we won't know the truth it seems until 30 or 40 years from now when those cabinet documents are actually released to the public.  Nobody else can release them before then in light of 'CONFIDENTIALITY' laws.  sheesh.  lol.  We're only now reading about what Frazer really argued way back when in the original 'boat people' hysteria.  And he wasn't against them.  He was intelligent about the 'push' factors, and Australia's role in that war, and argued for a fair and reasonable resolution.  Wish I'd known that about him at the time.   It gave me a whole different dimension of Frazer as a humanitarian but 40 odd years later.

[*smee*]

This whole thing SMACKS of Liberal toe cutting

you keep saying that , but how would any of the liberals know that Julia queried these 2 things ? none of them were present at the cabinet meeting so therefore it must have been leaked by a labor member of cabinet or Laurie Oakes is a very good guesser .... an Wayne Swan admited that there was leaks by saying they were powerless to stop them .... and it was the third leak in a week or 2 so does someone guess right every time ????

[*r3830*]

An interesting discussion. From memory however, when Laurie Oakes was confronted with receiving his information from Kevin Rudd - his answer was that the accusers should be looking closer to home. Now just what did that mean? Was he referring to our new Deputy Leader? Was it someone from the factions that supported Mr Rudd - who had a serious problem (as I do in fact) with the way that Mr Rudd was 'destroyed'? And, who raised the matter of being 'Un-Australian'? The Australian way accepts a high element of risk - not jumping on a potential favourite for better odds. Just my opinion - but I believe the way Mr Rudd was treated to be totally un Australian. It also treats every single voting member of the community with complete contempt.... they being considered not bright enough to make their own decisions.

[Rebel*1*]

This whole thing SMACKS of Liberal toe cutting

you keep saying that , but how would any of the liberals know that Julia queried these 2 things ? none of them were present at the cabinet meeting so therefore it must have been leaked by a labor member of cabinet or Laurie Oakes is a very good guesser .... an Wayne Swan admited that there was leaks by saying they were powerless to stop them .... and it was the third leak in a week or 2 so does someone guess right every time ????

Smee, it stands to reason that Laurie Oaks obviously has vested interest in favouring one party over another.  Always has.  It's the smear campaign they have launched over it that I'm referring to.  No fact, no intelligence, no mention of the damage it causes, but no less capitalising on the superficial aspects only?  

[Rebel*1*]

An interesting discussion. From memory however, when Laurie Oakes was confronted with receiving his information from Kevin Rudd - his answer was that the accusers should be looking closer to home. Now just what did that mean? Was he referring to our new Deputy Leader? Was it someone from the factions that supported Mr Rudd - who had a serious problem (as I do in fact) with the way that Mr Rudd was 'destroyed'? And, who raised the matter of being 'Un-Australian'? The Australian way accepts a high element of risk - not jumping on a potential favourite for better odds. Just my opinion - but I believe the way Mr Rudd was treated to be totally un Australian. It also treats every single voting member of the community with complete contempt.... they being considered not bright enough to make their own decisions.

I may be misunderstanding you, but in the Grech affair, the Libs jumped on the band wagon of their being evidence of Rudd doing a 'handshake deal' with a car dealership = corruption in other words.  He didn't. Godwin Grech forged the documents that Turnbull held up as proof.  Egg on face?  Pays to wait until the source is verified don't ya think?  

http://www.smh.com.au/national/turnbull-silent-on-email-20090624-cwvs.html

btw loco, I don't disagree with the way Rudd was dispatched, he should have been allowed to run on his own merits.  BUT, that has nothing to do with Julia Gillard unless  anyone has evidence other than assumption, that it does.

At least view her on her own merits, not opposition sloganism and brain wash propaganda. 

[*r3830*]

BUT, that has nothing to do with Julia Gillard unless  anyone has evidence other than assumption, that it does.

Rebel, I agree with the above. It's a pity, but Julia is left holding the bundle - complements of the 'faceless' men.

The Grech affair was a bit different. The information presented by Grech was based on imagination - and as you suggest, the Libs gave it credibility. The 'leak' at the moment is based on fact - or why would Ms Gillard be spending soooo much time and effort putting it to rest.... or the party itself be baying for the blood of the person/s who leaked it? The pauses and delays add to credibility don't you think?

Irrespective whether these things happened in cabinet or not..... if they are blatantly incorrect - shouldn't the allegations be immediately denied? Or does the 'confidentiality clause' under cabinet deny the right of a person to natural justice? Put simply - If something is a lie - deny it!

[Rebel*1*]

an Wayne Swan admited that there was leaks by saying they were powerless to stop them .... and it was the third leak in a week or 2 so does someone guess right every time ????

Smee on the basis of 'unsubstantiated' claims that are affecting an election campaign? Clearly he can't know one way or another, so he has to assume (in the face of unsubstantiated allegations of a leak from Oaks) that there is a leak and act accordingly as if there is one.  This isn't a little thing you realise?  If there is a leak, then it's serious because someone breached the law and all 3 oaths of office with a clear intention of undermining the election process.  Nothing else.  That's rather devious and destructive to 22 million Australians isn't it in terms of their voting choice if these allegations turn out to be as equally fabricated as the Grech affair?  Misleading the Australian people with anonymous allegations that have direct impact on an election campaign is NOT a small matter.  As I said, 100 or so years ago, it would have been viewed as treason and it still is in my view.

If there isn't a leak and it's another Grech incident, then one must assume that the ALP will do everything in their power to uncover it and who was behind it, even in retrospect.  Someone is going to account for this, you can bet on it.  In fact it could end up being a much bigger controversy to the outcome of this election than you realise if it is uncovered later that the Libs had anything to do with this one.

[Rebel*1*]

The 'leak' at the moment is based on fact - or why would Ms Gillard be spending soooo much time and effort putting it to rest.

LOL really?  What 'fact' is based on an anonymous informant and no proof?  the morning the story broke it was a veritable feeding frenzy.  She had NO CHOICE but to address the issue as if it was true also realising that if it were true, the informant has a LOT to answer for, both legally, morally and in light of the oaths they took to uphold the duties of office.   She had no choice Because the Media were making the WHOLE election campaign about UNFOUNDED allegations leaked out of 'confidential' confines.  She's a lawyer you realise?  She does know that until the allegations are investigated (which no doubt is happening in the background), she has to dispel the obvious fact that some SHALLOW easily convinced Australians will jump to conclusions on the basis of Abbotts smear campaign style of politics.  Next thing you know, he'll be campaigning to have Julia thrown in jail over something.  Think it can't happen?  lol  It's called damage control in the face of unfounded allegations that are obviously designed to undermine the ALP and this election campaign.  What would you do?  ignore it?  She had not choice, but she's being attacked by 'gutless snipers'.  

[bnwt]

rebel

as a die hard labor supporter I am surprised to see you going on about ancient history like the Grech fiasco

surely you'd want to be "moving forward"

[Rebel*1*]

How cute.  Ancient history?  Nup, it was only a short while ago, when the LIbs were changing horses throughout the herd in midstream everytime a controversy rose? And you think there are no opposing FACTIONS within the Liberal party?  Oh please.   It's bullshit really because I happen to think that if Costello was running they might actually achieve credibility.  LOL  I would have liked to have known what he stood for, because I Know that he has a 'social conscience'  His brother demonstrates the complete opposite that is the Costello bunch.    But the Libs own ANONYMOUS POWER FACTIONS decided they didn't want someone that credible.  And you suppose me so die hard labour?  Nup, I've said it already, bit of both, right and left applied on all issues = balance -  Can't the opposition at LEAST give us a candidate worth voting for?

The Grech incident shows just how far down the Libs will stoop to discredit their opponents rather than debating them intelligently or checking their bloody facts before putting their collective foot in their mouth.   We've already seen the game they played with the Grech allegations they so heartily stood by.   I prefer someone who gets their FACTS straight in opposition so I have a choice.  In this election, I have none.  I have to choose the LESSER of two evils.  Liberals will not act on our behalf for FAIR remuneration for OUR resources, at the direct expense of our crippled infrastructure.   They've made that perfectly clear.  They WON'T tax the mining companies and yet there are 73 oil and gas contracts in the pipeline (pun intended) with a further 23 Uranium mines.  All for $1.00 in $7.00.  Get real, vote on whats good for Australia.  I dare ya.

In fact, I hope Julie releases those cabinet documents to vindicate herself, but then, she can't, SHE'D BE BREAKING THE LAW, and the oath of office and no doubt then, she'd be the villain? Talk about damned if ya do and damed if ya don't?  She has nowhere to move and yet you scream for accountability on the basis of anonymous allegations?   If she defends herself, she'll be breaching the same oaths herself.  She won't do that.    So what of this anonymous informant?  Is he/she as accountable as she surely would be and is, if she did the same in her own defense?  So therefore, she can't say anything until investigations of the issue are complete. She's a lawyer, as is Peter Garratt, so no doubt he'll also be vindicated on the insulation issue. He didn't approve the WRONG and UNSAFE  And trust me it WILL be investigated because it is impacting a Federal election and that's just dirty politics.

[*r3830*]

LOL really? Yes - really!

She had NO CHOICE but to address the issue as if it was true. No, not as if, but because it did turn out to be true. Hence - the press conference... and the explanation of how she's NOW seen the light - particularly where the increased pensions are concerned - and her previous objections to the increase. Yes - I know she's a lawyer - but, as a lawyer, she would be completely aware that any flaw... or slip... or pause... or incorrect statement  in a case brings the credibility of the whole case into doubt. 

It's called damage control in the face of unfounded allegations that are obviously designed to undermine the ALP and this election campaign.  What would you do?  ignore it?

The allegations were hardly unfounded - as she had to explain herself - and after an extensive time - come clean.

And - what would I do? One of two things... either explain myself - or deny the allegations. I'd place some credibility in the public to form their own opinions. And - she had precisely the same options.

Perhaps you might like to consider a further option...... The 'power brokers' do not want Kevin Rudd to have anything to do with the ALP, other than to win them an election - and then clear off. Ms Gillard has publicly promised him a place on the front bench - subject to winning the next election. In order to undo that promise - a well placed smear campaign perhaps? Discredit the person further perhaps? Create and enhance a public perception of distrust against him perhaps? Offering unsubstantiated allegations against the person might just achieve the result - with minimal collateral damage to the image of the party! Ms Gillard can then justify why she is not going to keep her promise.

Remember one thing..... Mr Rudd has denied providing this information. It is the ALP - not the public - who continue the rhetoric that he is guilty!

[Rebel*1*]

LOL really? Yes - really!

She had NO CHOICE but to address the issue as if it was true. No, not as if, but because it did turn out to be true. Hence - the press conference... and the explanation of how she's NOW seen the light - particularly where the increased pensions are concerned - and her previous objections to the increase. Yes - I know she's a lawyer - but, as a lawyer, she would be completely aware that any flaw... or slip... or pause... or incorrect statement  in a case brings the credibility of the whole case into doubt. 

It's called damage control in the face of unfounded allegations that are obviously designed to undermine the ALP and this election campaign.  What would you do?  ignore it?

The allegations were hardly unfounded - as she had to explain herself - and after an extensive time - come clean.

And - what would I do? One of two things... either explain myself - or deny the allegations. I'd place some credibility in the public to form their own opinions. And - she had precisely the same options.

Perhaps you might like to consider a further option...... The 'power brokers' do not want Kevin Rudd to have anything to do with the ALP, other than to win them an election - and then clear off. Ms Gillard has publicly promised him a place on the front bench - subject to winning the next election. In order to undo that promise - a well placed smear campaign perhaps? Discredit the person further perhaps? Create and enhance a public perception of distrust against him perhaps? Offering unsubstantiated allegations against the person might just achieve the result - with minimal collateral damage to the image of the party! Ms Gillard can then justify why she is not going to keep her promise.

Remember one thing..... Mr Rudd has denied providing this information. It is the ALP - not the public - who continue the rhetoric that he is guilty!

No actually she didn't confirm anything. And how are these allegations from an anonymous informant true without evidence?  Ask any law enforcement type.  I'm sure they're refraining because they don't want to cause dissent, but they KNOW that allegations do NOT constitute FACT. 

[Rebel*1*]

btw, if she DIDN'T hold a press conference, refuting the defamatory allegations, and explaining her true position at the time as an independently elected official, in her own right,  no doubt she'd be getting 'damned' for that too?  Of course she addressed them and said what she'd actually argued without divulging 'CABINET CONFIDENCE'  which she clearly respects and Abbott doesn't as he demands that she breaches the oaths of office  in her own defense?  Dirty politics. He KNOWS she can't defend herself.  He's a toe cutter.  plain and simple.

[*r3830*]

Did you see her press conference? Did you not hear her explanation of how she was against the rise in pensions - because she was unsure that the government could afford it? Wouldn't that have been the Treasurer's concern.... or was Ms Gillard honourary Treasurer for a day - on that day?

btw, if she DIDN'T hold a press conference, refuting the allegations

She 'refuted the allegations' with what were her facts in the matter, that yes - she was initially against the idea..... however.....  Again - not unsubstantiated.

How about the spin...... people will consider her more fiscally responsible with this story - won't they.

[shyer]

Lets look at some facts. Who loses their UN seat / ambasodore role they want if they are caught leaking? yep 07. Who had a great important well paid  interesting job one day and centerlink que the next morning? that right 07 staff / boot lickers.

And who has the most to gain and the least to lose? Who supported rudd the dud to the end? Who was At all the meetings other people weren't? Who is resigning and can not be sacked? Who has a fat pension for life come what may?

Falkner is the only one with motive, opportunity, a no lose position and an axe to grind.

[*r3830*]

That's another option shyer..... and there's no reason in the world why you couldn't be correct!

(Good to see you by the way!!)

[Rebel*1*]

Did you see her press conference? Did you not hear her explanation of how she was against the rise in pensions - because she was unsure that the government could afford it? Wouldn't that have been the Treasurer's concern.... or was Ms Gillard honourary Treasurer for a day - on that day?

btw, if she DIDN'T hold a press conference, refuting the allegations

She 'refuted the allegations' with what were her facts in the matter, that yes - she was initially against the idea..... however.....  Again - not unsubstantiated.

How about the spin...... people will consider her more fiscally responsible with this story - won't they.

Loco, Yes I watched, others avoided it because they don't like her tone of voice.  I admired her sheer intelligence and strength of Character by comparison to her gutless detractors.  The interview with Abbott shortly after was 'brain numbing' by comparison.  She NEVER said she was AGAINST anything.   She said that she was for it, but she wasn't making an EMOTIVE decision.  It had to be fiscally achievable.  She NEVER said she was against it.  In fact, as with the Caldicott example, do I have to post her resume so you understand what Julia Gillard HAS ALWAYS stood for?  Remember the misconception that social responsibility in a title deserved ignorance and disdain from one post in particular? What's in a name?

When that same organisation involved 23,000 doctors? and an international offshoot that achieved the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE in the 80's?  Commies?  Leftists?  How shallow and propaganda hungry can anyone get?  The least anyone can do is QUESTION the obvious.  Is the King wearing Magical clothes?  Or is he NAKED ?

[Rebel*1*]

SHE WASN'T AGAINST IT.  She was actually for it, but if you have to rob Peter to Pay Paul to fund it,  (while the mining companies undermine the elected Govt to avoid paying their fair share), then it ISN'T fiscally responsible, however deserving.  Hey, here's a novel idea.  Let's say the mining companies pay their fair share and fund infrastructure in return for OUR resources, and fund the increase in pensions.  = problem solved.  AUSTRALIA'S OWN WEALTH can fund most things, if only the Australian people could get someone to TAX the mining companies for OUR fair share.     I have no doubt under a liberal Govt, in a few years we're going to hear reports of Australia's 200 richest earning RECORD profits on OUR mineral resources, while WE pay for the infrastructure that HOWARD ignored for years and which Abbott intends to perpetuate.  Mark my words, under Abbott, in two years we're going to hear reports of Australia's richest achieving RECORD profits under the Libs, while Rome Burns.   Oh and we'll no doubt be getting told.  We've never been better off? 

[*r3830*]

She said that she was for it, but she wasn't making an EMOTIVE decision. It had to be fiscally achievable. 


(....... and the elderly don't vote labor anyhow!)


Again, wouldn't that have been the Treasurer's concern.... or was Ms Gillard honourary Treasurer for a day - on that day? Or, perhaps she believed the 'then' treasurer as an incompetent? It's all about spin!


SHE WASN'T AGAINST IT.  She was actually for it, but if you have to rob Peter to Pay Paul to fund it,

I see - so that's why her new deal with the big 4 mining companies (excluding those smaller 'stick in the mud' companies that are resuming their anti labor advertising) included returning $9 Billion to them. Was that robbing Peter..... or paying Paul???

[Rebel*1*]

Irrespective whether these things happened in cabinet or not..... if they are blatantly incorrect - shouldn't the allegations be immediately denied?

No, she can't without breaching the same oaths and the same confidence.  You have to understand how the law works.  If Abbott is elected, this is going to be the 'Skeleton in his closet of credibility' and it WILL come back to haunt him.   I truly hope Laurie Oaks is SUED for compromising this election.  He is thoroughly NEGLIGENT in his 'abuse of media power' without substance or FACT.   He made the allegations public, It's up to him to prove his destructiveness to this election or account for it.  Talk about arrogance.

[Rebel*1*]

She said that she was for it, but she wasn't making an EMOTIVE decision. It had to be fiscally achievable.  


(....... and the elderly don't vote labor anyhow!)


Again, wouldn't that have been the Treasurer's concern.... or was Ms Gillard honourary Treasurer for a day - on that day? Or, perhaps she believed the 'then' treasurer as an incompetent? It's all about spin!


SHE WASN'T AGAINST IT.  She was actually for it, but if you have to rob Peter to Pay Paul to fund it,

I see - so that's why her new deal with the big 4 mining companies (excluding those smaller 'stick in the mud' companies that are resuming their anti labor advertising) included returning $9 Billion to them. Was that robbing Peter..... or paying Paul???

Loco, how can you be that blind?  'The elderly don't vote for labour' anyhow?  'Do you suppose our elders so shallow in light of their history of past Govts pissing in their pockets?    You are making a decision based on PROPAGANDA and HEARSAY.  Just how objective would you expect anyone to view that?  I say PROVE IT.  Don't assume.  this is an election. All that unsubstantiated shite aside, you have to concede that if mining companies were FORCED to pay more than $1.00 in $7.00, we could fund NATIONAL improvements.  Getting the picture yet?  Who's really running this country at our expense. ???  God help  the Afghani people if we're any example.  They can expect to be literally raped for their resources.  Just like us  Let's vote on $3.00 in $7.00- at the very least in return for OUR resources, so we can fund NECESSARY infrastructure upgrade.  Do you find that unreasonable?  Well Abbott wants to OPPOSE any tax on mining.  Hero?  or Nero fiddling while rome burns? The resources belong to the Australian people and we need infrastructure investment.  You figure it out mate at $1.00 in $7.00 that Johnny made possible for them in the first place?

[*r3830*]

Rebel - You keep mentioning "without substance or FACT".

Ms Gillard herself, by her own admissions, provided substantiation of these facts. The only assumptions being made at the present time - are where this information came from - not the content - but the source/s.

Laurie Oakes - or any other journalist for that matter is not required to reveal his / their source/s.

As far as his negligence is concerned - many crimes are solved by anonymous information. It's actually encouraged - refer to Crimestoppers.



(....... and the elderly don't vote labor anyhow!)

Loco, how can you be that blind?

The above part quote is not my words - or belief for that matter. It was a comment attributed to Ms Gillard when she had an issue with increasing pensions. If you want proof - ask Ms Gillard..... her words - not mine.

[*smee*]

(....... and the elderly don't vote labor anyhow!)

I went in search of some info on this and found this

Newspoll chief executive officer, Martin O'Shannassy, said older voters historically favoured the coalition.

"Latest Newspoll figures from April to June this year show 45% of over 50s support the coalition compared with 37% for Labor

Now I dont believe in the accuracy of polls where they poll only a small number of people but some here do when it suits their arguement .... the article I copied that info from didnt say how many people those results were based on  , but there they are nevertheless ... read into those figures what you will  

[*r3830*]

Labor in damage control over Cabinet leaks  (apologies bnwt - you probably posted this a couple of days ago)


Ms Gillard reportedly told her colleagues, "the idea that the scheme would be a political winner was misconstrued" because "women beyond child-bearing age would resent it, as would stay-at-home mothers".

It has also been reported that Ms Gillard had concerns about the size of the increase given to pensioners at the time.

The source says while Ms Gillard did not oppose the rise, she queried the $14 billion cost, on the grounds that elderly voters did not support Labor.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/28/2965988.htm

As mentioned - her words - not mine.

[Rebel*1*]

Rebel - You keep mentioning "without substance or FACT".

Ms Gillard herself, by her own admissions, provided substantiation of these facts. The only assumptions being made at the present time - are where this information came from - not the content - but the source/s.

Laurie Oakes - or any other journalist for that matter is not required to reveal his / their source/s.

As far as his negligence is concerned - many crimes are solved by anonymous information. It's actually encouraged - refer to Crimestoppers.



(....... and the elderly don't vote labor anyhow!)

Loco, how can you be that blind?

The above part quote is not my words - or belief for that matter. It was a comment attributed to Ms Gillard when she had an issue with increasing pensions. If you want proof - ask Ms Gillard..... her words - not mine.

You know what loco, I can thoroughly assure you that in a civil defamation suit (which I think Julia should consider if this unsubstantiated breach of parliamentary confidence loses her this election), Abbott and Oaks would probably lose on the balance of EVIDENCE for their destructive influence on this election based on NO evidence. You keep going on that there is some.  Where?  Who is the informant?  What are the specifics?  Do you know? or are you believing PROPAGANDA?  It's our responsibility to question the claims of EVERY politician, but you think that we should just believe the propaganda of 'power mongers'  without even questioning the whats the wherefores?  Objective?  not in my books.  though I do respect your opinion and your courtesy in debate.  Thanks for that loco.  I see and believe that We can disagree and discuss without the 'previous' subjective name calling *(which you were not part of )  Thank you for being objective and courteous

[*r3830*]

$1.5m for climate chiefs

Ahh - A reasonable cost for federally funded brainwashing.... or would that be better described as coercion?

THE five climate change experts Julia Gillard hopes to inform public opinion on the issue will be paid an average of $300,000 a year.

Further detail on the government's heavily criticised attempt to build a community consensus on climate change have emerged in Labor's official request for costings from the Treasury. It reveals the $6 million Climate Change Commission will have five commissioners, each earning an average of $300,000, in line with the mid-point of pay guidelines set by the Remuneration Tribunal.



http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/15m-for-climate-chiefs-20100729-10y1x.html

[*r3830*]

Rebel - I enjoy a debate as well. I'm certainly NOT critical of your thoughts and opinions - mind you, occasionally, yours differ from mine. But that is a good and healthy thing I believe. Please don't misinterpret my comments as a personal attack against you..... that's certainly not my intention. Your views are just as valid as anyone else's here!

[Rebel*1*]

Well excuse me?  what is Abbotts alternative in terms of taxing the main polluters who are supplied by the mining industry?  ie. coal, we're rich in it, and yet, we are facing 64% increase?  get real.. WE OWN THE RESOURCES to pay the piper and we're being literally raped over it.  Poor widdle mining industry?  

[Rebel*1*]

Rebel - I enjoy a debate as well. I'm certainly NOT critical of your thoughts and opinions - mind you, occasionally, yours differ from mine. But that is a good and healthy thing I believe. Please don't misinterpret my comments as a personal attack against you..... that's certainly not my intention. Your views are just as valid as anyone else's here!

Hey Loco, exactly, this ain't war, such as the Aussie people are funding under false pretenses for the mining industry yet again in Afghanistan on this round.  We deserve fair remuneration for OUR resources, no matter who is in govt.  can we agree on that much? It will ultimately take the pressure off taxpayers (i.e you and I), while our own resources pay for the things we will otherwise be stitched for.  REalistically Loco, We are the Australian people, irrespective of political leanings, and our own wealth could upgrade this country in a few years if we all just agree on that much.  We  need to be campaigning (liberal or labour) for fair remuneration to relieve us of that burden.  Don't you think?  like $3.00 in $7.00.  Put that to the people as an OVERRIDING election imperative.  I know how we'd all vote.  Let's fund it from our own resources and screw the mining interests yes?  

Again, thank you for your courtesy.  I do appreciate your thoughtfulness to a differing point of view . Yes really.  lol

[*r3830*]

As regards Mining - I'm probably as far removed from that as can be. Mr Rudd's initiative without compromise I believed to be a good one - mainly on the basis of the views of manduramum, who is in the thick of things in WA. But, since the matter has raised its head, I note that a lot of investment has been withdrawn, which will affect jobs and development of infrastructure in this country. I also noted the backlash against Mr Rudd from places like Mt Isa - in his own state. It was also mentioned that the increase, in many ways would be passed back down the line to the consumer - higher energy / gas costs. Not altogether different to a price rise at Coles - which inevitably, finds its way to all of us. So, at the moment, I suppose I'm fence sitting on this one.... watching in interest you might say. does leave me wondering about the relief from tax burden.... or is it just out of the other pocket?

[Rebel*1*]

As regards Mining - I'm probably as far removed from that as can be. Mr Rudd's initiative without compromise I believed to be a good one - mainly on the basis of the views of manduramum, who is in the thick of things in WA. But, since the matter has raised its head, I note that a lot of investment has been withdrawn, which will affect jobs and development of infrastructure in this country. I also noted the backlash against Mr Rudd from places like Mt Isa - in his own state. It was also mentioned that the increase, in many ways would be passed back down the line to the consumer - higher energy / gas costs. Not altogether different to a price rise at Coles - which inevitably, finds its way to all of us. So, at the moment, I suppose I'm fence sitting on this one.... watching in interest you might say. does leave me wondering about the relief from tax burden.... or is it just out of the other pocket?

Here we go with the 'bag of beads' shite again?.  Ask the Indigenous people how they feel about that mentality?  We call it jobs.  lol.  whatever, same shite different century.  Christ loco, propaganda again?  Far removed from the actual source of our future infrastructure funding without punters paying for it?  i.e. self funding?    "we  are MINERAL RICH.  labour or liberal, that's a bloody fact. We deserve FAIR return for our own resources.  and those resources, even while in the ground are RICH in return and will nonetheless fund infrastructure upgrade NATION WIDE..  no offense but you don't get it. These resources belong to us.  YOU AND I, irrespective of our political leanings.    Whether they stay in the ground or not on market forces is irrespective. THEY REMAIN VALUABLE whilst unexploited.  lol and hey relieve us of the burden of infrastructure liberal labour, green whatever.  For god sake vote on the future of this country, based on our OWN wealth funding it.  We're Aussies, let's all fight together to get our own resources to fund infrastructure upgrade at least?

[wyzeguy60]

We  need to be campaigning (liberal or labour) for fair remuneration to relieve us of that burden.  Don't you think?  like $3.00 in $7.00.  Put that to the people as an OVERRIDING election imperative.  I know how we'd all vote.

except me - lol