Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

I totally disagree with the first part of this sentence, what an insult to the man! Unfortunately if he had been a wonderful politician he would have made it to Prime Minister.

If you regard the term "politician" as derogatory, then fair enough.

Kimbo was an excellent politician and is a wise and caring man. Exactly the sort of thoughtful, open-hearted leader we could use. His misfortune was to be pitted against John Howard, who was at the top of his game and well in touch with the people. If it had been Beazley rather than Latham leading Labor in the 2004 election, I think Howard would have lost that one.

 

[Deleted member]

Well there's your problem! But I digress ....

CT has been charged with even more offences!! Gott in Himmel, what could these henious new crimes be!!! Ah - he ordered a coughographical movie whilst staying in a hotel, Well surely we can dispense with the trial and just have a good-old fashioned lynching? I would hazard a guess that a few members on here have the white hoods handy ....

Maybe if they had stuck to the most serious allegations (procuring prostitutes on the company CC for example), we would by now be shot of the whole affair. I'm sure that this would have suited Labour far better than this circus, so to say that they have been interfering in due process sounds illogical to me.

Let's see now, oh I know. How about he ordered a coughographic movie and paid for it with your CC.

Your call

 

[Pushka]

Exactly, Abbott is going to show he is at least as incompetent and useless as Liberal supporters have accused Gillard of being.

It will be interesting to line up Gillard's and Abbott's achievements at the end of his term.

How did you go at comprehension tests at school?

 

[Pukka]

Exactly, Abbott is going to show he is at least as incompetent and useless as Liberal supporters have accused Gillard of being.

It will be interesting to line up Gillard's and Abbott's achievements at the end of his term.

Yes it will be as Gillard has achieved diddly squat so 1 achievement will be a winner and by the way I'm not giving Gillard the NDIS that's an all party scheme

 

[Hvr]

<snip> I'm not giving Gillard the NDIS that's an all party scheme

I guess you'll count it as an Abbott success just to deny Gillard? She's the leader and it was introduced on her watch therefore she deserves the credit. If it had failed she would certainly take the blame so fair is fair.

There is a lot of policy which requires bipartisan cooperation to succeed and a strong leader to raise it and implement it.

I don't think Abbott has the ability to work with the opposition (as Labor will be from Sept 15 onwards). Maybe some in the Liberal party will realise he isn't up to the job and replace him in an appropriate time frame after the election. The result of the election is a foregone conclusion and a drovers dog could win it for the Liberal party. However, a change to a competent person might make some people think that they aren't as good as they appear.

The replacement of Abbott wont be treated like when Gillard replaced Rudd, it will be a whitewash like when Napthine replaced Baillieu in Victoria. The quiet disposal of an absolute failure of a premier who helped a grubby politician (Geoff Shaw) accused of criminal activity move to the cross benches to retain power and accepted his vote. The very thing they scream about with Labor and Craig Thompson.

Funnily enough the hypocrisy of the Liberal party in doing the same thing as they berate Labor for doing is also widely ignored in this thread.

 

[drron]

Not quite right HVR.Big difference in the cases.CT has had an adverse finding made by Fair Work Australia and has been charged by police.
By the way Julia is also the subject of a police investigation.So if Geoff Shaw is a grubby politician what is Julia.
"Julia Gillard is under police investigation" - Fordham (23/4/13) - YouTube

 

[Moody]

Let's see now, oh I know. How about he ordered a coughographic movie and paid for it with your CC.

Your call

I will take this as a serious question ..... stop me when I start boring you.

Now my understanding of the Craig Thomson HSU saga is that during his time there (2002 - 2007) a number of dubious practices took place. The most serious of these were up to $20M of contracts awarded "McDonald style", and the most serious pertaining to CT was his alleged use of union staffers and money to support his bid for parliament. The rest of the charges seem to relate to unauthorised use of the union credit card for personal expenses (e.g. paying for prostitutes).


These are all serious allegations that deserve to be investigated, but ... including on the charge sheet that he fraudulently ordered a movie whilst staying in a hotel (presumably on union business) is very small beer indeed. The revelation that it was a soft-cough movie shows the mentality of the media and their braying sycophants.

I have recently benn on a US work trip and whilst there I used my corporate Amex to catch a taxi to a shopping outlet so I could buy the family some cheap brand-name bling. Should I be thrown in jail for this? Who wants to throw the first stone??


{Cue pathetic argument about how it's OK for us to rort the expense system, but they can't. I'm never sure who "they" are, but apparently others do.}


But back to the question - if CT had charged an in-room movie to my credit card and I wasn't there to watch it, then I would ring up the CC company and get the charge reversed. Anyone with half a brain-cell would ....

 

[Moody]

Err I think it's $50000+ not $15

$50K for a fecking hotel movie!!!! Where on earth was he staying???

And BTW - I think CT is accused of abusing more than $50K of union funds, but with all the media hype and Rake-style proceedings it's hard to keep up.

 

[Skyring]

These are all serious allegations that deserve to be investigated, but ... including on the charge sheet that he fraudulently ordered a movie whilst staying in a hotel (presumably on union business) is very small beer indeed. The revelation that it was a soft-cough movie shows the mentality of the media and their braying sycophants.

I have recently benn on a US work trip and whilst there I used my corporate Amex to catch a taxi to a shopping outlet so I could buy the family some cheap brand-name bling. Should I be thrown in jail for this? Who wants to throw the first stone??

Nice try. But Thomson's cougho flick was a small stone in a mountain. Your corporate taxi, it's the shortest sin in a long list?

What is wrong with Thomson is that he and his mates abused the trust of the very people he was supposed to protect. This isn't the vicar having a private slurp of the communion wine. This is the archbishop having a sex romp through the orphanage.

 

[medhead]

I can't believe the right wing mixed nuts can't get over the Craig Thomsen thing. The HSU and all unions are corporations. Like any corporation they are entitled to spend their money in any way they see fit. Just like companies spend money on houses for their CEOs and etc. Will you lot shut up if he produces some kind if authority to spend as he did?

The issue is a political football being used by the coalition to try to win power. Their hypocrisy on this is marked by their failure to similarly attack one of their own who fraudulently spend $50000 on a phone card. It seems that stealing $50k is acceptable if you have the right handshake.

 

[Skyring]

I can't believe the right wing mixed nuts can't get over the Craig Thomsen thing.

It helps if we discuss issues without abusing those expressing contrary opinions. Otherwise one gets the impression that the abuse is the argument, rather than facts or reason.

Thomson - allegedly - did the wrong thing by the members of the union. That's the point that grates with fair-minded people.

 

[drron]

I can't believe the right wing mixed nuts can't get over the Craig Thomsen thing. The HSU and all unions are corporations. Like any corporation they are entitled to spend their money in any way they see fit. Just like companies spend money on houses for their CEOs and etc. Will you lot shut up if he produces some kind if authority to spend as he did?

The issue is a political football being used by the coalition to try to win power. Their hypocrisy on this is marked by their failure to similarly attack one of their own who fraudulently spend $50000 on a phone card. It seems that stealing $50k is acceptable if you have the right handshake.

Oh dear,oh dear.
Fact 1.Mr. Thomson has had adequate time to produce an authority for those expenditures and hasn't.
Fact 2.Mr.Reith repaid the $50000,Mr.Thomson has not.
so you can not compare the 2 cases.

 

[Pushka]

I can't believe the right wing mixed nuts can't get over the Craig Thomsen thing. The HSU and all unions are corporations. Like any corporation they are entitled to spend their money in any way they see fit. Just like companies spend money on houses for their CEOs and etc. Will you lot shut up if he produces some kind if authority to spend as he did?

The issue is a political football being used by the coalition to try to win power. Their hypocrisy on this is marked by their failure to similarly attack one of their own who fraudulently spend $50000 on a phone card. It seems that stealing $50k is acceptable if you have the right handshake.

Then why was he expelled from the Labor Party? BTW, the Coalition doesn't need a CT affair to win the election; the awkwardness of the current Government's performance have that all sewn up. Or should i call that, Having to amend their policies to deal with a minority government (which translates to changing election promises to stay in power)

I guess I am not the only one who has noticed that possible Coalition voters this time around, stick to the argument, for both posters here and the Politicians involved, but it seems that (most likely) Labor voters here love to dish out the personal stuff to both posters here and the Politicians involved. Why is that I wonder? Oh yeah, that's right, values and all that higher order stuff.

 

[Hvr]

Oh dear,oh dear.
Fact 1.Mr. Thomson has had adequate time to produce an authority for those expenditures and hasn't.
Fact 2.Mr.Reith repaid the $50000,Mr.Thomson has not.
so you can not compare the 2 cases.

So if you illegally use government money and repay it it's ok? A very Liberal view.

CT has been charged and if found guilty will be required to repay the money (in fact even if found not guilty should be required to repay the money).

Reith wasn't prosecuted for some reason and blamed his son for using the phone card. Reith never had authority to spend the money for the purpose it was spent. No difference except one was a Liberal minister. Guess which one basically got away with it?

 

[The Rok]

Just saw on news.com.au that PS showed up to court in a "Luxury Silver Service Taxi"

Since when is a Ford Falcon with metallic paint luxury??

 

[Skyring]

Reith wasn't prosecuted for some reason and blamed his son for using the phone card.

The DPP looked into it and found Reith had no case to answer. He repaid the amount which his son was responsible for, but the $50K racked up fraudulently by people overseas was not his responsibility and no charges were laid.

As is the case if your own credit card is hacked. So long as you can demonstrate that you didn't make or authorise the purchases, there's no fraud on your part. Otherwise I think a lot of us here, myself included, would be paying off hefty bills incurred by overseas criminals. And if you go by the theory implied above that having your credit card hacked is a criminal offence on the part of the owner, enjoying the view from Long Bay or Silverwater.

This sort of game-playing with words to imply that something false might be true - and vice versa - is what gets up peoples' noses. Once we look into the facts and discover the lie, then the liar loses credibility. Who can possibly believe someone who has been discovered trying to mislead us?

 

[Pukka]

I can't believe the right wing mixed nuts can't get over the Craig Thomsen thing. The HSU and all unions are corporations. Like any corporation they are entitled to spend their money in any way they see fit. Just like companies spend money on houses for their CEOs and etc. Will you lot shut up if he produces some kind if authority to spend as he did?

I for one will not say another word on the matter as soon as I see an "authority" to spend on hookers & the like.

 

[drron]

So if you illegally use government money and repay it it's ok? A very Liberal view.

CT has been charged and if found guilty will be required to repay the money (in fact even if found not guilty should be required to repay the money).

Reith wasn't prosecuted for some reason and blamed his son for using the phone card. Reith never had authority to spend the money for the purpose it was spent. No difference except one was a Liberal minister. Guess which one basically got away with it?

A/As Skyring has said Peter Reith himself did not spend that amount.His son was given the card number and pin.He gave this info to the woman who he lived with at the time.She is known as Ms.X in the investigations.She entered a new live in relationship with Mr.Y.She denies giving him the info but Telstra records indicate he was a major user of the card.
B/But I was actually referring to Medhead's stance as to why us loony right wingers are still going on about the CT affair.I actually take the view that if moraaly correct people are still going on about the Peter Reith affair which occurred in 2000 I have every right to go on about the CT affair until at least 2023.Seems fair to me.

 

[Skyring]

Just saw on news.com.au that PS showed up to court in a "Luxury Silver Service Taxi"

Since when is a Ford Falcon with metallic paint luxury??

The top Falcon model is typically described as a luxury vehicle by the motoring press. Presumably the leather seats, upmarket electronics, climate control and so on are seen as luxurious compared to standard models. The Holden equivalent - the Calais - is also described as a luxury vehicle.

 

[Moody]

.... Who can possibly believe someone who has been discovered trying to mislead us?....

Where's the smiley, Skying, because this surely is a pizz-take!

And for the last time (no - I take that back. I will no doubt have to repeat myself again before long), may I say this about Craig Thomson. Whilst he has been found guilty of precisely nothing at this point, in my opinion he has misused union funds and staffers for his personal gain. My concern is that if this is the new bar for decent behaviour of our representatives and lead to arrests, then parliament will be half empty in very short order. Especially if we include incidents before they were elected to office.

Tony Abbott? Do I need to make a list for you? We can start with his violent behaviour towards women whilst at Uni and progress chronologically from there if you like. He has lied (or misled us if you insist) about many events in the past 35 years and therefore under your new code of behaviour should be unfit for office.

I agree!