Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

Simple? You will have to run it by me again. How exactly has she mislead the voters? Hang-on .... let's personalise it a bit .... how has she mislead you?

You didn't answer my question, but that's fine.

By saying the reports are 'inaccurate', she is implying that they are incorrect. That is misleading, because these are two different concepts. Do you see this?

 

[Sprucegoose]

Skyring - how exactly has JG "mislead the voters"? Were you a spy at the ASIO briefing that George (Maxwell) Brandis attended? Did the cone of silence not work again?

As you are fond of saying .... citation please!

you don't read the papers with a general awareness?

the voters will answer this on14/9 or earlier if the gov collapses or she is charged with fraud.

 

[Moody]

You didn't answer my question, but that's fine.

By saying the reports are 'inaccurate', she is implying that they are incorrect. That is misleading, because these are two different concepts. Do you see this?

Errr .... no. She said the program contained unsubstantiated claims of hacking and other inaccuracies. She made no specific comment about the truth or otherwise of the sensitive issues that it raised, as is the convention by common consent between the agency and parliamentarians. Or that used to be the convention until Agent 86 got his shoe phone out. I suspect that will be the last briefing the opposition will get until the election!

Do you see this or does the concept of national security confuse you?

 

[Moody]

you don't read the papers with a general awareness?

the voters will answer this on14/9 or earlier if the gov collapses or she is charged with fraud.

Describe "general awareness", because that comment has me confused.

The voters will ... um ... vote when the time comes, and we will get the representation we deserve. Or should that be "ask for", because even Australia doesn't deserve Tony Abbott. Fine .... it does.

 

[Skyring]

Errr .... no. She said the program contained unsubstantiated claims of hacking and other inaccuracies.

Thanks. I'll let the personal attacks through to the keeper and if you don't mind, likewise with your comments about "Agent 86" and so on. Let's get back to the question I asked in directly responding to you: By saying the reports are 'inaccurate', she is implying that they are incorrect. That is misleading, because these are two different concepts. Do you see this?

Of course, you may give the same answer as before, as indeed Julia Gillard did, saying, "I stand by the statement I made to the parliament yesterday."

That's fine, but we can all see the evasion. Senator Brandis certainly did. He was briefed by ASIO and he said "There was a report. It was a serious matter. The Prime Minister in Question Time dismissed the report entirely as being inaccurate and that claim by the Prime Minister is false."

I think that it is the untruths and evasions, the misdirections, the weasel words and polispeak which put the electorate off-side. If someone, whether it be the Prime Minister or some random person in a chatroom, refuses to give a straight and honest response, if they cannot be trusted on reliability, if they evade and wriggle and squirm, then they lose credibility. People stop listening.

Thanks for your time.

 

[cove]

That fellow Greg Combet thinks he will be the new leader of the Labor party after the election. Could that be possible or has it been wrongly reported?
Recent interviews have had me wondering if he is a drunk or an idiot or maybe both.
i can feel a Latham style train wreck is coming as a result of this upcoming election.
It has been mentioned that we still need an effective opposition and yes that is quite true.

 

[Skyring]

That fellow Greg Combet thinks he will be the new leader of the Labor party after the election. Could that be possible or has it been wrongly reported?
Recent interviews have had me wondering if he is a drunk or an idiot or maybe both.
i can feel a Latham style train wreck is coming as a result of this upcoming election.
It has been mentioned that we still need an effective opposition and yes that is quite true.

One thing you may be sure of is that Julia Gillard won't have be sticking around eating humble pie watching Tony Abbott with a healthy majority smiling across the chamber at her. She could save the expense of a by-election and a lot of empty rhetoric during the campaign by just handing over to someone else right now.

The whole thing is simply ghastly. It's like watching the final days of some awful totalitarian regime, where the wild claims grow ever more unbelievable as the inevitable doom approaches. Life in the Labor bunker must be fairly strained at the moment, with the principal characters making their escape plans, hiding their loot, and writing their secret diaries.

 

[Moody]

Thanks. I'll let the personal attacks through to the keeper and if you don't mind, likewise with your comments about "Agent 86" and so on. Let's get back to the question I asked in directly responding to you: By saying the reports are 'inaccurate', she is implying that they are incorrect. That is misleading, because these are two different concepts. Do you see this?

Of course, you may give the same answer as before, as indeed Julia Gillard did, saying, "I stand by the statement I made to the parliament yesterday."

That's fine, but we can all see the evasion. Senator Brandis certainly did. He was briefed by ASIO and he said "There was a report. It was a serious matter. The Prime Minister in Question Time dismissed the report entirely as being inaccurate and that claim by the Prime Minister is false."

I think that it is the untruths and evasions, the misdirections, the weasel words and polispeak which put the electorate off-side. If someone, whether it be the Prime Minister or some random person in a chatroom, refuses to give a straight and honest response, if they cannot be trusted on reliability, if they evade and wriggle and squirm, then they lose credibility. People stop listening.

Thanks for your time.

No, thanks for yours, Skyring. Twistiing words is your forte but you have really excelled yourself this time. In the end you obviously feel mislead and you have the right to own your own emotions. No doubt everyone else on the extreme right of politics are similarly outraged at being so mislead by JG ... or is that just a confection to keep Alan Jones and the "aspirational voters" champing at the bit? Certainly avoids any examination of policy or competence, which the opposition is truly grateful for BTW.

 

[Moody]

One thing you may be sure of is that Julia Gillard won't have be sticking around eating humble pie watching Tony Abbott with a healthy majority smiling across the chamber at her. She could save the expense of a by-election and a lot of empty rhetoric during the campaign by just handing over to someone else right now.

The whole thing is simply ghastly. It's like watching the final days of some awful totalitarian regime, where the wild claims grow ever more unbelievable as the inevitable doom approaches. Life in the Labor bunker must be fairly strained at the moment, with the principal characters making their escape plans, hiding their loot, and writing their secret diaries.

Channelling Alan Jones before he is even dead is quite a feat, Skyring. But what's the value proposition???

 

[medhead]

Tell me again about truthfulness.

Double-dealing reveals Abbott's failings

The package was never going to be popular, particularly because it was headlined by a massive $20-million-a-year allocation of public funding to the major political parties via a $1 per vote formula.

On the plus side though, it contained improvements including greater campaign funding transparency, more frequent and rigorous reporting of donations to parties, and new rules prohibiting foreign donations in cash and property.

Thanks to Abbott's double-dealing, all of that has gone.

The Liberal leader's failings on the collapse of this supposedly bipartisan package, are manifold.

First, his office claimed that the Opposition had not seen the legislation. It also was less than upfront the level and finality of the agreement. Abbott himself then reneged on a written agreement. And finally, if these integrity issues are not enough to raise voter doubts in someone who within months could be prime minister, he revealed himself as a shallow populist.

Since news of the ''secretly'' negotiated agreement was announced at the beginning of the week, Abbott's office has misled and obfuscated.

SNIP

The fact that the alternative prime minister openly pretended to be uninvolved, and then simply reneged on a signed agreement, raises genuine questions of trust and reliability.
​

 

[Danger]

Senate budget estimates have been underway this week (and continue next week). Here are some interesting facts and figures that have been revealed.

The Department of Climate Change was established as a separate portfolio agency in its own right in March 2010 before being abolished in March of this year. Towards the end of its brief life the government locked taxpayers into a 15 year lease on office space in a six-star energy-rated building in Canberra at a cost of $158 million. The lease costs were in addition to the millions the Department spent on the offices’ luxury fit out including an executive wine fridge. With the Department now abolished, the lease remains – until December 2027.

• Budgeted number of asylum seekers forecasted to arrive by boat in 2012-13 – 5,400
• Number to actually arrive so far in 2012-13 – 22,276
• Lease of some detention facilities – $103 million
• Payment to the company contracted to run the detention centres, including wages, food etc. – $686 million
• Freight, charter and other travel – $107 million
• Health services – $206 million
• Overall broad cost of operating the detention network to date this financial year – just under $1.5 billion
• Number of asylum seekers held in immigration network as at 30 April 2013 – 11,549
• Number of asylum seekers who had arrived by boat held in detention when Howard Government left office – 4

The Department of Immigration has denied claims that Australian guards contracted to escort the prisoner that escaped at Bangkok airport were asleep when the escape occurred. Officials also denied the escapee was even a prisoner but was merely a person “undertaking a removal path”.

The Prime Minister’s communications director, who is in Australia on one of the section 457 visas the Prime Minister says are so unfair to Australian-born workers, had the normal security clearance processes ‘waived’ to enable him to work in the PM’s office.

Attorney-General and Special Minister of State, Mark Dreyfus may still face investigation by CASA over failure to adhere to instructions of flight crew when he allegedly refused on multiple occasions to turn off his mobile phone.

I pass no opinion or comment on the above, but thought it may provide some interesting debate points.

 

[Pushka]

Senate budget estimates have been underway this week (and continue next week). Here are some interesting facts and figures that have been revealed.

The Department of Climate Change was established as a separate portfolio agency in its own right in March 2010 before being abolished in March of this year. Towards the end of its brief life the government locked taxpayers into a 15 year lease on office space in a six-star energy-rated building in Canberra at a cost of $158 million. The lease costs were in addition to the millions the Department spent on the offices’ luxury fit out including an executive wine fridge. With the Department now abolished, the lease remains – until December 2027. .

It would be interesting to know who owns the tenancy. I wonder how many other contracts are being locked into at the moment.

 

[Deleted member]

It would be interesting to know who owns the tenancy. I wonder how many other contracts are being locked into at the moment.

Eddie Obied ?

 

[Pushka]

Eddie Obied ?

Something like that I'm thinking.

 

[Pushka]

A picture is worth a thousand words

 

[dajop]

• Lease of some detention facilities – $103 million
• Payment to the company contracted to run the detention centres, including wages, food etc. – $686 million
• Number of asylum seekers held in immigration network as at 30 April 2013 – 11,549

I know there is a substantial security cost, but can't help but think someone's milking this for all it's worth. Assuming 50% of those 11,500 are single, and the other 50% are couples or families .... that's 8,600 rooms .... at a 4/5 star CBD hotel at $150/night + $100/day F&B credit that's $784 million. Maybe they should be contracting this out to Hilton :!:

 

[amaroo]

Tell me again about truthfulness.

Double-dealing reveals Abbott's failings

Love his work

 

[amaroo]

No, thanks for yours

It must be a lonely place.......all the others have left you Full marks for sticking around & seeing it out

 

[medhead]

It must be a lonely place.......all the others have left you Full marks for sticking around & seeing it out

Don't mistake ignoring comments as having left.

 

[amaroo]

Don't mistake ignoring comments as having left.

Spoken like a true warrior from the left.