- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,364
- Reactions
- 17,727
Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.Anyone betting on a change in leader if Labor gets in
Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.
Ah, but what do they want? Obvious power methinks and I dont think Rudd will give them enough Kudos.
What a narrow minded bunch there are, indicative of this post.
There is absolutely no conflict of interest in Rein's case as neither she nor her husband can have any input into the process that determines winning tenders for government work.
I agree with redrob entirely,but we are dealing with politics here,and that necessitates the encompasing of strange idiosynchrosies,such as lowest common denominator catch-all,the swinginging voters who want to end the Liberal dynasty,but are feeling guilty and will jump at the chance to justify voting against Rudd;Those people who simply "Just want a change"
Anyway,Let the dogs bark,the caravan moves on.
I used to like Ms Gillard, but have been put off by her recent behaviour. She represents Labor's past especially in the way in which she told business to basically keep out of the IR debate. Irrespective of one's views on IR, surely the business community has the same democratic right as anyone else to air their views and contribute to debate. I never hear Ms Gillard telling the unions to keep quiet.Wouldn't think so straight away, but Gillard is clearly a Union stooge/puppet who has constructed an alternate IR policy that advocates compulsory unionism by stealth (re: negotion fees charged to non-unionised employees), so in many respects the union bosses will have what they want anyway.
There is absolutely no conflict of interest in Rein's case as neither she nor her husband can have any input into the process that determines winning tenders for government work.
You are very trusting about the way in which tenders can be written.
I reckon that many of those swinging to Labor, may well vote for the minor parties in the Senate just as an act of protection. IMO Mr Rudd is a safer pair of hands than Whitlam was. Whitlam had a number of good ideas, but he spent far too much money too quickly. I also didn't like his lack of support for the East Timorese let alone the Indonesian invasion. The East Timorese helped us out in a big way during World War 2 and look how we repaid during the mid 70s.Prospector
Copies of Job Network tenders are publicly available.
If you find anything that looks a bit dodgy or skewed you are better than the legal teams that scrutinise these tenders and ensure probity is achieved.
That aside, Rudd wants to be PM. He cannot afford distractions leading into the election and Rein could become one BIG distraction, irrespective of the merits of her business and its operations. In fact, leading up to all elections the parties go to considerable lengths to address potential liabilities. Where they cannot be eliminated the parties prepare defensive positions that we call "spin" on a situation.
As we near the election I expect the polls will see the Coalition much closer to Labor. However, overall I think the Whitlam theme of "it's time" is already playing out, and the question will be by how many seats Labor hold a majority.
And then it will remain to be seen if they can rebalance the Senate: Which I doubt unless there is a landslide to Labor.
Hi Julia,Thanks for that, Rafa. It's an excellent summary.
The initial embarrassment about her underpaid employees appears now completely forgotten in a wash of sympathy and admiration for her "courageous decision".
This whole episode can only help Kevin Rudd. Many swinging voters will (perhaps subconsciously) feel that because his wife has made such a sacrifice for his political ambitions, they are somewhat obliged to give Rudd their vote as vindication of said sacrifice.
Hi Julia,
...snip...
One of my friends was sacked by her company the day before Easter. Whilst they were very happy with his work they told him that he was no longer required. Prior to his sacking, he like many others was expected to work unpaid overtime every night. Its one thing for Mr Rudd to complain about employees conditions, but its certainly another when his wife's company has been exploiting the new IR laws for her own benefit as she controls around 97% of it.
If you can get away with it under the law, go for it (I have issues with that attitude, but that's what is happening). It may not be ethical or moralistic, but it's legal.
Back on topic... whether the conflict of interest is real or perceived, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there MAY be an issue, and it's potential ammo for the govt.
Now that the decision has been made, it puts the ball in the govt's court, and can be seen as Labor taking the high ground with conflicts of interest.
In a further move, an attempt to cut-off potential govt mud slinging IMO, Rudd has forbidden his potential ministers from contact with his brother, a known lobbiest. Further taking the high ground on potential conflicts of interest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?