Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)
Just curious on you thoughts on how Gillard stacks up to Abbott, Costello & Keating?
Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)
Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)
While I'm not really a fan of Keating I do think that Costello was no where near a match for him. Not only was Keating sharp witted he at least had the courage of his convictions and went to the back bench in a leadership dispute. Something Costello never had the intestinal fortitude to do in his battle with Howard.
With Abbott only half the quality of Costello and Costello only half the quality of Keating, what does that say about the Libs. Joh for PM was not as silly as it sounded at the time.
The indys have themselves in a right mess, they have stated repeatedly their agreement is with Julia Gillard only. How can they turn around and strike another deal with Crean, probably on revised terms and still show their face in public?
Paul Howes national secretary of the AWU has said that his union backs the carbon tax.
He did indeed. He stated today that he has 'received sufficient assurance from the government that no jobs would be lost in manufacturing'.Paul Howes national secretary of the AWU has said that his union backs the carbon tax.
He has also stated that his union would not back it if one job was lost.
Presumably the workers at Hazelwood will not be classified as being employed in manufacturing. Oh my, what a tangled web we weave.The government plans to close Hazelwood = job losses ???
hello
Well, a 12 million dollar television advertising campaign to promote a policy that no one wants, namely a carbon tax which is dishonestly named, it's a carbon dioxide tax, a policy that is not even in legislation, a policy that's not been before the Parliament, but Julia Gillard said it’s the right thing to do, given the amount of misinformation being drummed up.
Well, the vehicle of most of the misinformation is Julia Gillard herself.
Tony Abbott's right, the Labor Party should pay for the ads.
And he's right when he says it's taxpayer-funded propaganda which doesn't tell the full truth.
Now in the lead-up to the 2007 Federal election the then Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd promised to ban the use of taxpayers' money for political advertising.
Mr Rudd said at the time it was unacceptable for the Government to appropriate money that they've taken from us to conduct their own political advertising campaigns.
This is a 12 million dollar campaign and another 13 million is going to be spent on a public information campaign.
I’m sorry, but this is more lies.
Kevin Rudd made a specific promise, Julia Gillard was his deputy in 2007 that there'd be external vetting of Government advertising.
On May 19, 2007 Kevin Rudd said, "We need to have the politicians no longer controlling taxpayer-funded advertising. It's as simple as that. Governments are entrusted to spend taxpayers' money to provide essential services, not to use them as a re-election war chest".
On May 23, 2007 in a doorstop media conference Kevin Rudd went even further against partisan taxpayer-funded advertising when he said, "This actually is a long term cancer on our democracy". Now of course Julia Gillard talks about the advertising of Work Choices.
Work Choices was a piece of legislation.
Work Choices had been before the Parliament.
Work Choices was in law.
The Rudd Government made an election commitment in 2007 that there would have to be external vetting of Government advertising and that it would only be allowed when legislation was passed or there was an existing budgetary appropriation. None of these things applies here.
The Government's guidelines for taxpayer money being applied to advertising require that there be extraordinary, their word, or compelling, their word, reasons for Government advertising. And that only, and I quote, 'policies or programmes underpinned by legislative authority, appropriation of the Parliament or a Cabinet decision which is intended to be implemented during the current Parliament should be the subject of an advertising campaign'.
The Government has introduced no legislation on the carbon tax.
There is none.
The matter hasn't even been before the Parliament.
Yet here is a 12 million dollar clean energy future advertising campaign and another 13 million to be spent on a public information campaign for a policy no one wants, in total breach of the Government's own guidelines.
Kevin Rudd called partisan taxpayer-funded advertising "a long term cancer on our democracy" and made it clear that such advertising would only be allowed "when legislation was passed or there was an existing budgetary appropriation".
None of those rules apply here.
We rang the Prime Minister's office seeking an explanation as to why this breach has occurred.
We were passed on to the office of Greg Combet.
There seems to be nothing that Julia Gillard won’t do in order to hang onto the Lodge.
But this is a brutal insult to taxpayers. 25 million dollars of taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign for a policy yet to hit the Parliament that taxpayers don't want, and in breach of the Government’s own guidelines.
Julia Gillard’s credibility sinks lower and lower.
It's up on the 2gb website now...
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7688&Itemid=134
So, is the Government breaking any laws????
This is something I believe really needs to be thoroughly investigated. I recall reading one list of federally funded projects for Tony Windsor's electorate that made my jaw drop. Probably the same applies in Mr Oakeshott's domain.Danny, I agree that this should be investigated and ai also think we need a inquiries into a lot of things.
What about the level of pork barelling that Gillard may have used to get into government and then to get what she wants passed?
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?