- Joined
- 25 November 2009
- Posts
- 353
- Reactions
- 1
All her Dorothy Dixer questions from her own side at Question Time were from Queensland members, so she must be feeling what you're saying.
The Gillard Government
- Thread starter Calliope
- Start date
All her Dorothy Dixer questions from her own side at Question Time were from Queensland members, so she must be feeling what you're saying.
I'm getting sick of questions like "how is the government spreading the benefits of the mining boom" ? Treasurer answers and sits down . Dorothy asks supplementary "what does it mean for my electorate of Goodnawatha beyond black stump" ?
Who gives a stuff ?
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
Australia's worst PM's
1. Gillard (is not smart enough to be a PM - is similar to Rudd - delusional )
2. Rudd (thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread - very delusional)
3. Whitlam (what was he thinking??)
1. Gillard (is not smart enough to be a PM - is similar to Rudd - delusional )
2. Rudd (thinks he is the best thing since sliced bread - very delusional)
3. Whitlam (what was he thinking??)
- Joined
- 25 November 2009
- Posts
- 353
- Reactions
- 1
Even Tony Windsor had that same choreographed Dorothy look on his face when he asked a question, and when they flashed back to him listening to the answer.
His conspiracy with the Labor Government will be seen by history as one of the big betrayals.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I think this goes to show that Abbott DOES get it because he was spot on when he said she just doesnt get it, spot on.
Me too, it's a blasted waste of time, and NO ONE gives a stuff.
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
More importantly its a waste of taxpayers money!
So why on earth do we go through with this charade in parliament? Get rid of question time (or at least dorothy dixer questions).
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
I think there should be no questions at all, just supply each side with 5 dozen cream pies and let them go for it, might be worth watching then.
I'd love to see Albanese, Gillard and Swan get one right in the mooch.
Mr Burns
I believe he does get it as well.
We the public are wondering why this fiasco with Thompson cannot be cleaned up.
Something is going on in the background that we are not aware of.
Possibly the following link may supply some of the answers. I have not checked if this link has been provided before.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/whos-pulling-whose-string-20120522-1z33k.html
joea
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
There's no doubt the fish rots from the head but the depth of the corruption overall needs a Royal Commission.
(love the credit card ad in the middle of the article)
Perhaps if we had an unbiased speaker, he/she should instruct the Minister to resume their seat if they stray from the question. Either give a correct answer or sit down and shut up. Only then would we have some discipline in receiving correct answers.
I noted Slipper did do this on a couple of occassions and even threw Swan out for an hour.
- Joined
- 25 November 2009
- Posts
- 353
- Reactions
- 1
Gillard's reported state of 'fury' at the striking up of the Enterprise Migration Agreement at the Roy Hill project is a joke.
This EMA proposition didn't come down in the last shower. It's been government policy for at least 12 months and a number of mega-projects are negotiating their own EMA's.
It's just that the desperate Gillard/Swan "death spiral" of the last few months which conjured up this anti-billionaire rhetoric coincided with the EMA being struck up by a Rinehart owned project. That's what she's furious at.
She would have preferred a "Woodside" or "Origin Energy" of even "Chevron" (which is overseas owned). That's how silly all this has become. The unconvincing struggle to find a Labor-only narrative in this anti-billionaire rant (query whether it is better than the embarrasing "We are us" at the last Labor conference) is just cover for this woman not having any sense of Labor tradition or history, but desperately trying to save the legacy of being Australia's first female PM.
It's gone, I'm afraid. It's gone. It's not in the heart of the interchangeable Kevin "greatest moral challenge-cum-economic conservative-cum-socialist spendthrift" Rudd either.
Only a new, compassionate Labor Party drawn from small business and separate from the unions will do, but it will take years. Or maybe it won't, given how many of them will be despatched at the next election. They can afford to concentrate on ideals because it will be a long time before they're again within cooee of the Treasury benches.
Hopefully we would have paid off their debt by then.
This EMA proposition didn't come down in the last shower. It's been government policy for at least 12 months and a number of mega-projects are negotiating their own EMA's.
It's just that the desperate Gillard/Swan "death spiral" of the last few months which conjured up this anti-billionaire rhetoric coincided with the EMA being struck up by a Rinehart owned project. That's what she's furious at.
She would have preferred a "Woodside" or "Origin Energy" of even "Chevron" (which is overseas owned). That's how silly all this has become. The unconvincing struggle to find a Labor-only narrative in this anti-billionaire rant (query whether it is better than the embarrasing "We are us" at the last Labor conference) is just cover for this woman not having any sense of Labor tradition or history, but desperately trying to save the legacy of being Australia's first female PM.
It's gone, I'm afraid. It's gone. It's not in the heart of the interchangeable Kevin "greatest moral challenge-cum-economic conservative-cum-socialist spendthrift" Rudd either.
Only a new, compassionate Labor Party drawn from small business and separate from the unions will do, but it will take years. Or maybe it won't, given how many of them will be despatched at the next election. They can afford to concentrate on ideals because it will be a long time before they're again within cooee of the Treasury benches.
Hopefully we would have paid off their debt by then.
Yes, then in 10 or 15 years time a new generation who does not follow Labor's history of economic bad management will vote Labor back in and the cycle will start all over again with "IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE".
- Joined
- 25 November 2009
- Posts
- 353
- Reactions
- 1
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them...
Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
Whitlam came in from a long period of the ALP in the wilderness, and was impatient for change. Gillard has had to deal with minority govt, but probably should never have been there, only won on a gimmick.
The one most culpable is Rudd, ironically the one they now want to bring back. Labor under Rudd had it all and blew it. But Rudd doesn't shoulder all the blame for this, not by a long stretch. Mind you, fancy taking Julia Gillard's political advice on the emissions trading scheme, or any other policy issue.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Rudd's lucky, Gillard makes him look good.
I don't think they're under any illusions at the ALP, if they bring Rudd back it will be temporary to prop up support as much as possible ,especially in Qld, before the election.
He won't last long aftere that, if they bring him back at all, I mean they look foolish enough as it is.
Gillard "purchased"
the minority government by giving in to their costly demands.That was mistake one, as none would have gone with Abbott anyway.
Then the lies started and it was down hill from there.
Wilkie is a little grub, Windsor is on his last term. That means if anybody on the crossbench is to gain in the future I would think it would have to be Oakeshott.
So he will be the one trying to stay in politics. However his words on what we should do now to shape education in 50 years time appear out of step with reality.
In 50 years time they will probably be given a memory enhancement.
It certainly will not be an education as it now exists, as nobody will be able to pay for it.
So basically if Labor is to change its leader(againnn..), they will have to deal with Oakeshott, who is probably running up a list of what he wants and what he wants to improve the second time round.
It just keeps getting to be a bigger joke!
joea
As I mentioned on a previous post, I understand Oakeshott has his hands tied untill August. If there is an election before August 2012, Oakeshott will lose all of his parliamentary entitlements.
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
Wilkie reminds me of the Black Night in the Monty Python sketch - every time Julia plays him for a sucker (and she has often enough), he makes excuses and carries on regardless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mjEcj8KpuJw
Wilkie is a non entity who will be well and truly forgotten at the next election no matter what he does in the meantime.
Windsor has betrayed his electorate and is gone, even if he does not retire (disgracefully).
Oakeshott also betrayed his electorate and will be resoundedly defeated at the next election if he is dumb enough to contest his seat. It will not matter how he acts from now on, whether negatively or positively - he is gone (and good riddance)
Logique
Investor
- Joined
- 18 April 2007
- Posts
- 4,290
- Reactions
- 768
This sort of commentary from (yes) Lenore Taylor in the 'Love Media', probably signals the end of the section.
