Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Gillard Government

Jump to new
bunyip said:
The following is from Alan Jones on Gillard's involvement in union corruption. She’ll be hoping like hell that the incoming conservative government next year doesn't instigate a full blown criminal investigation into this affair.


http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13667
Click to expand...


Something similar Alan Jones run on Mr Thompson and it was quite a few months ago.

For some reason nothing seems to happen, also those "Julia Gate" revelations do not seem to be too public.

Wander why?
 
Happy said:
For some reason nothing seems to happen, also those "Julia Gate" revelations do not seem to be too public.

Wander why?
Click to expand...
If it's as clear cut as Alan Jones paints it, then why wouldn't the media burn her alive ?
 
drsmith said:
If it's as clear cut as Alan Jones paints it, then why wouldn't the media burn her alive ?
Click to expand...

I've wondered the same myself - why isn't the media on to this more (the bloke in the Alan Jones interview reckons that Gillard shut down his attempt to run the story in the media - I don't know how she'd have the power to do that).
And why aren't the police or the Federal Police all over it?
 
bunyip said:
I've wondered the same myself - why isn't the media on to this more
Click to expand...
The Australian has been across it on more than one occasion, in almost as much detail as in the Jones interview.

And why aren't the police or the Federal Police all over it?
Click to expand...
Don't they have to receive a formal complaint from someone who has been adversely affected by all or any part of what happened?
I might be quite wrong, but I don't think they just start investigating something as a result, e.g., of a radio interview such as we've just heard here.
From what I gathered, Paul Howes would be in a position to institute a formal complaint.

Even so, is anyone really surprised that such disgraceful behaviour has been happening in any union?

Re Gillard's involvement, again I don't actually know, but couldn't she claim that her personal relationship with Wilson was and is irrelevant, and that her actions as a lawyer with S & G were those of anyone employed by that firm and therefore didn't constitute personal responsibility on her part for any inappropriate activities?

(I don't know: I'm no lawyer. Someone will know this.)
I'd just assume that with all the powerful people out to get Gillard if her guilt as suggested in this discussion is so clear cut, they'd have done something about it by now.
 
bunyip said:
I've wondered the same myself - why isn't the media on to this more (the bloke in the Alan Jones interview reckons that Gillard shut down his attempt to run the story in the media - I don't know how she'd have the power to do that).
And why aren't the police or the Federal Police all over it?
Click to expand...

Pickering explains why in his two part story on his site:

http://pickeringpost.com/news/gillard-the-story-she-tried-to-kill-part-1/66

According to him News Ltd and Fairfax were threatened by Gillard and the threat worked as their staff had been engaging in phone hacking - Pickering says he has spoken to victims.
 
Julia said:
Don't they have to receive a formal complaint from someone who has been adversely affected by all or any part of what happened?
I might be quite wrong, but I don't think they just start investigating something as a result, e.g., of a radio interview such as we've just heard here.
From what I gathered, Paul Howes would be in a position to institute a formal complaint.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right about that, Julia.
You’d think that some irate unionist would have already lodged a formal complaint with police to get criminal proceedings under way against this character who appears to have fleeced the union, apparently with Gillard’s help.
It seems inconceivable that nobody would report that level of criminality to the authorities.
Maybe these unionists enjoy getting ripped off!

As you say, perhaps it's not as cut and dried as it appears.
 
What is everyones take on the disability arguement at the moment. From what I am hearing labor want to run a trail scheme in selected areas and want all the States to throw money in.
The two issues I see is:
1 The Federal Government want to run it and are willing to put in $1B dollars, well that shouldn't be a problem now they have the extra income from the the carbon and mineral taxes. The States will have to find more money to put in, guess what another tax hike at State level.

2 The most worrying aspect in my opinion is the Federal Government will run the scheme.LOL
 
sptrawler said:
What is everyones take on the disability arguement at the moment. From what I am hearing labor want to run a trail scheme in selected areas and want all the States to throw money in.
The two issues I see is:
1 The Federal Government want to run it and are willing to put in $1B dollars, well that shouldn't be a problem now they have the extra income from the the carbon and mineral taxes. The States will have to find more money to put in, guess what another tax hike at State level.

2 The most worrying aspect in my opinion is the Federal Government will run the scheme.LOL
Click to expand...

Gillard is putting in $1 Billion and out of that the cost to administer will be $665,000,000 leaving $335,000,000 for the NDIS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure I heard it on one of the news channels.

I think the conservative states are worried it will be another Labor stuff up.
 
sptrawler said:
What is everyones take on the disability arguement at the moment. From what I am hearing labor want to run a trail scheme in selected areas and want all the States to throw money in.
The two issues I see is:
1 The Federal Government want to run it and are willing to put in $1B dollars, well that shouldn't be a problem now they have the extra income from the the carbon and mineral taxes. The States will have to find more money to put in, guess what another tax hike at State level.

2 The most worrying aspect in my opinion is the Federal Government will run the scheme.LOL
Click to expand...

noco said:
Gillard is putting in $1 Billion and out of that the cost to administer will be $665,000,000 leaving $335,000,000 for the NDIS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure I heard it on one of the news channels.

I think the conservative states are worried it will be another Labor stuff up.
Click to expand...
This is Gillard's initiative. The States already have their various disability services plans, many of which are undoubtedly inadequate, so certainly it's a worthwhile initiative.

However, (and I can only comment on Queensland) while Can-do Newman is trying to save the state from bankruptcy, he's fairly reasonably refusing to stump up the amount suddenly demanded by Gillard.
Probably the same applies for Victoria and NSW.

As far as I can tell, the main difference over present schemes will be that disabled people will be allocated X number of dollars on determination of their level of disability which they may then use to purchase services to help them, rather than the present system which does not tailor services to their personal needs.
It's a good idea and one which will give disabled people a sense of autonomy and dignity, so it's pretty hard for the Liberal premiers to refuse to participate.
As I understand it, they have all agreed it's a good idea but said they cannot immediately come up with the funding Gillard is demanding.

Undoubtedly on top of that will be the 'stuff up ' factor by anything the Federal government touches.

Others might know more. Just as I understand it at present.
 
noco said:
Gillard is putting in $1 Billion and out of that the cost to administer will be $665,000,000 leaving $335,000,000 for the NDIS.
Click to expand...

So our government system is that it takes $2 to administer $1 - awesome!!
 
Julia said:
This is Gillard's initiative. The States already have their various disability services plans, many of which are undoubtedly inadequate, so certainly it's a worthwhile initiative.

However, (and I can only comment on Queensland) while Can-do Newman is trying to save the state from bankruptcy, he's fairly reasonably refusing to stump up the amount suddenly demanded by Gillard.
Probably the same applies for Victoria and NSW.

As far as I can tell, the main difference over present schemes will be that disabled people will be allocated X number of dollars on determination of their level of disability which they may then use to purchase services to help them, rather than the present system which does not tailor services to their personal needs.
It's a good idea and one which will give disabled people a sense of autonomy and dignity, so it's pretty hard for the Liberal premiers to refuse to participate.
As I understand it, they have all agreed it's a good idea but said they cannot immediately come up with the funding Gillard is demanding.

Undoubtedly on top of that will be the 'stuff up ' factor by anything the Federal government touches.

Others might know more. Just as I understand it at present.
Click to expand...

It sounds as if Gillard may have been playing politics.

http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/gillard-inflexible-on-ndis-barnett-20120726-22uln.html

This constant sniping and trying to convince the population that everyone else is wrong.
It is going to backfire badly, she can't run the country like they run the unions, by brow beating everyone.
I was at the gym this morning(believe it or not) and on the overhead t.v's, one was showing an interview with Gillard the other showing some old Manchester United soccer footage.
I kept checking everyone out and nobody was watching Julia, what a hoot, they would rather watch 1960's and 70's soccer.
The die is cast, they are finished, people in W.A aren't great fans of soccer. LOL so where does that put Julia.:D
 
Interesting on the news tonight, they are trying to introduce hysteria into the political debate.
The word is the coalition is going to bring in candidates to focus on taking out labor politicians.
But wait isn't that what happened with labor bringing in Maxine McKew and Peter Garret.
Then the reporters called it a master stroke, now they call it decapitation.
I for once agree with Bob Brown and Gillard, media bias really does need investigating.
My guess is, the preliminary investigations into media bias have been reported to the government, and that is why we haven't heard any more about it.:D
 
sptrawler said:
I for once agree with Bob Brown and Gillard, media bias really does need investigating.
My guess is, the preliminary investigations into media bias have been reported to the government, and that is why we haven't heard any more about it.:D
Click to expand...
Can you be a bit more specific about what you see as media bias?
How much do you listen to/watch ABC radio and TV?
Ditto the Murdoch press?
Ditto Fairfax?

Any "bias" the government and the Greens are referring to sure as hell doesn't include anyone other than "the hate media" i.e. Murdoch.

Bias within ABC? Of course not.
 
Julia said:
Can you be a bit more specific about what you see as media bias?
How much do you listen to/watch ABC radio and TV?
Ditto the Murdoch press?
Ditto Fairfax?

Any "bias" the government and the Greens are referring to sure as hell doesn't include anyone other than "the hate media" i.e. Murdoch.

Bias within ABC? Of course not.
Click to expand...

The bias I see is Abbott is constantly portrayed as being aggressive and radical with no apparent insight to the issues.
Yet time after time his stance has been proven right, still the media pursue him and try to prove him wrong or trip him up.
It is a shame they don't pursue the P.M with the same gusto.

The other observation I have made is when Abbott is given time and allowed to respond to questions, without the reporter constantly interupting, he seems calm, measured and very passive.

Generally reporters don't interupt Gillard, if they do she just brow beats them. yet they don't take her to task for the so called aggression.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-for-ndis-trial/story-fndo20i0-1226436411933

If you read the article in the link, why did the reporter put in the last sentence, other than to bias the report.

There were no similarities between the issues at all, other than the ones the reporter was trying to introduce.
 
Sptrawler - I agree with you. In general, ABC journalists seem very biased against the libs and Abbott and biased towards labor/greens and their respective leaders. Much like Fairfax. While the occasional article comes through not so biased, it seems pretty rare.

And agree there was no need to swipe at Abbott once again over the border issue in that last sentence. He has made his case clear and is willing to give bipartisan support for a system that is proven. If he gave his support to any of Gillard's hare brained schemes, he would be blamed when they fail.

Considering the majority of Aussie voters are against the carbon tax, urgently want our borders secured again and fed up with the spiralling debt and wasteful spending, it is astounding that our taxes have to pay for bias against the will of the majority.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
sptrawler
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Tisme
N
Kevin Rudd: The next UN Secretary General?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
17K
noco
N
sydboy007
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
sydboy007
Joe Blow
  • Sticky
How to identify an investment scam
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
60K
farmerge
farmerge
Top