This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Will Craig Thomson finally give us some relief?

Jump to new
That is unbelievably stupid of Joe Hockey. It would never happen. Even if Thomson's delusions become more exaggerated than at present, he would never vote with the Opposition.

So stupid Hockey has laid himself wide open to totally deserved criticism for something that he should have simply dismissed.

Mr Hockey is one of the Opposition's senior members in whom I'd have minimal confidence. He's all bluster and no substance imo.

He sees himself as Treasurer apparently. Hard to imagine that filling the electorate with confidence.
 

I agree Julia. If they are not going to make Malcolm Turnbull leader, his obvious portfolio is Treasury. Hockey is not laying a glove on the government, Turnbull would.
 
rumpole said:
In that case you obviously don't think Thomson's vote is tainted, and there is no reason why Gillard shouldn't accept it if the Opposition would ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how "tainted" it is, if it is for a good cause. I can think of no better cause than the downfall of the Gillard government. Gillard's acceptance of his vote would be only to prolong our misery, something you obviously agree with.

However it is purely a hypothetical and won't happen.
 
Craig Thomson's got to be very careful here.

To Craig: if you're one of the posters in ASF, reveal yourself. Or maybe just read this carefully before you make your statement (my version of pastoral care).

I don't know whether your lawyers are still checking over your every move, now that you don't have plastic cards or plastic political party funds to splash around.

But your pre-Parliamentary statement statements (ie with Laurie Oakes) indicates to me that you think you've got a trump up your sleeve in the form of Parliamentary privilege, and that you're going to name names.

That in itself carries some adverse implications, but as Xenophon showed less than a year ago when he named that priest, you can probably get away with it.

What's much more serious is the act of misleading Parliament. That usually happens when a pointed question is asked, and the answer is the opposite of what it should be.

You'd have to be much more stupid, in making an unprompted statement, to mislead Parliament in doing so (but then, ah well forget it).

So, your statement is going to be heavily scrutinised. Be careful now, for when you previously sued a media organisation for defamation, it only took one round of evidence to show you up.

So don't be surprised, that in making a statement which raises more questions than it answers, that there won't be some bushy squirrel burrowing out to contradict you. The act of misleading Parliament will bring down the whole house of cards.
 

No, it won't. But the point about the hypocrisy is valid.
Doesn't matter that it would be for 'a good cause'.
You can't accuse the government of accepting a tainted vote and then do the same yourself if you want to retain any credibility, a quality that is too often lacking on both sides.
 

I agree, anything to get rid of Gillard.
+1
 

The opposition moves a no confidence motion, one of the reasons is: a member of the ALP is unfit to be in his position because he misused public funds, and without that member, the party would not be in government. Said member agrees with the no confidence motion - why would you, how could you, not accept that vote.
 
noco said:
I agree, anything to get rid of Gillard.
+1
Click to expand...

Boy! Has she got something coming at the next election...everywhere I look, there is this venom.

It's the same poison that this whole Thomson affair seems to have corroborated.

Once that explicit bond of trust is broken, it really unleashes the wolves. And the vicious savagery is such that this wild hunt won't cease until the electorate gets to have its say.
 
stacks said:
Said member agrees with the no confidence motion - why would you, how could you, not accept that vote.
Click to expand...

Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.

What was that about trust ?

 
rumpole said:
Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.

What was that about trust ?

Click to expand...

How about not quoting half my post so the meaning is totally lost, what, are you a journalist or PR guy? Spin hard, doc, you have a tough job ahead of you
 
stacks said:
How about not quoting half my post so the meaning is totally lost, what, are you a journalist or PR guy? Spin hard, doc, you have a tough job ahead of you
Click to expand...

Stuff your post mate, everyone talks about broken trust. Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.
 
rumpole said:
Stuff your post mate, everyone talks about broken trust. Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.
Click to expand...

Your emotions are showing rumpole. A professional really should remain emotionless. I didnt say a word about trust.

But we digress from the topic.. Will be an interesting speech tomorrow. Lets hope it deals with facts only, and inquiry may lead to a suspension and one less voting member in parliament, uh oh...
 
rumpole said:
Hockey just made himself out to be a complete fool by being such a hypocrite, and can't be trusted with the Treasury portfolio with $70 billion black holes.
Click to expand...

Not as big a fool or hypocrite as you for siding with Craig Thomson and Craig Emerson. You are on the losing side.
 
rumpole said:
Integrity perhaps ? Consistency. The other side should not accept his vote, but we will.

What was that about trust ?

Click to expand...
I agree.

stacks said:
Your emotions are showing rumpole. A professional really should remain emotionless. I didnt say a word about trust.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't, but it's integral to the whole present political situation. The Opposition cannot with any credibility castigate the government on its lack of trustworthiness, and accuse them of accepting a tainted vote, and then apply a whole different standard to itself.

But we digress from the topic.. Will be an interesting speech tomorrow. Lets hope it deals with facts only, and inquiry may lead to a suspension and one less voting member in parliament, uh oh...
Click to expand...
Yes, fascinating to see what he says. Does anyone know when he will be speaking?
Have a link to Question Time?
 
Julia said:
Yes, fascinating to see what he says. Does anyone know when he will be speaking?
Have a link to Question Time?
Click to expand...

About midday I think, on the ABC no doubt or ABC news on the web, live feed.
 
Julia said:
. The Opposition cannot with any credibility castigate the government on its lack of trustworthiness, and accuse them of accepting a tainted vote, and then apply a whole different standard to itself.
Click to expand...

Your small "l" liberalism is starting to look like rumpole's left wing bias. You have decided to be a critic of the opposition. Why the holier than thou attitude? Is the other Julia starting to look good to you?
 
Calliope said:
Your small "l" liberalism is starting to look like rumpole's left wing bias. You have decided to be a critic of the opposition. Why the holier than thou attitude? Is the other Julia starting to look good to you?
Click to expand...
No, she certainly is not. On the contrary. She looks worse with every passing day.

Contrary to your suggestion, I've always been able to see the flaws in the Opposition.
I'm not a confirmed voter for either side, unlike some who will always vote the same way regardless of the talent, behaviour and/or policies of their chosen party.

It's nothing new for me to say that, much as I detest the government and would like nothing better than to see them out of power tomorrow, that does not ipso facto render me an uncritical fan of all the members of the Opposition.

Similarly if Rumpole or any other Labor voter makes a point with which I agree, I don't intend to feel constrained about saying so.
If it's all right with you, of course.
 
I disagree. In my previous post, a perfectly reasonable explanation why Thompsons vote towards a no confidence motion is valid, regardless of the opposition to labour accepting his vote (assuming you believe his spoof explanation)

"The opposition moves a no confidence motion, one of the reasons is: a member (Thompson) of the ALP is unfit to be in his position because he misused public funds, and without that member, the party would not be in government. Said member (Thompson) agrees with the no confidence motion (because his union mates tried to set him up and he was deserted by his party) - why would you, how could you, not accept that vote."

The opposition arent poster boys for the concept of trust but the difference in breaches of trust by the current government and the opposition is about as big a difference in the polls in QLD. Quite closely correlated actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fair Work - Crook Deck: High Stakes Poker
7 8 9
Replies
173
Views
17K
sails
Fair Work Head Honcho Hides Risque Report
Replies
4
Views
4K
Calliope
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...