Julia - How much longer? (Part III)

[King Elvis]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not

Gillard/Wong & Co employed him to canvas the Board and make a recommendation as to who she be their next Chairman.

The Board overwhelmingly endorsed Costello - Gonski then made his recommendation that Costello was the man for the job.

How is that not making a recommendation?

 

[Pessimistic]

I take it yiu mean Tim Costello not his deadbeat brother who is now the age's answer to Bolt


A tip - if you want these bipartisan type jobs you stop carrying on like a lib fanboi in the press

 

[sherb]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not

Gillard/Wong & Co employed him to canvas the Board and make a recommendation as to who she be their next Chairman.

The Board overwhelmingly endorsed Costello - Gonski then made his recommendation that Costello was the man for the job.

How is that not making a recommendation?

I'm perfectly serious.

You're just drawing your own interpretation of ambiguous wording to label someone a compulsive liar.

To suit an existing prejudice of course.

 

[King Elvis]

No, you're taking something that is pretty obvious and clear-cut, and attempting to muddy the waters and make it ambiguous.

To suit an existing prejudice, of course.

Mr Gonski said that he had informed the government that Mr Costello, who founded the fund when he was treasurer, had the “strong endorsement” of the fund's board and had in November put Mr Costello's name forward as a candidate,

So he'd put his name forward as the candidate, as per the job he was employed to do... But he wasn't actually recommending him?

Seriously?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...Gonski-appointment-SDULM?OpenDocument&src=hp9

Clowns.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Im in the new england electorate, and one of windsor's main campaign was he supports a price on carbon for polluters to pay, which what Gillard has brought in

If electorate didnt want to have carbon pricing as windsor said why did they vote for him, they knew he always wanted it.

again another myth by the coaliton and coalition supporters was blown out of the water

People didn't vote for Windsor solely based on this. There were many other reasons such as him being a fairly successful incumbent (a conservative trait) and his other policies on local areas. It is what he did by siding with Labor and some of the other Labor policies that he supported that raised eyebrows in New England.

 

[pjcrows]

Any chance that the Libs could stop using the term "lie" whenever something doesn't go their way?

 

[King Elvis]

Sure, when they stop lying.

 

[sherb]

No, you're taking something that is pretty obvious and clear-cut, and attempting to muddy the waters and make it ambiguous.

To suit an existing prejudice, of course.

So he'd put his name forward as the candidate, as per the job he was employed to do... But he wasn't actually recommending him?

Seriously?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...Gonski-appointment-SDULM?OpenDocument&src=hp9

Clowns.

No, I am not labelling someone a liar based on ambiguity and assumptions.

That isn't suiting a prejudice, it's being fair and reasonable. You should try it yourself.

 

[sherb]

Any chance that the Libs could stop using the term "lie" whenever something doesn't go their way?

We could only wish.

 

[King Elvis]

No, I am not labelling someone a liar based on ambiguity and assumptions.

That isn't suiting a prejudice, it's being fair and reasonable. You should try it yourself.

There is no ambiguity.

Read the second link?

Conroy and Cameron throwing mud at Costello;

"Given Peter Costello's position in government and what he left this country is it any wonder that you wouldn't trust him to do anything with money?" he told reporters in Canberra. "He was a failed treasurer. He failed to deliver on investment in this country

Wow.

 

[Windhover]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not

Gillard/Wong & Co employed him to canvas the Board and make a recommendation as to who she be their next Chairman.

The Board overwhelmingly endorsed Costello - Gonski then made his recommendation that Costello was the man for the job.

How is that not making a recommendation?

Let's go through the process step by step. First, the Government need to find a Chairman for the Future Fund. What should the Government sensibly do? Well, it would be pretty sensible to canvass the opinions of the members of the Board as to who they would like. There is no dispute that the members of the Board "endorsed" Costello.

Now here comes the hard bit for you to understand. What should the Government "do" with that endorsement? Should the Government treat the endorsement of Costello as "the Board's recommendation"? Obviously not. The Board was NOT asked to go through some sort of exhaustive selection process and come up with "the best" candidate for Chairman. If the Government had delegated the appointment of Chairman to the Board then and only then would the Board's endorsement of Costello have been a recommendation.

Understand the governance process before you go dribbling off at the mouth about liars if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

[sherb]

There is no ambiguity.

Not if you're frothing at the mouth to label someone on the side you don't barrack for as a liar I guess....

 

[King Elvis]

Let's go through the process step by step. First, the Government need to find a Chairman for the Future Fund. What should the Government sensibly do? Well, it would be pretty sensible to canvass the opinions of the members of the Board as to who they would like. There is no dispute that the members of the Board "endorsed" Costello.

Now here comes the hard bit for you to understand. What should the Government "do" with that endorsement? Should the Government treat the endorsement of Costello as "the Board's recommendation"? Obviously not. The Board was NOT asked to go through some sort of exhaustive selection process and come up with "the best" candidate for Chairman. If the Government had delegated the appointment of Chairman to the Board then and only then would the Board's endorsement of Costello have been a recommendation.

Understand the governance process before you go dribbling off at the mouth about liars if you wish to be taken seriously.

Just so I'm clear, the Board 'strongly endorsed' Costello as their preference to be the next Chairman... But that shouldn't be viewed as a recommendation by the Board for him to be the next Chairman...

Seriously?

For the record, I've got no problems with Gonski being appointed - I've got no doubt he'll do a great job, and his resume and suitability for the job can't be questioned; so why feel the need to lie?

 

[tazzietiger]

Once again this government have turned a simple process of selecting a new chairman into another farce.

 

[pjcrows]

Just so I'm clear, the Board 'strongly endorsed' Costello as their preference to be the next Chairman... But that shouldn't be viewed as a recommendation by the Board for him to be the next Chairman...

Seriously?

For the record, I've got no problems with Gonski being appointed - I've got no doubt he'll do a great job, and his resume and suitability for the job can't be questioned; so why feel the need to lie?

King Elvis – whether we agree on policy and ideology or not, you’re probably one of the more knowledgeable and informed posters on this forum.

With that in mind, the next time I hear you outraged at another LABOR LIE or GILLARD LIE, when it is just politics, I will go mental.

Yes, there are some flat out lies. Gillard’s carbon tax lie. Howard’s GST lie.

Then there is just plain day-to-day politics. The Bob Carr "lie", this Costello "lie". Sometimes things aren’t said to the media, or are twisted around, because the party – on either side – is playing politics.

If every single time that there was a bit of misinformation that came out during the Howard years it was labelled A LIE, the forum would crash. It's a part of the game.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Can Abbott for once let question time finish without trying, and failing, to suspend standing orders? Really it's so boring, repetitive and useless.

Everybody seems to agree that Gonski is a fine candidate for the position. So Costello was recommended and turned down. Shock horror! I can't believe a government decided not to appoint a man that's been endlessly (and often unfairly) critical of them to an important position.

Costello was never going to be appointed and he's only got himself to blame for his continual attacks on the government when they were the ones who appointed him to the board in the first place. There's times to be critical but if you expect promotion he should at least give them credit when it's due which he's consistently failed to do.

If they'd gone for some party hack then Abbott would have a point but Gonski's respected on both sides of politics. It's a good appointment so let's leave it at that and the use of the suspension of standing orders to simply throw mud at the government's a disgrace.

 

[poller]

Once again this government have turned a simple process of selecting a new chairman into another farce.

The government made a valid point of the hypocrisy of the coaliton which is no surprise

the coalition didnt think he was leadership material back when he was in government , why do they think he is leadership material now

 

[GuruJane]

Any chance that the Libs could stop using the term "lie" whenever something doesn't go their way?

Obviously hammering that line since the Rudd challenge failed because it is resonating in their internal qualitative and quantative polling.

 

[Affidavit]

Once again this government have turned a simple process of selecting a new chairman into another farce.

Exactly right.

The issue is more with the process.

The government asked Gonski (the headhunter effectively) to canvas the Board for their opinions. The resounding endorsement was for Costello but Gonski didn't report that merely verbally told them. In the end the government effectively said "oh well we don't want to give it to Costello for obvious reasons so ummmm how about you do it?" and gives the position to the headhunter who should of knocked back the offer.

Very rude and unprofessional of Gonski to say the least.

 

[pjcrows]

Obviously hammering that line since the Rudd challenge failed because it is resonating in their internal qualitative and quantative polling.

Of course.

I was referring to the Libs around here. Surely they can differentiate between towing the party line ("lie, lie, lie") and rational discussion?

 

[King Elvis]

"Given Peter Costello's position in government and what he left this country is it any wonder that you wouldn't trust him to do anything with money?"

Doug Cameron.

Bit of a worry that Costello is actually on the Board then, and the rest of the Board endorsed him as the next Chairman.

Sack them all?

 

[GuruJane]

Of course.

I was referring to the Libs around here. Surely they can differentiate between towing the party line ("lie, lie, lie") and rational discussion?

If you want rational discussion from luvvies I don't think big footy is the place for it

 

[pjcrows]

Costello was a good treasurer. His job is to manage the ins and outs of the Budget (along with Finance), not to necessarily implement policy. Hawke/Keating did a lot, but left a fat hole. It was patched up - and then some - by Howard/Costello, due to good fiscal management in the late 90's.

But they did next to nothing with the riches of the mining boom though when they had a chance. At a time when infrastructure and services spending (particularly in education and health) was overdue, they sat on a gold mine of cash to give out at elections and prop up their cred.

 

[King Elvis]

Also established the Future Fund

 

[noddy]

Also established the Future Fund

He certainly did & i don't doubt that he would have been ok in this job but the FF board members gave three other names on top of Costello who they preferred & stated openly that the replacement should come from within, now if that's not looking after each other then what is.

The government appointed who they thought was best suited to the job & it's about time that Tone & his colleagues realise that they now sit on the opposition benches & no matter how much they cry about it like Hockey cried ( just let us back into government ) during his whine on the sensor motion today then that is where they shall sit until the electorate decides otherwise.