- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,434
- 19,580
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Depends what you can get away withDo you think he could rort the 2018 election as well?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Depends what you can get away withDo you think he could rort the 2018 election as well?
With Kennett now on side I'd reckon dodgy Guy will have a fair dinkum crack at it.Do you think he could rort the 2018 election as well?
Perhaps public opinion was affected by the work the staffers did. For example do we know if they contacted members of the public or lobbied on behalf of their candidate?Opinion poll before the election had Labor leading 54-46. Libs were always losing
They may have sent mass ads or programmed robot callsThey would had to contact millions of voters to inluence that margin.
It bemuses me that these sorts of issues get so far on the back of a whistleblower without anyone questioning their motive - especially when this all came on the back of 1 single whistleblower.
I know the guy that blew the whistle on this. Not well, but well enough to have spoken to him about this before he went public, and we have some mutual friends that know him well.
Why did he blow the whistle? Because he was attempting to blackmail the ALP into supporting his candidacy and paying for his campaign for a spot in local government in regional Victoria. He went public when they laughed at him. And they did laugh at him, because he thought he was a big shot in his ALP sub-branch, and he thought the fact that his mother did some low-level job with a union would at least result in the ALP finding him a job in the movement.
Much as the use of electorate staff as field organisers came back and bit them in the arse, they did the right thing as it relates to Jake Finnigan, because he's the exact type of scheming, entitled prick that they need to keep out of the ALP and out of the union movement. (I loved his whinging quotes in The Age last week about the personal toll on him. What did the dumb **** expect would happen?)
None of this is defend what happened. But let's be honest - politicians of both persuasions rort their entitlements all the time. They get found out, they pay it back, and then the same thing happens again in 5 or 6 months.
No, it's not right, or fair. But the reality is that people already have such low opinions of their politicians that finding out they're liars, cheaters and thieves doesn't surprise anyone, and ultimately doesn't affect their vote very much.
Arguably the most informative post so far in this thread. Kudos!It bemuses me that these sorts of issues get so far on the back of a whistleblower without anyone questioning their motive - especially when this all came on the back of 1 single whistleblower.
I know the guy that blew the whistle on this. Not well, but well enough to have spoken to him about this before he went public, and we have some mutual friends that know him well.
Why did he blow the whistle? Because he was attempting to blackmail the ALP into supporting his candidacy and paying for his campaign for a spot in local government in regional Victoria. He went public when they laughed at him. And they did laugh at him, because he thought he was a big shot in his ALP sub-branch, and he thought the fact that his mother did some low-level job with a union would at least result in the ALP finding him a job in the movement.
Much as the use of electorate staff as field organisers came back and bit them in the arse, they did the right thing as it relates to Jake Finnigan, because he's the exact type of scheming, entitled prick that they need to keep out of the ALP and out of the union movement. (I loved his whinging quotes in The Age last week about the personal toll on him. What did the dumb **** expect would happen?)
None of this is defend what happened. But let's be honest - politicians of both persuasions rort their entitlements all the time. They get found out, they pay it back, and then the same thing happens again in 5 or 6 months.
No, it's not right, or fair. But the reality is that people already have such low opinions of their politicians that finding out they're liars, cheaters and thieves doesn't surprise anyone, and ultimately doesn't affect their vote very much.
Arguably the most informative post so far in this thread. Kudos!
I'm waiting for your even more informative post on when the ALP will repay the $1 million in legal fees that the Andrews government spent in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and High Court trying to block the Victorian Ombudsman from investigating. And similar legal costs for the Ombudsman.
It takes quite a bit to get through to you. You divert attention by asking for repayment of legal fees by Labor but make no comment on the more substantial legal bills taxpayers funded for Brandis and Guy, to name two. Particularly the developers friend as it was a personal lawsuit. Check 'hypocrisy'.
The point is, like it or not, that's the way political parties work. All of them.
As for the Ombudsman, she said herself this was part of her job. Fairly straightforward, even for you.
I appreciate the reasons for your look-over-here bizo as the substantive matter isn't your wheelhouse.
It certainly is about the broad question of Labor overstepping the mark with the use of electoral staff; why it occurred; and them fulfilling the recommendations of the report of an Ombudsman whose job it is to conduct such investigations. Also of interest to many is why the Libs are so afraid to extend their desire for further investigations to include all political parties.Isn't this a thread about when the ALP rorted the 2014 Victorian Election?
We're all waiting for your even more informative post on when the ALP will repay the $1 million in legal fees that the Andrews government spent in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and High Court trying to block the Victorian Ombudsman from investigating. And similar legal costs for the Ombudsman.
I just assume a government can do whatever they want, as long as they have important stuff to do.
Joyce asked another politician to find a job for his girlfriend. That was an outrage to so many here.
Yet 21 jobs were found for people inappropriately and that is fine. Because Labor have to fix schools and hospitals.
I guess Joyce screwed up. He just needed to be building a bridge or something and it would have been okay.
If the Libs didn’t demonstrate last time round that they’ll likely bugger all that stuff up it would be a valid point
Right. You can do anything you want as long as the trains run on time.
Perhaps public opinion was affected by the work the staffers did. For example do we know if they contacted members of the public or lobbied on behalf of their candidate?
Isn't this a thread about when the ALP rorted the 2014 Victorian Election?
We're all waiting for your even more informative post on when the ALP will repay the $1 million in legal fees that the Andrews government spent in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and High Court trying to block the Victorian Ombudsman from investigating. And similar legal costs for the Ombudsman.
It bemuses me that these sorts of issues get so far on the back of a whistleblower without anyone questioning their motive - especially when this all came on the back of 1 single whistleblower.
I know the guy that blew the whistle on this. Not well, but well enough to have spoken to him about this before he went public, and we have some mutual friends that know him well.
Why did he blow the whistle? Because he was attempting to blackmail the ALP into supporting his candidacy and paying for his campaign for a spot in local government in regional Victoria. He went public when they laughed at him. And they did laugh at him, because he thought he was a big shot in his ALP sub-branch, and he thought the fact that his mother did some low-level job with a union would at least result in the ALP finding him a job in the movement.
Much as the use of electorate staff as field organisers came back and bit them in the arse, they did the right thing as it relates to Jake Finnigan, because he's the exact type of scheming, entitled prick that they need to keep out of the ALP and out of the union movement. (I loved his whinging quotes in The Age last week about the personal toll on him. What did the dumb **** expect would happen?)
None of this is defend what happened. But let's be honest - politicians of both persuasions rort their entitlements all the time. They get found out, they pay it back, and then the same thing happens again in 5 or 6 months.
No, it's not right, or fair. But the reality is that people already have such low opinions of their politicians that finding out they're liars, cheaters and thieves doesn't surprise anyone, and ultimately doesn't affect their vote very much.
And they can continue to do so because of this kind of attitude.None of this is defend what happened. But let's be honest - politicians of both persuasions rort their entitlements all the time. They get found out, they pay it back, and then the same thing happens again in 5 or 6 months.
I think whistleblowers should be protected.
The whistleblower has been validated by Ombudsman Glass, what you've said might be completely fictional. Why should there be a personal toll on him?
And they can continue to do so because of this kind of attitude.
You've been sucked into defending inappropriate actions of your teams, by partisan hypocrites on the other team.
Ignore them and discuss the issue.
If you are in the know, why don't you break down what happened and why. Help us to understand the actual issue outside of Fairfax/Murdoch buzzwords.