Gillard's AWU/Wilson past about to haunt her?

Remove this Banner Ad

Harmsey - Abbott is a product of the political class as well. I mean what did he do other than write to the bulletin - he has about the same exposure to private enterprise as Dougie Cameron other than the fact the Dougie as the Secretary of the AMWU actually employed people. Abbott shows all the horrible traits that the political class show - the manichean myopia, the endless barracking for his team, the jejune name calling and nay saying typical of student politicians.

If you are looking for someone to contrast the ALPers to Liberals surely Mal T is the apogee of a man made good on his own devices

Contra, I can not agree more with this statement. You only need to watch question time or go to a street corner meeting of an MP to realise how stagnant they have become and how irrelevant the political class is. The question is, how did we get here and how do we slay this beast?
 
Contra, I can not agree more with this statement. You only need to watch question time or go to a street corner meeting of an MP to realise how stagnant they have become and how irrelevant the political class is. The question is, how did we get here and how do we slay this beast?

I am old enough for some of these pricks to be my contemporaries - the people that took uni politics way too seriously. Wasted time thinking about bullshit issues and used to agree with their fellow travellers how much they despised their Labor/Liberal Club counterparts - we use to laugh at these arseholes and now they are ministers/shadows - hey dickhead you are not in the Uni Ref now!!!

The political class in Australia is now self sustaining and are hermetically sealed from reality. This ensures a constant supply of abject mediocrities to make decisions which effect us all. It started out as a Labor disease and now it has fatally infected the Liberal Party
 
Contra, I can not agree more with this statement. You only need to watch question time or go to a street corner meeting of an MP to realise how stagnant they have become and how irrelevant the political class is. The question is, how did we get here and how do we slay this beast?
Proportional representation would broaden the number of parties that could be elected and thus cast the net a bit wider for MP's, creating a more diverse range of voices. This of course almost inevitabley leads to a less stable parliament with more governments being elected in coalition but I think the preferential system of voting has entrenched the place of the two major parties, to the point where we are offered very little in the way of choice.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Windhover, you don't earn 50k.
Why am I the last to find out?
She will get off.
She does have to be charged with an offence first. So please tell us the crime our PM has committed (apart from keeping the Fibnats from office, keeping inflation, interest rates and unemployment low with a debt to GDP ratio that would make most countries swoon with envy, implementing age care reforms, mental health reforms and NDIS reforms etc, etc).

.

What I just find amazing - I watch the news most nights and I look at Gillard and Swann and wonder how on earth did these idiots end up leading Australia?
Envy is one of the 7 deadly sins. Let me guess, an idiot like you has ended up being lead by your dog? Am I close? I could tell you some of the differences between "idiots" like Gillard and Swan and your good self but I somehow doubt your capacity to ever understand. No doubt when the fibnats get back in your telly will work properly again and you can listen with awe, admiration and pride to the stuttering, monosyllabic Rhode's Scholar you would have as PM.
 
Proportional representation would broaden the number of parties that could be elected and thus cast the net a bit wider for MP's, creating a more diverse range of voices. This of course almost inevitabley leads to a less stable parliament with more governments being elected in coalition but I think the preferential system of voting has entrenched the place of the two major parties, to the point where we are offered very little in the way of choice.

Yeh but it also could degenerate into paralysis Italian Parliament style
 
I agree, but there must be some way that we can improve the quality of our MP's. This lot are by and large s**t house.

It is the pre -selection process. If the members of the parties actually voted on pre-selections you would see the standard improve - what effectively happens now is that approved candidates are parachuted in and the vote is a rubber stamping process - if they had truly local candidates with a chance of winning the pre-selection you would get a greater diversity of experience and it would break the monotonous character of the people who get pre-selected, The parliamentarians in Federal Parliament have more in common iwht each other than with with us poor bastards in the real world
 
It's just a matter of which old boys club you belong to, I understand that but it does not make, it a good or particularly healthy way to run a country. Can't imagine what Tom Uren was thinking in the gallery on Tuesday.

Perhaps someone else has picked up on this fact;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...idate-plebiscite/story-fn59niix-1226452141227

Old bastard's vested interests are obvious, but he does have a point.
 
Thanks DR, LP does have a readable literary style as a fiction writer. Like you I enjoyed his "charming story about 2 couples"

So back to my question DR. Please tell me the crime you reckon this "good read" reveals? [PS. I note the links to LP site don't work. Is that me or has his "freedom to fantasise" been closed down.) You know what they say DR, put up or shut up.

The site is back up so you can read part 5. Re Gillard, she obviously has some interesting questions to answer which has refused to up to this day.

Hopefully Mr Blewitt will soon clarify who did what and what crimes were committed.
 
It is the pre -selection process. If the members of the parties actually voted on pre-selections you would see the standard improve - what effectively happens now is that approved candidates are parachuted in and the vote is a rubber stamping process - if they had truly local candidates with a chance of winning the pre-selection you would get a greater diversity of experience and it would break the monotonous character of the people who get pre-selected, The parliamentarians in Federal Parliament have more in common iwht each other than with with us poor bastards in the real world

Good points contra and a good idea in theory but the problem especially for labor would be that the factional hacks would make sure that the sub branches would be stacked so that the "right" candidate is elected. The only way to avoid that would be to allow people to register as a labor voter like they do in the US but that opens up a can of worms in itself
 
Slater & Gordon seems to have made decision to hang JG out to dry. One of its former equity partners has revealed to Australian that JG was subjected to formal, recorded and transcribed interview after which her resignation "was accepted"


In a two-page statement to The Weekend Australian, Mr Styant-Browne ... said that in her formal interview, Ms Gillard had confirmed that “she did not open a file at the firm” to establish the association, and that she could not at the time recall any reason why a file was not opened. He said that she had stated that no other lawyer at the firm worked on the matter, and “to her recollection, no other lawyer was consulted"…

“She stated it was referred to as a re-election or slush fund…

“She had extensively renovated her own house in Abbotsford. Mr Wilson had assisted in the renovations. She believed she had paid for all the work and materials, and had receipts which she agreed to produce. She was aware someone had sought payment from the AWU for work and materials he had supplied for the house. He was mistaken or misinformed. But she could not categorically deny AWU union or Workplace Association monies had been used for any of the work....”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

The old "re-election or slush fund" trick.

Might well explain why the Centre Right and the Tanner Left so strenuously opposed her pre-selection ambitions? Clock ticking fast now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

On Australian Agenda(skynews) this morning they asked Gillard on the circumstances around the reasons why she resigned that have been appearing in the papers lately and she got very angry and defensive. It wasn't a good look.

She than went on to accuse Paul Kelly of asking questions for other people. Very bizarre.
 
The challenge.

Well Julia certainly challenged (& more) the godfather of the Australian in this mornings edition of the Sunday Agenda program.

I know you are a heavy detractor of Julia Gillard but surely even you would have to acknowledge that when riled she can certainly dish it out just as much as she receives.
 
On Australian Agenda(skynews) this morning they asked Gillard on the reasons why she resigned and the allegations that have been appearing in the papers lately and she got very angry and defensive. It wasn't a good look.

What allegations? same as Paul Kelly couldn't answer can you? even Kellys sidekick more or less agreed with what Julia was saying & didn't Paul Kelly enjoy that, ah if only looks could kill.:)

As for her look well she looked him in the eye & gave him both barrels & virtually reduced Paul Kelly to a bumbling idiot.
 
Transcript of the interview. From bolt's blog http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

A transcript of the Gillard interview this morning:

PK: I want to refer to the article in yesterday’s Australian. Is it correct, that in 1995 you had to resign as a partner at Slater and Gordon as a result of their investigation into misappropriation of funds around the legal entity that you had established?

JG: I am not dignifying all of this scurrilous campaigning by going through these things point by point, Paul. We are talking about matters 17 years ago which have been dealt with on the public record for most of that time as long as 15 years, these matters were dealt with on the public record. I did nothing wrong. If you’ve got an allegation I did something wrong, then put it. If you don’t have an allegation I did something wrong then let’s ask a question that matters to the nation today. On Slater and Gordon you’re talking about a firm with which I’ve got continuing good relationships and as recently as the last few weeks was giving a speech in their building and greeting staff at their Sydney office.
PK: Well, can I just ask, given your good relations with the firm would you like to see them make some statement to clarify this matter?
JG: What Slater and Gordon says is a matter for Slater and Gordon but, Paul, my essential point here is there’s delving into matters 17 years ago for what purpose? If you’ve got an allegation I did something wrong, put it. If you can’t put it, why are we talking about this?
PK: I’ve got no allegation but the point is ...
JG: Well, if you’ve got no allegation and I’ve not seen in yesterday’s Australian or anywhere else an allegation put about my conduct. If there is no allegation to deal with then why are we dealing with this issue when we could be dealing with the Australian economy, schools, health.
PK: We’re very keen to deal with those issues but there were a series of allegations made in yesterday’s Australian by a former senior partner that questioned your integrity. Surely you need to respond to those allegations?
JG: Well, I am not going to get into a circumstance where you’ve got people blogging malicious nonsense and we’ve got some of this penetrating to the media. I am not going to get myself into a circumstance where I’m going to spend my time dealing with these events 17 years ago when the people who are asking me questions about them are unable even to articulate what it is that they say I did wrong. This is just nonsense and a distraction from important work I’ve got to do as Prime Minister and important issues for this nation’s future. I’ve just said to you, Paul, I continue to have very good relationships with Slater and Gordon, you know, going and greeting the staff and all of that kind of stuff. It’s not the first time I’ve done that. It won’t be the last time I do that.
PK: I understand your point. You’re saying it’s all nonsense. Can I just ask you then this direct central point ..
JG: Well, Paul I’ve dealt ....
PK: No, hang on… The central point was, the central point was the partner alleged you had to resign because of this issue, is that correct or not?
JG: Look, Paul, I did resign from Slater and Gordon, that’s a matter of public record. I made the decision to do that. All the rest of this is just the sort of scurrilous ....
PK: But you’re not answering this specific point ...
JG: Paul, I’m not getting in to specifics about issues 17 years ago when you are not able to put to me any contention about why this is relevant to my conduct as Prime Minister today. I mean join the dots for me, Paul. What matters about this today for Australia and me being Prime Minister? Just articulate that.
PK: Well, I will. The point is that a partner in your former firm has made a series of allegations that go to your integrity.
JG: And the relevance to me being Prime Minister today, Paul?

PK:
Well, well, I think when accusations are made about the integrity of a Prime Minister going to the profession position she had before she came into politics ... surely that is relevant?
JG: And, Paul, I did nothing wrong. Are you challenging that?
PK: No, I’m just asking questions.
JG: Well, and this is the issue, isn’t it? Because I understand you’re being asked to ask questions today.
PK: I’m sorry, there’s no-one asking me to ask questions.
JG: Well, that wasn’t my advice a little bit earlier before this show.
PK: Well, I’m saying Prime Minister I ask my own questions and nobody tells me what questions to ask.
JG: And I’ll give you an answer to them. I did nothing wrong, Paul. Have you got an allegation to put to me? If you do not, why are we discussing this?
PVO: Can I just ask one question on this and then we’ll move on. Last question. Why not just put it all out there? I believe you that you did nothing wrong. I made a comment on Friday on my show “The Contrarians” that this is all a beat up and we should move on to the major issues. But why not just address it straight down the barrell so that we can move on and all of this scuttlebutt that goes on online, that frankly I’m sick of people emailing me about this , we can just move on from it.
JG: Well, Peter, let me welcome but also question your grand naivety. These people who are dealing with this online in their malicious and motivated way would not stop not matter what explanations I gave. You know that, I know that and that is why there is no point in flogging through all of the details of this because people who are pursuing this malicious campaign will continue to do it. They are not at all interested in the truth. The truth is I did nothing wrong. No-one has put any direct assertion to me. You haven’t done it today, it hasn’t been done in the newspaper that I did anything wrong. In these circumstances why are we 17 years later, when these matters have been dealth with on the public record for the best part of a decade and a half, still talking about this?
 
She than went on to accuse Paul Kelly of asking questions for other people. Very bizarre.

I LOL'd out loud for real when Kelly back-peddled furiously after being asked to substantiate the innuendo by claiming he was merely JAQ'ing Off, one of the signature tactics of any baseless smear campaign. Classic poisoning of the well, I'm sure Kelly's master will be patting him on the head for his efforts this morning :rolleyes:

JG: And, Paul, I did nothing wrong. Are you challenging that?
PK: No, I’m just asking questions.
 
Well Julia certainly challenged (& more) the godfather of the Australian in this mornings edition of the Sunday Agenda program.

I know you are a heavy detractor of Julia Gillard but surely even you would have to acknowledge that when riled she can certainly dish it out just as much as she receives.

Am in London for 3 months so haven't seen Agenda.

My point about the challenge was based on (a) Slater & Gordon getting into the act (b) the revelation she could not categorically at the time deny the money was used to pay for her renos (c) the revelation no other lawyer at S & G was consulted on setting up these accounts, (d) the revelation that she did not open a file - ie did it in secret - and (e) all this being started by Robert MCClelland of the Krudd camp. This story will not go away however much Jules dishes out and it will be used by KRudd to try and bring her down again.

Must say I was abit shocked by it - big question mark over the personal gain aspect now. Of course it was common practise in those days - and no doubt still happens - that union leaders extorted protection payments from employers - maybe she saw nothing wrong with it.

btw wots the Pickering guff all about?
 
Now Abbott calling for Gillard to face parliamentary questions about it.

News Ltd and the Coalition - if they were any closer you'd think they were in cahoots...
All she has to do is answer the question as to whether she resigned from Slater and Gordon because of the AWU affair?

She flat out refuses to address the question.

And stop with this News Ltd crap.

Its all over Fairfax as well.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top