Julia - How much longer? (Part III)

[Windhover]

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?

I thought it might be too difficult for you. Let's try this simplified approach, and I apologise for the obviously paternalistic tone that simplifying things for you inevitably involves.

If I "strongly endorse" King Elvis as chalk monitor for next week all I am saying is that King Elvis meets all the requirements for chalk monitor. I am NOT necessarily saying King Elvis is "the best choice" for chalk monitor. I might well think Windhover is a better choice but, with typical modesty, recognise the qualifications of others.

If I "recommend" King Elvis as chalk monitor for next week I am saying I think King Elvis is the man for the job over anyone else. My recommendation of King Elvis carries with it the implication that I know he is better than anyone else, including Windhover. Curiously, just because I think you are the man does not necessarily mean I think you meet all the requirements for chalk monitor (cf my "strong endorsement"). I might just think you are the best of a bad bunch and that, for instance, Windhover would make an even worse chalk monitor.

It is apparent from your response thus far these subtleties of language are somewhat beyond your level of comprehension. Unless you make the effort to understand what words actually mean you will forever think yourself duped by your simplistic misunderstandings. But do not go around shouting "liar" every time big words are used. You are just trumpeting your ignorance.

Is this helpful?

 

[Windhover]

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.

I agree that these simplistic political beat-ups are tedious. I also believe they are dangerous. A politician who actually lies ("dishonestly tells an untruth") commits a fundamental breach of the trust given by the electorate that chose that politician. IMO any politician who is found to lie should not just resign from Parliament but from public life. Once a liar how can that person ever be trusted in public life again.

Because the allegation of "lie" is so serious, those who make the allegation must be very circumspect before definitively making the allegation. To throw around the allegation every time there is an inconsistency between word and deed (a commonplace in human affairs public and personal) is to devalue the seriousness of the allegation made.

As a corollary there is every reason to challenge inconsistencies to test whether there has been actual dishonesty. But it is one thing to challenge and another altogether to allege. So when you say . . .

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

. . . I could not agree with you less. I have repeatedly explained in posts that Gillard stating "There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead" could IN NO WAY be construed as a lie, indeed for the same reason Howard's "never, ever" could not be construed as a lie. In each case at the time the statement was made I have no doubt the speaker THEN AND THERE meant exactly what they said.

Sure Johnny always wanted a GST but at that time he was entitled to believe that it would never happen. (After all Hewson had lost the 1993 election on just that basis). When, later, he had a public standing he could previously only have dreamed of, he was entitled to believe that all sorts of things, including a GST, had become possible.

Similarly Julia always wanted a price on carbon by way of an emissions trading scheme. As a result of the minority government the only way to an ETS was via a carbon tax. I mean to say, what is the big f>>>ing deal?

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.

That there was absolutely no dishonesty in any statement made in respect of Carr or the Gonski appointment goes without saying. Those hysterics yelling "lie" simply debase the use of the word (and are engaging in the "political spin" they profess to despise. This debasement has the danger of misleading people into accepting as "just plain day-to-day politics" those occasions when pollies actually lie: i.e. Peter Reith regarding children overboard - not initially a lie but certainly a lie when he was subsequently told there was no evidence to support the outrageous racist allegation.

 

[Windhover]

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

I hope "that line" is resonating in the q and q polling. Don't you?

 

[King Elvis]

That there was absolutely no dishonesty in any statement made in respect of Carr

"Reports I discussed the position with Carr are completely untrue."

"Yes, I discussed the position with Bob Carr."


How is that not dishonest?

It's not life-changing or hugely critical, it's a little white lie, but there was no need for it.

In his report to the government, Mr Gonski said Mr Costello had the "strong endorsement" of the board to step into the top job.

But, in an unexpected twist, Mr Gonski was appointed to the post himself.

Mr Costello said he had only learned today that he was the board's preferred choice as chairman and demanded Mr Gonski's report now be made public.

However, Finance Minister Penny Wong today declined to table it in parliament.

"That memo is not a public document," Minister Wong told the Senate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tello-not-gonski/story-fn59niix-1226300880075

Mr Gonski — who recently led the review into the education system — was initially engaged to advise Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan to canvass the views of the seven Future Fund guardians — including Mr Costello — about who should be the new chairman.

He duly reported back to the government that the board was in favour of Mr Costello to replace Mr Murray, only to be appointed to the position himself.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-government-20120315-1v66x.html#ixzz1pEm536Kf

The government faffed around for 12 months before deciding on the new Chairman of the Future Fund.
It asked Gonski to advise them on who that should be and to consult with the current Guardians (trustees) of the Future Fund.
The Guardians told him Peter Costello.
It is corporate governance best practice for the the board to nominate the Chairman and, only in exceptional circumstances, would a Chairman be selected from outside the existing board members.
Costello should have been made Chairman. All that stuff about him not being a Chairman of a listed company and having no standing in the business community. Complete bollocks – he was the Australian Treasurer for 12 years for heaven’s sake. And all boards need diversity – there are other business types on the board.
Gonski only advised the government; he did not make recommendations (according to Wong). Again, complete bollocks – there is no difference between advise and recommend.
It is a complete disgrace that Conroy and Cameron are now criticising (defaming?) Costello. And, would be that the person that the government appointed to the board of the Future Fund and in whom they have no faith in his money management skills? Quite amazing.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/03/15/did-we-come-down-with-the-last-shower/

Outgoing board member Brian Watson attacked the government’s move to appoint an outsider as a “very dangerous precedent”.

“It sends an extremely wrong message that this plum job can be handed out by the government of the day,” he said.

“By establishing a precedent of selecting [the chairman] from within the board, it would demonstrate that politicians would not be able to select their friends.”

Watson argued that the fund would be wiser to have followed a traditional board model, whereby the directors collectively choose an internal candidate who is “tried and trusted”.

http://afr.com/p/opinion/this_job_can_be_one_for_the_boys_eUuPkRGTHq3wFVBVpTza9L

TOM IGGULDEN: Businessman David Gonski sounded out the fund's board members about who they thought should take over as chairman. The majority thought it should go to Mr Costello.

PENNY WONG, FINANCE MINISTER: He informed the Government of the views of the board. That is not the same thing as making a recommendation. He was not asked to make recommendation.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3454639.htm

Wong is arguing semantics as well WindHover, I guess you must be right.

And as much as I appreciate the effort, no, your earlier post wasn't of any help.

Mr Gonski told The Australian yesterday he had advised the government that the former federal treasurer had the "strong endorsement" of the board to take the prestigious job.

His comments counter Finance Minister Penny Wong's claims yesterday that Mr Gonski "did not make any recommendations" about who to appoint.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-me-david-gonski/story-fn59niix-1226299820763

Can you email is to The Australian as well?

They obviously aren't as clear on the massive difference between an endorsement and a recommendation either.

The Australian has also learnt that Mr Gonski put Mr Costello's name forward last November, leading to months of delays as the government searched for an alternative to the former treasurer. Current Future Fund chairman David Murray has criticised the delay while outgoing board member Brian Watson has accused the government of misleading the board over the process.

"My report says that they wanted an insider. In my report it says that there is one person and I indicated to the department that there was strong endorsement for that person."

"He did advise in his memo to the department that a majority of board members believed the chair should be appointed from within the board, and in subsequent conversations with the department and minister's office say that, if the appointment was to come from within the board, the majority of board members preferred one individual."

 

[Windhover]

"Reports I discussed the position with Carr are completely untrue."

"Yes, I discussed the position with Bob Carr."

How is that not dishonest?

How about you establish the source of your alleged quotes (hint: your quotes are materially inaccurate) and the context of those quotes first. Then I am happy to explain what "all the words" mean.

It's not life-changing or hugely critical, it's a little white lie, but there was no need for it.

If Julia had lied (dishonestly told an untruth) I disagree entirely that it is of no moment. If she had lied I would be the first to call for her resignation from public life. That is why I am so slow to make the allegation in the first place.

Wong is arguing semantics as well WindHover, I guess you must be right.

And as much as I appreciate the effort, no, your earlier post wasn't of any help.

Don't sell yourself short KE, you appear to have grasped that use of the word "lie" is semantically incorrect i.e. that is not what we mean when we (properly) use the word "lie".

The next step is to accept that there is nothing nefarious going on "behind the words". You are a most encouraging pupil and definitely worthy of Friday's elephant stamp, though I think I ought to be chalk monitor next week.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I agree that these simplistic political beat-ups are tedious. I also believe they are dangerous. A politician who actually lies ("dishonestly tells an untruth") commits a fundamental breach of the trust given by the electorate that chose that politician. IMO any politician who is found to lie should not just resign from Parliament but from public life. Once a liar how can that person ever be trusted in public life again.

Because the allegation of "lie" is so serious, those who make the allegation must be very circumspect before definitively making the allegation. To throw around the allegation every time there is an inconsistency between word and deed (a commonplace in human affairs public and personal) is to devalue the seriousness of the allegation made.

As a corollary there is every reason to challenge inconsistencies to test whether there has been actual dishonesty. But it is one thing to challenge and another altogether to allege. So when you say . . .



. . . I could not agree with you less. I have repeatedly explained in posts that Gillard stating "There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead" could IN NO WAY be construed as a lie, indeed for the same reason Howard's "never, ever" could not be construed as a lie. In each case at the time the statement was made I have no doubt the speaker THEN AND THERE meant exactly what they said.

Sure Johnny always wanted a GST but at that time he was entitled to believe that it would never happen. (After all Hewson had lost the 1993 election on just that basis). When, later, he had a public standing he could previously only have dreamed of, he was entitled to believe that all sorts of things, including a GST, had become possible.

Similarly Julia always wanted a price on carbon by way of an emissions trading scheme. As a result of the minority government the only way to an ETS was via a carbon tax. I mean to say, what is the big f>>>ing deal?



That there was absolutely no dishonesty in any statement made in respect of Carr or the Gonski appointment goes without saying. Those hysterics yelling "lie" simply debase the use of the word (and are engaging in the "political spin" they profess to despise. This debasement has the danger of misleading people into accepting as "just plain day-to-day politics" those occasions when pollies actually lie: i.e. Peter Reith regarding children overboard - not initially a lie but certainly a lie when he was subsequently told there was no evidence to support the outrageous racist allegation.

OK now we know that Howard and Gillard lied at some time or other. Answer the question , what is wrong with developing taxes that should be paid by those who should pay it, you know what I mean? What is wrong with the wealthier carrying the can occasionally and if your on $129,000.00 dollars a year and single should you not be totally capable of paying for private health without a rebate?????

So except for what the papers and media tell the people, who then scream I am badly done by, I hate Julia Gillard. Just what has she done wrong that so many of you hate her.

I am yet to understand this . I know not everyone feels this way, but a great many do, if you believe the polls.

So what has she done besides kick the egomaniac Ruddy out, then give him a damn good spanking in a leadership challenge.

Don,t come up with the lies thing or the border protection thing or the economic stimulation fund during the GFC or insulation or school help , all those things were done by this government to help , none were done with malice against the people some may have been carried out by some people in those areas, like crooked insulation dealers and a line up of pocket liners. So come on , tell me why she is worse than Tony, Joe and miss show peice Julie Bashup. The refugee thing can be solved, by the way, if pea brain "I want to be PM baaaaaa haaaaa sob sob" Abbott had some scrupples.

I,ve asked before no one has come up with anything, so maybe everyone knows the opposition is a rabble at the moment and things may not be as they seem. I,d like to here a serious answer from you folks with some credability ,because no one seems to say why the hatred , is it the woman thing , is there some little doodles out there , hey?

 

[noddy]

Also established the Future Fund

Uncle Nick has gone against the feelings of Peter, Jonny & Tone on who should be head of the Future fund.

"Minchin backs Gonski over Future Fund 'shemozzle"


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-16/robb-blasts-future-fund-appointment/3893384