Vic How would you rate Daniel Andrews' performance as Victorian Premier? - Part 7

[Chief]

Or pump up nobodies who agree with him.

 

[Saint]

"Person who got the sack from politically appointed job cries politics after his dismissal" would have been the explanation for the story.

I completely agree that Andrews' complete dismissal was stupid, but it's also not much of a story and certainly doesn't implicate Andrews in corruption as many are trying to imply. He's copping grief for not re-structuring oversight of an agency that the LNP set up in their last term in Government.

The equivalent would be the Federal LNP attacking the ALP for the tax cuts about to happen.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Next he will be publicly lunching with the Mafia and Nazi types....nah, who would do that?

 

[adogsfan5]

Next he will be publicly lunching with the Mafia and Nazi types....nah, who would do that?

Stop deflecting and pointing in another irrelevant direction.

 

[Saint]

Stop deflecting and pointing in another irrelevant direction.

Interesting you respond to the deflections, but haven't said what you think should happen with oversight of IBAC.

Do you think Baillieu and Andrews are wrong?

 

[adogsfan5]

Interesting you respond to the deflections, but haven't said what you think should happen with oversight of IBAC.

Do you think Baillieu and Andrews are wrong?

How on earth are we in March 2023 and Matt Guy is still getting a mention in order to deflect?

Yeah sorry - didn’t wanna drain you again with another quote (or the thread).

I would agree with your post (was yesterday or today can’t remember) - that there needs to be an independent balance and Stephen Charles probably makes a good point.

My post was purely about Robert Redlichs claims though, to dig up dirt is a decent allegation.

I guess we’ll wait and see where it goes from here.

 

[Saint]

How on earth are we in March 2023 and Matt Guy is still getting a mention in order to deflect?

Yeah sorry - didn’t wanna drain you again with another quote (or the thread).

I would agree with your post (was yesterday or today can’t remember) - that there needs to be an independent balance and Stephen Charles probably makes a good point.

My post was purely about Robert Redlichs claims though, to dig up dirt is a decent allegation.

I guess we’ll wait and see where it goes from here.

So you're in agreement with the ex-IBAC commissioner that Baillieu stuffed up when he put Govt into an oversight position and that Andrews should prioritise fixing the LNP's stuff-up.

 

[adogsfan5]

So you're in agreement with the ex-IBAC commissioner that Baillieu stuffed up when he put Govt into an oversight position and that Andrews should prioritise fixing the LNP's stuff-up.

Yep if that’s what it takes mate.
I don’t pick sides. Just get the best fk* possible result that has zero corruption involved.

 

[boncer34]

Remember the good old days you could talk about either party without the "what about" rubbish?

Political parties aren't sporting teams. You're not actually meant to blindly cheer for them. If they stuff up, you call them on it.

 

[Saint]

Yep if that’s what it takes mate.
I don’t pick sides. Just get the best fk* possible result that has zero corruption involved.

I don't think anybody wants corruption and everyone wants a strong IBAC. It's just the way this story is framed as being all about Andrews is just complete nonsense and they could easily have phrased it the way I did and it would be more accurate. (But then the Herald Sun wouldn't have run the story).

They're currently running one about Andrews picking an ALP crony (because it's what the LNP would do, I presume). Haven't read the article, but I assume it's based on wild speculation.

So if you do read the Herald Sun for information about Andrews, just keep in mind the way they're phrasing it.

 

[Saint]

Remember the good old days you could talk about either party without the "what about" rubbish?

Political parties aren't sporting teams. You're not actually meant to blindly cheer for them. If they stuff up, you call them on it.

That's my point. This story is about how the LNP stuffed up the IBAC setup and it's being phrased as Andrews's fault that he's trying to limit transparency.

 

[adogsfan5]

I don't think anybody wants corruption and everyone wants a strong IBAC. It's just the way this story is framed as being all about Andrews is just complete nonsense and they could easily have phrased it the way I did and it would be more accurate. (But then the Herald Sun wouldn't have run the story).

They're currently running one about Andrews picking an ALP crony (because it's what the LNP would do, I presume). Haven't read the article, but I assume it's based on wild speculation.

So if you do read the Herald Sun for information about Andrews, just keep in mind the way they're phrasing it.

It’s everywhere mate. Being reported by all. It’s not specifically about Andrews but the allegations are that MPs were told to dig up dirt..

Don’t you think this is a serious allegation?

 

[boncer34]

That's my point. This story is about how the LNP stuffed up the IBAC setup and it's being phrased as Andrews's fault that he's trying to limit transparency.

Ok

 

[The Punter]

Andrews has been in power since November 2014. Accusations around "digging for dirt on IBAC" have nothing to do with the current state opposition.

In a thread about Daniel Andrews' performance, I choose to discuss the performance of Daniel Andrews.

 

[Saint]

Andrews has been in power since November 2014. Accusations around "digging for dirt on IBAC" have nothing to do with the current state opposition.

In a thread about Daniel Andrews' performance, I choose to discuss the performance of Daniel Andrews.

And IBAC was 2 years old, it's now 10 years old. People are complaining that there's been an independent review on performance at the same time as they're saying the setup is wrong.

Should they have reviewed performance or not? Andrews is being criticised for it not working independently at the same time as they're saying there shouldn't have been an independent review.

 

[Saint]

It’s everywhere mate. Being reported by all. It’s not specifically about Andrews but the allegations are that MPs were told to dig up dirt..

Don’t you think this is a serious allegation?

They're conflating two different things. Yes, digging up dirt on any IBAC employee would be wrong. But there's no evidence of that at all, just speculation.

 

[adogsfan5]

They're conflating two different things. Yes, digging up dirt on any IBAC employee would be wrong. But there's no evidence of that at all, just speculation.

That was my main issue from my initial post. Obviously yes just speculation from Redlich, but would he make this up? Is he a liar?

Not long ago Andrews had some very nice things to say about Redlich, now “he’s just a bloke who used to do a job who’s written a letter I haven’t seen”. He’s done this a lot. He tries to diminish someone’s credibility as soon as he’s criticised.

 

[The Punter]

This goes to the heart of his effectiveness as a political operator. Anyone who makes a criticism is dismissed. Redlich is an esteemed member of the legal fraternity with connections to the ALP. He has made allegations that a contractor has told the organisation he led that they were instructed by members of the government Daniel Andrews leads to dig up dirt on IBAC. That contractor has had the opportunity to refute those allegations and has not. Redlich has credibility (like the Auditor-General) and should be taken seriously. As soon (and only when) he is critical of the Andrews Labor Government his credentials dismissed. He's demoted down to the same level as one of the people who marched against lockdowns. It's part of the strategy, very effective I might add, that keeps the opposition and their media cheerleaders where they are. They don't need to answer questions because of who is asking them.

 

[Not Important]

How on earth are we in March 2023 and Matt Guy is still getting a mention in order to deflect?

Yeah sorry - didn’t wanna drain you again with another quote (or the thread).

I would agree with your post (was yesterday or today can’t remember) - that there needs to be an independent balance and Stephen Charles probably makes a good point.

My post was purely about Robert Redlichs claims though, to dig up dirt is a decent allegation.

I guess we’ll wait and see where it goes from here.

as long as he remains in the parl't he's bound 2 be "remembered"

 

[hawkman]

I didn't realise they haven't replaced the IBAC commissioner and won't until around midyear

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Inane chat about 15 minute cities and Senator Babet distract us from talking about the Premier, his attacks in IBAC and his political COVID-polling.

All governments would have been and should have been doing similar.

It is critical to accurately guage public sentiment and reaction to major public health changes etc. Otherwise how can you accurately assess disease burden on the public. It's not only morbidity and mortality numbers that inform decision making, but peoples views on their quality of life and self reported impacts/sentiments of certain measures.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I don’t think so, no.

What difference does it make?
If trust was diminishing based on these focus groups, should that change the required measures being rolled out?
It shouldn’t. It should be completely based on health advice.

Did other premiers need the same data?

Contrary to popular perception, public opinion does matter and factors in to how we assess the mental health and quality of life impacts of interventions.

It doesn't mean you completely overide best practice for disease control, instead it informs how best to implement or attenuate measures and how to attenuate as certain milestones are reached.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Why did only Andrews need this then?

But it wasn't only Andrews who needed to do this? This is common practice.

Not just within Australia but globally.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

It’s actually becoming more and more amusing that Victoria seems to be the only place where non-compliance and criticism were occurring, and we were somehow the only ones needing tax payer focus groups to assist.

Go figure.

Again, this is not true in the slightest.

South Korea and Singapore extensively engaged in measuring public feedback through survey's, studies and polling.

This was of benefit. You don't just vibe what the public is thinking, you need to actually survey opinions to consider, along with other indirect quantitative measures.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Good question. I would assume the RC can compel someone to produce documentation.

That certainly wasn't the case for the Federal Government during the RC into aged care.