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

[Chief]

So Big footy sticks true to form and goes off tangent, just like the good ol days on the Limbo club Chief

It's like riding a bucking bronco.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

There are those on here who obviously see the world a certain way, but are willing to see when those who see the world in a similar way have erred, and are willing to acknowledge it.

There are others who will never admit their team made a mistake.

It's been obvious which is which over the last few pages on this thread.

Will those same "reasonable" people willingly acknowledge their protestations and outrage are amongst the minority for Victorian voters?

Essential poll: sizeable support for Daniel Andrews’ decision to scrap Commonwealth Games

Almost 60% of people support players receiving equal pay in the Women’s World Cup

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

This is the problem in having a discussion about Dan's performance in that if you're pointing out the myriad of Andrews' * ups, you're at best politely pigeon holed as a "centre-right" poster, but often called a "RWNJ" or a "cooker".

I got called a "cooker" for questioning the playground ban among other demonstrably idiotic measures and Sutton has since come out and apologised for some of the measures that were indeed worth questioning. The thought police don't like discussion...just follow the party line comrade!!

The way I see it and based on the thread stats, adogsfan is responsible for 5.5% of posts in this Part 7 thread and just 1.5% in the Albo thread. If he was so enamoured with towing a "side", then why is it so skewed towards analysing decisions undertaken by Dan?

I think the equation is clear and it has nothing to do with alleged political leanings:
Albo = Generally competent
Dan = Absolute hack

I can't really disagree with this.

Voting for Dan at the polling booth is kind of like selecting the least rancid apple in the barrel. It's right to hold him to account, and we should. But the bigger issue is putting together a legitimate challenge. In the interests of disclosure I voted for the Greens at the last state election but voted for Andrews prior. It was not ideal but both major parties were unpalatable choices at the time.

Regarding the games, I am glad we aren't holding them but I am pissed as to how much it will cost us not to hold them when the sensible decision in the first place would have been to not even bid which would have cost us nothing. I also subscribe to the sunk cost theory in that throwing good money after bad is utter folly. That's not to forget that this good money is now wasted money given we got precisely nothing for it. Andrews must come clean as to how much has been pissed away here and let voters decide whether that is acceptable.

As to the so called "embarrassment" factor, well that's a firm whogivesaf**k really. Nobody is going to avoid Victoria because Andrews mugged us off.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Pretty disgusting how the Andrews government treated public housing residents during lockdown. Still no apology though.

Melbourne public housing tower residents agree to $5m COVID lockdown settlement

Melbourne public housing tower residents will receive compensation payments of about $2,200 each from the Victorian government after they were forced into a sudden hard lockdown during a COVID-19 outbreak in 2020.

www.abc.net.au

The compensation should have been higher, and personal apologies, written or spoken would be ideal.

The attempt at localised quarantine was a reasonable part of a public health response, but lacked efficacy in many cases during COVID. It was the execution which was appalling.

There doesn't seem to be a place in the world which didn't make errors though. Australia and Victoria faired shockingly well, at least until we cut the cord on all restrictions, instead of easing out of them.

 

[evolved2]

Will those same "reasonable" people willingly acknowledge their protestations and outrage are amongst the minority for Victorian voters?

Essential poll: sizeable support for Daniel Andrews’ decision to scrap Commonwealth Games

Almost 60% of people support players receiving equal pay in the Women’s World Cup

www.theguardian.com

Scrapping the Commonwealth games was the right move.

In saying that, the "unreasonable" people are letting Dan off lightly, as usual.

I'd like to know
1) Why we volunteered to hold the games in the first place?
2) Why are early estimates so far off?
3) When did the Andrews government learn that there was likely to be a cost blowout?
4) Did the current dire financial position of Victoria play a large part in the reason to dump the games?
5) Why didn't we negotiate before scrapping the games altogether?

BTW, there was only 40% support amongst Australians for scrapping the games according to your link.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

The compensation should have been higher, and personal apologies, written or spoken would be ideal.

The attempt at localised quarantine was a reasonable part of a public health response, but lacked efficacy in many cases during COVID. It was the execution which was appalling.

There doesn't seem to be a place in the world which didn't make errors though. Australia and Victoria faired shockingly well, at least until we cut the cord on all restrictions, instead of easing out of them.

I agree that it would have been best to ease our way out of the last lockdown and I had been a supporter for the need for lockdowns the whole way through, but part of the reason that didn't happen is that Dan had gone too hard for too long and people had just gotten to breaking point. The cat was well and truly out of the bag anyway.

I also agree, the payout should have been at least 5 times that. Those people in the public housing towers were treated as sub-humans. Locking them down was not so much an issue I don't think but not having the necessary plans in place to support them fully before doing so was a failure.

 

[Sttew]

Will those same "reasonable" people willingly acknowledge their protestations and outrage are amongst the minority for Victorian voters?

Essential poll: sizeable support for Daniel Andrews’ decision to scrap Commonwealth Games

Almost 60% of people support players receiving equal pay in the Women’s World Cup

www.theguardian.com

I don't know any posters, Left or Right, who disagree the Games should not have proceeded. If a pollster asked me the question I would have said Yes, Right decision.

I didn't see the pollster ask people whether Victoria should have pitched for the Games in the first place, whether they believed the motivation for pitching for the games was purely political or otherwise, or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled and why this wasn't divulged to key stakeholders like CGA and the local councils.

And 41% agreeing with Dan's decision is hardly a majority. As you would say, I "imagine" the 24% who were unsure are waiting, waiting, waiting for more information before deciding.

Cue: mock response

 

[Sttew]

Scrapping the Commonwealth games was the right move.

In saying that, the "unreasonable" people are letting Dan off lightly, as usual.

I'd like to know
1) Why we volunteered to hold the games in the first place?
2) Why are early estimates so far off?
3) When did the Andrews government learn that there was likely to be a cost blowout?
4) Did the current dire financial position of Victoria play a large part in the reason to dump the games?
5) Why didn't we negotiate before scrapping the games altogether?

BTW, there was only 40% support amongst Australians for scrapping the games according to your link.

Add to that:

6) Why on the eve of the 2022 Election did Dan switch the swimming from Kardinia Park (a safe Labor seat) to a paddock in Armstrong Creek (a marginal seat) and decide to build a temporary pool at approx. $300M? Decisions like that caused the cost blowout

 

[DaBarz]

Add to that:

6) Why on the eve of the 2022 Election did Dan switch the swimming from Kardinia Park (a safe Labor seat) to a paddock in Armstrong Creek (a marginal seat) and decide to build a temporary pool at approx. $300M? Decisions like that caused the cost blowout

A very good question.

That I doubt will ever be answered.

 

[evolved2]

Add to that:

6) Why on the eve of the 2022 Election did Dan switch the swimming from Kardinia Park (a safe Labor seat) to a paddock in Armstrong Creek (a marginal seat) and decide to build a temporary pool at approx. $300M? Decisions like that caused the cost blowout

Has any ALP pollie even attempted to explain it?

 

[Roby]

I don't know any posters, Left or Right, who disagree the Games should not have proceeded. If a pollster asked me the question I would have said Yes, Right decision.

I didn't see the pollster ask people whether Victoria should have pitched for the Games in the first place, whether they believed the motivation for pitching for the games was purely political or otherwise, or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled and why this wasn't divulged to key stakeholders like CGA and the local councils.

And 41% agreeing with Dan's decision is hardly a majority. As you would say, I "imagine" the 24% who were unsure are waiting, waiting, waiting for more information before deciding.

Cue: mock response

Look, English is my third language, and given that it's your first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bolded part seems like grammar from a 5 year old:

'or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled.'

Wouldn't it be better to say 'how and when the cost spiraled out of control'? You're the one with a Masters in English, so please enlighten me about which one is correct. I am always keen to learn. Thanks mate.

 

[evolved2]

 

[DaBarz]

Look, English is my third language, and given that it's your first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bolded part seems like grammar from a 5 year old:

'or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled.'

Wouldn't it be better to say 'how and when the cost spiraled out of control'? You're the one with a Masters in English, so please enlighten me about which one is correct. I am always keen to learn. Thanks mate.

He’s saying he wants to know now.
Clearly it hasn’t been information previously divulged.

Take a break, mate

 

[Sttew]

Look, English is my third language, and given that it's your first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bolded part seems like grammar from a 5 year old:

'or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled.'

Wouldn't it be better to say 'how and when the cost spiraled out of control'? You're the one with a Masters in English, so please enlighten me about which one is correct. I am always keen to learn. Thanks mate.

Do we deserve to know NOW how and when the costs spiralled? In other words, at some point costs jumped from $2.5B to $6-7B. How? When? Why aren't we being told more?

Does that make sense? Any more insults?

 

[MarcMaverick]

Look, English is my third language, and given that it's your first, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bolded part seems like grammar from a 5 year old:

'or whether we deserved to know now how and when the cost spiralled.'

Wouldn't it be better to say 'how and when the cost spiraled out of control'? You're the one with a Masters in English, so please enlighten me about which one is correct. I am always keen to learn. Thanks mate.

Hmmm. Maybe some fresh air will do you some good. Try it, my guy.

 

[evolved2]

Hmmm. Maybe some fresh air will do you some good. Try it, my guy.

Call him champ next.

 

[Sttew]

Has any ALP pollie even attempted to explain it?

Yes, the Age quoted a female Labor MP (can't recall name) and her justification at the time was that the people of Armstrong Creek needed a community pool... turns out to be a community pool that was going to be dismantled once the swim meet finished.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Yes, the Age quoted a female Labor MP (can't recall name) and her justification at the time was that the people of Armstrong Creek needed a community pool... turns out to be a community pool that was going to be dismantled once the swim meet finished.

Don't worry, Dan Andrews can't either. Unless he wants a scapegoat that is.

 

[Roby]

He’s saying he wants to know now.
Clearly it hasn’t been information previously divulged.

Take a break, mate

It doesn't matter. It's still clumsy and stylistically poor. If you're going to say:



Do we deserve to know now how and when the costs spiralled



You need to put a comma after now. Otherwise you're saying:



Do we deserve to know: NOW HOW AND WHEN (regardless of what it said after this) now is a adverb right? And How is another adverb, you're adding two adverbs together, this does not make the sentence clear.

Oh and telling me constantly to take a break, is very passive aggressive. I suggest you look at yourself and how often you post here.

 

[tandino]

Will those same "reasonable" people willingly acknowledge their protestations and outrage are amongst the minority for Victorian voters?

Essential poll: sizeable support for Daniel Andrews’ decision to scrap Commonwealth Games

Almost 60% of people support players receiving equal pay in the Women’s World Cup

www.theguardian.com

Sizeable support is an interesting way to say a minority.

 

[Wooden Robot]

I can't really disagree with this.

Voting for Dan at the polling booth is kind of like selecting the least rancid apple in the barrel. It's right to hold him to account, and we should. But the bigger issue is putting together a legitimate challenge. In the interests of disclosure I voted for the Greens at the last state election but voted for Andrews prior. It was not ideal but both major parties were unpalatable choices at the time.

Regarding the games, I am glad we aren't holding them but I am pissed as to how much it will cost us not to hold them when the sensible decision in the first place would have been to not even bid which would have cost us nothing. I also subscribe to the sunk cost theory in that throwing good money after bad is utter folly. That's not to forget that this good money is now wasted money given we got precisely nothing for it. Andrews must come clean as to how much has been pissed away here and let voters decide whether that is acceptable.

As to the so called "embarrassment" factor, well that's a firm whogivesaf**k really. Nobody is going to avoid Victoria because Andrews mugged us off.

'That's not to forget that this good money is now wasted money given we got precisely nothing for it. Andrews must come clean as to how much has been pissed away here and let voters decide whether that is acceptable.'

That would be a noble and honourable action by Creep Features, but we all know that's not going to happen.
He has no compunction about keeping all the details secret, especially the COST.
Nah, Creep Features will more like set up an inquiry to decipher, who actually made the decision to take the Games on to deflkect from the waste and incompetence.
He'll roll out ol Captain Snooze herself, Weekend at Bernies Judge Coate, to preside over it and give her another couple of million to sleep through another inquiry.
Don't worry, Creep Features is already working 24/7 on how he can smother any analysis or scrutiny of he he and his chosen few f**** up.
We know he doesn't do responsibility and accountability.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Scrapping the Commonwealth games was the right move.

In saying that, the "unreasonable" people are letting Dan off lightly, as usual.

I'd like to know
1) Why we volunteered to hold the games in the first place?
2) Why are early estimates so far off?
3) When did the Andrews government learn that there was likely to be a cost blowout?
4) Did the current dire financial position of Victoria play a large part in the reason to dump the games?
5) Why didn't we negotiate before scrapping the games altogether?

BTW, there was only 40% support amongst Australians for scrapping the games according to your link.

40% is a majority, as it is solidly the highest value.

You are thinking of an absolute majority, which is > 50%.

 

[evolved2]

40% is a majority, as it is solidly the highest value.

You are thinking of an absolute majority, which is > 50%.

I disagree.

50.1% is a majority. The highest number of votes to one party can still give us a minority government.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I disagree.

50.1% is a majority. The highest number of votes to one party can still give us a minority government.

I don't care if you disagree.

This is the literal definition as it applies to scientific polling.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Sizeable support is an interesting way to say a minority.

It's a majority numbnuts.

The poll offers a plurality of choices, with one being undecided.

The largest share is a majority vs an absolute majority, which is > 50%.