LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Well, if you are so knowledgeable perhaps you can quickly respond with the detail you think we're unaware of?
It was an unnecessary side contract they signed just before the election after they knew Labor policy was to cancel the project. That is a poison pill. The fact that it was technically legal has no bearing. I know how contracts work only a ******* idiot would have set up that contract unless they actually meant to * over their opponent if they lost.
No wonder you stay out of OZ Politics thread as you really don't know much.
Yep! Those responsible for the loss of those funds were the Liarberals who, against every convention, signed a contract on the eve of an election in order to look after their mates and in face of there being no proper cost/benefit study to support the proposal.
Yep, hard to know what to believe when it's written in The Hun.
I believe the point of contention is a heritage listed rail bridge and the land that would need to be repurposed to build around it (cant knock it down to replace with a dual track bridge on the same footprint) in order to duplicate the whole track and that as it is only small section the amount of difference in capacity doesn't warrant the additional expense and effort to do so.
Nice of you to try and cling to an ally, but you'll notice he couldn't answer the contract question, despite berating the rest of the thread for not knowing stuff. And he has been active ITT and around BF since then.
"Red Shirts" is a new name they're giving to something they were trying to get people to call "rorts-for-votes". It's a 2014/15 controversy being re-heated for this election via a request for Vic Police to investigate. Liberals get to say people were 'arrested' (for questioning) and that Labor is under investigation. In response, Labor referred 18 Liberal MPs to the Police too, because they also had staff who worked inappropriately on the election while being paid by the taxpayer.
Never change
They may well change if charges are laid. My point wasn't fully explained, because DR would know this (and my posts are long enough), but MPs employ people they trust and often that will include people from their political party. The fact those people also do political things while working should surprise no-one. Just like in every single job you won't spend 100% of your time doing your exact tasks. The fact Labor isn't releasing the evidence suggests it's just small indicators of Liberal staff continuing to work during caretaker periods, or doing political work that can't be passed off as 'ministerial' or 'electorate' work or whatever.
You're missing the point entirely. Time theft isn't the issue. I couldn't give a crap if they spent half their day on the can playing Angry Birds.
Good thing I never said that then. Instead I specifically said it was "of course, serious". See below. You narrowed in on was my observation that it would be unsurprising if there was something to Labor's claims against 18 LNP MPs because "heaps of Ministerial staff would do political things during their normal job".
So your "never change" comment appears to be you agreeing with me and hoping I won't stop saying such sensible things? Thanks for the generous sentiment.
The 'never change' was a reference to your lack of scruples about shilling for a political party on your employer's time.
They were mostly paid for by Labor. The problem is they claimed 40% (2 days a week of work) as for the Labor MPs, and that wasn't reflected in the actual work. Hence the focus on timesheets and hence why Labor paid the money back. I think where they worked isn't important except as proof that there wasn't much 'electorate' work going on. Maybe you're right, though, and 'pooling resources' is "crossing the line" too. I haven't read the report.
So you didn't know what you were talking about before, and don't know what you're talking about now. You clearly embody 'never change'.
Don't know about Ratts by my prediction is that the heavy handedness from the Police might backfire on the Liberals. Sure it works for the already converted but everyone else is like WTF? They would have been better to have just used the ombudsman findings in their election campaign.
I have no idea, to be honest. As you can see from Jascave's spin above, the LNP (and it's sympathetic media) will push it hard. But then a lot of people barely pay attention to the media. Dawn raids seem like an attempt to find a smoking gun. If they found something then it would be justified. But you'd bet they didn't, so it all seems dodgy. People will hear the LNP repeating 'scandal', 'dawn raids', 'police investigation', but Labor don't seem worried, and Guy doesn't have a good rep. If Labor fire back and say the Libs might've cost taxpayers five times as much money; used the Upper House to stop themselves being investigated; and point out Labor paid the money back once it was declared incorrect, then it could even work for them?
