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

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No mention of Andrews in those Jan 1 articles.

If you want an example of unions and too much power, I recommend you read the book called Betrayal where it talks about how the unions helped bring down a sitting NSW Premier in Morris Iemma. Reading that is a reminder of what I am fundamentally opposed to which is unelected union bosses dictating Labor policy. This is currently what's happening here in Victoria and what would've happened on a national scale if Shorten had got in.

As you seem to hate Labor, I never know what point there is to this, but that Betrayal book is wrong. It's written by a Daily Telegraph journalist - the paper most renowned for doing the Liberals' propaganda work for it. It talks about how privatisation being stopped was a Union move, where if you spend much time in NSW you will find that privatisation is highly unpopular. Amusingly for Victorians, they think Labor are a privatising party and the Liberals aren't. This is due to the time Bob Carr was in charge.

You should also know that the reason Iemma was removed was Eddie Obeid and 'The Terrigals' (which included Iemma originally, and people like Joe Tripodi). Obeid was a huge problem in NSW Labor for a long time, and when Iemma moved against him as Premier, Obeid pushed back & removed Iemma.

 

[CM86]

2 ex-leaders of the Labor party criticise Dan for the level of influence unions have over him:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...u/news-story/65bc4b6ba61f09ce9b2ac5b7d87baf2a

Liar...
The story is from the 1st of Jan.
You've clearly just tried to use the paywall to give credence to your statement.

Here is the contents of the article...

Bob Hawke has called on the Labor Party and the ACTU to consider cutting ties with the scandal-plagued Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, while Paul Keating has warned that trade union influence inside the party must be reduced.

The two former Labor prime ministers, who forged a historic partnership with unions to transform the economy a generation ago, have told The Australian they are appalled by the evidence of systemic union corruption, and urged union leaders to refocus on the national economic interest.

Mr Hawke, who as prime minister deregistered the rogue Builders Labourers Federation in 1986, said Labor and the ACTU must embrace reforms to improve union governance and transparency.

“The unions need to clean up their act and get their house in order,” Mr Hawke said. “It just is appalling. I mean, I wouldn’t tolerate it. You know what I did with the Builders Labourers Federation — I would throw them out.”

Asked if the CFMEU should still be affiliated to the ACTU and Labor, Mr Hawke, who was ACTU president throughout the 1970s, said: “Well, I would be very happy for them not to be at this stage.”

The comments from the two Labor elders came before the Heydon royal commission released its damning findings on Wednesday, recommending civil or criminal action against 37 people and describing “widespread” corruption throughout the union movement.

• MORE:‘Stamp out criminality everywhere’
• MORE:Labor elders talk sense on reform
• MORE:Jackson’s world caves in
• MORE:MP ‘doing brother’s bidding’

The CFMEU, a union with a criminal record and that has been fined for multiple breaches of the law, had 12 present and former officials referred to authorities for possible corruption, intimidation, breaching official duties and knowingly giving false evidence.

The Labor luminaries’ comments stand in stark contrast to the stance adopted yesterday by Labor’s workplace relations spokesman, Brendan O’Connor, who rubbished commissioner Dyson Heydon’s report, saying it read like it was “written by a B-grade subeditor of a sleazy tabloid”.

Asked about Labor’s continued affiliation with the CFMEU, Mr O’Connor, whose brother Michael O’Connor is the CFMEU national secretary, defended the construction union while simultaneously stressing Labor had “zero tolerance for corruption”.

“Anyone who’s broken the law should be dealt with appropriately, but to suggest because there may be individuals in an organisation, somehow that organisation is systemically corrupt, it does not hold water,” he told ABC radio.

Mr Hawke said the ACTU and Labor had not previously done enough to acknowledge or respond to the problems in the union movement, but he was pleased that Labor leader Bill Shorten had recently put forward proposals to strengthen union governance, increase penalties for illegality and overhaul political donation laws.

“Bill is coming out now and saying more should be done,” Mr Hawke said.

Mr Shorten, who has been on leave, did not formally respond to the commission’s report until 24 hours after its release, first on Twitter and later in a statement.

“If Mr Turnbull and his Liberals want to fight an election on industrial relations, bring it on. We won on WorkChoices & we’ll win again,’’ he tweeted.

In further comments to The Australian, Mr Shorten indicated Labor would consider measures to deal with corruption as long as they were not targeted solely at unions. “We want to stamp out any criminality in unions, corporations or anywhere else,” he said. “We will look at serious and sensible suggestions to improve governance.”

He said as a minister he sent administrators into the HSU, which uncovered many of the problems within that union.

“And as Labor leader, I have announced a series of measures designed to further improve governance of unions.”

Mr Keating, who won the prime ministership from Mr Hawke in 1991, told The Australian the unions did not have the same commitment to the national economic interest as they did under the Accord partnership with the Labor government in the 1980s and 90s.

“The propensity of the ACTU leadership to agree a set of national economic outcomes consistent with their members’ best interests was more obvious than today, but then the labour market today is reasonably flexible, otherwise wages wouldn’t be growing at 2.2 per cent,” he said.

As treasurer, Mr Keating placed a priority on the Accord that moderated wage claims in return for tax cuts and social benefits while supporting tariff reductions, industry deregulation, labour market reform and asset sales that made the economy more productive, efficient and competitive.

He said union influence inside Labor was too overbearing and there should be a rethink of the party-union nexus. “The preponderance of trade union weight in the Labor Party’s councils is now too large, given organised labour’s influence in the current and contemporary labour market,” Mr Keating said.

“The party should be broader, freer, and whatever influence organised labour has should be such as to genuinely represent its weight in the broader economy, but not to distort the (party’s) processes.”

Mr Hawke agreed unions “should not have an undue influence” inside Labor and that falling union membership must lead to reduced union delegations to state party conferences, currently set at 50 per cent.

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver disputed the suggestion corruption was widespread in the union movement and criticised the “political nature” of the commission and the “extreme language” in its final report.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Liar...
The story is from the 1st of Jan.
You've clearly just tried to use the paywall to give credence to your statement.

Here is the contents of the article...

​

Liar? At what point did I say it WASN'T from January? I realised there was a pay wall so I found another article also from Jan 1.

The discussion has been whether or not unions have too much influence on Andrews, so I posted the opinions of two ex Labor leaders. Are those opinions invalid because they are from the start of the year, BEFORE the CFA situation escalated?

 

[CM86]

2 ex-leaders of the Labor party criticise Dan for the level of influence unions have over him

Which 2 ex leaders criticised Dan for the level of union influence over him? From that theaustralian article you linked to?

And where did they criticise Dan? And where did they say he had too much union influence over him?
You liar...

 

[sportsmaniac89]

No mention of Andrews in those Jan 1 articles.

As you seem to hate Labor, I never know what point there is to this, but that Betrayal book is wrong. It's written by a Daily Telegraph journalist - the paper most renowned for doing the Liberals' propaganda work for it. It talks about how privatisation being stopped was a Union move, where if you spend much time in NSW you will find that privatisation is highly unpopular. Amusingly for Victorians, they think Labor are a privatising party and the Liberals aren't. This is due to the time Bob Carr was in charge.

You should also know that the reason Iemma was removed was Eddie Obeid and 'The Terrigals' (which included Iemma originally, and people like Joe Tripodi). Obeid was a huge problem in NSW Labor for a long time, and when Iemma moved against him as Premier, Obeid pushed back & removed Iemma.

I would rather trust a book over Labor spin.

I did say Union bosses HELPED. Nowhere did I say they were the ultimate reason for Iemma being removed unless you count John Robertson and Bernie Riordan as politicians now. Last I checked, around that time they were Union officials NOT elected by the Labor Party. I know full well about Obeid and Tripodi and the like but the discussion is of Union control over a government.

I don't hate Labor, just find they have people in the party who are absolute morons (Bill Shorten and Dan Andrews). If Jane Garrett rolled Dan Andrews, I would be more open minded towards her as she's a Labor politician with integrity (something that can't be said about Andrews and Merlino)

 

[FireKrakouer]

Which 2 ex leaders criticised Dan for the level of union influence over him? From that theaustralian article you linked to?

And where did they criticise Dan? And where did they say he had too much union influence over him?
You liar...

Who do you think was the main target of their comments? Bill? That's a worry then if this significant influence extends right up to the top, and even has their own party elders concerned. Labor needs a rebuild.

 

[CM86]

I would rather trust a book over Labor spin.

I did say Union bosses HELPED. Nowhere did I say they were the ultimate reason for Iemma being removed unless you count John Robertson and Bernie Riordan as politicians now. Last I checked, around that time they were Union officials NOT elected by the Labor Party.

I don't hate Labor, just find they have people in the party who are absolute morons (Bill Shorten and Dan Andrews). If Jane Garrett rolled Dan Andrews, I would be more open minded towards her as she's a Labor politician with integrity (something that can't be said about Andrews and Merlino)

If Jane Garrett rolled Dan Andrews, you'd hate her for causing instability and knifing he leader.
And all that jazz.

You have less integrity than a politician... and that's saying a lot.

 

[CM86]

Who do you think was the main target of their comments? Bill? That's a worry then if this significant influence extends right up to the top, and even has their own party elders concerned. Labor needs a rebuild.

Both articles are saying that the ALP should distance itself from the CFMEU due to the corruption.

At no point do "2 ex-leaders of the Labor party criticise Dan for the level of influence unions have over him".
You made the comment, and then linked to a paywall article that did not support your statement.
You've been caught out.

2 ex-leaders of the Labor party criticise Dan for the level of influence unions have over him:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...u/news-story/65bc4b6ba61f09ce9b2ac5b7d87baf2a

Edit, there seems to be a pay wall. Try this:
http://m.thenewdaily.com.au/news/2016/01/01/bob-hawke-paul-keating-unions-less-power/

 

[sportsmaniac89]

If Jane Garrett rolled Dan Andrews, you'd hate her for causing instability and knifing he leader.
And all that jazz.

You have less integrity than a politician... and that's saying a lot.

No I wouldn't because she rolled a dictator. Yes that is what Dan is in case you've forgotten.

You don't know me from a bar of soap so to suggest I lack integrity says more about you resorting to an unnecessary attack or is it because I have a different voting preference to you.

 

[CM86]

No I wouldn't because Dan knifed her first.

You don't know me from a bar of soap so to suggest I lack integrity says more about you sinking to the level of personal attacks than it does about me. My conscience in this discussion is clear

I definitely know you from a bar of soap. You're a bullshit artist.

You don't actually care about political corruption or influence. You are just rehashing talking points from young Lib meetings.

You're talking about Dan and the CFA situation as a dictatorship...

 

[FireKrakouer]

Both articles are saying that the ALP should distance itself from the CFMEU due to the corruption.

At no point do "2 ex-leaders of the Labor party criticise Dan for the level of influence unions have over him".
You made the comment, and then linked to a paywall article that did not support your statement.
You've been caught out.

I'll put my hand up and say I stuffed up then by naming Dan, when he is not explicitly named in the article, just alluded to. The article is still relevant to the discussion of union influence in the Labor party. The buck stops with the leaders, and Dan is a leader.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No I wouldn't because she rolled a dictator. Yes that is what Dan is in case you've forgotten.

You don't know me from a bar of soap so to suggest I lack integrity says more about you resorting to an unnecessary attack or is it because I have a different voting preference to you.

Yep, we can definitely make decisions on 'who you are' based on what you say. You use extreme language all the time about Labor and continue to do so. It suggests you don't have a solid grip on reality.

 

[CM86]

I'll put my hand up and say I stuffed up then by naming Dan, when he is not explicitly named in the article, just alluded to. The article is still relevant to the discussion of union influence in the Labor party. The buck stops with the leaders, and Dan is a leader.

He isn't only not explicitly named... the entire inference of your post is invalid.

You made a statement, and used a paywall link to back it up, knowing full well that it didn't support your statement.

Show where, from either article, you think it's alluding to Dan being criticised for the level of union influence held over him...

 

[sportsmaniac89]

Yep, we can definitely make decisions on 'who you are' based on what you say. You use extreme language all the time about Labor and continue to do so. It suggests you don't have a solid grip on reality.

The typical Labor supporter response to personally attack someone that disagrees with them.

My conscience is clear as I've not sunk to that level.

I have a solid grip on reality and really the only reason people judge me is because I'm not part of the majority on here.

Note carefully I've not judged any single poster here.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The typical Labor supporter response to personally attack someone that disagrees with them.

My conscience is clear as I've not sunk to that level.

I have a solid grip on reality and really the only reason people judge me is because I'm not part of the majority on here.

Note carefully I've not judged any single poster here.

Your perceived victimhood is related to comments that suggest Labor leaders are "morons" or a "dictator". We are allowed to judge your grip on reality by those comments. Whether you are part of a majority or not is completely irrelevant.

Judging the reliability of a source is key to understanding the internet and the world. You should be judging other posters to see how what they say actually matches with real life. You should be judging yourself based on how reliable your own opinions are.

e.g. pretending to be high and mighty and saying you don't judge other posters in the same post where you refer to a "typical Labor supporter response to personally attack someone that disagrees with them" - that's inconsistent and hypocritical.

 

[FireKrakouer]

He isn't only not explicitly named... the entire inference of your post is invalid.

You made a statement, and used a paywall link to back it up, knowing full well that it didn't support your statement.

Show where, from either article, you think it's alluding to Dan being criticised for the level of union influence held over him...

I believe that they are, at least in part, referring to Dan and his leadership. You seem to disagree. Back to the actual topic...

Do you believe that unions have an inappropriate level of influence over Dan?

 

[CM86]

I believe that they are, at least in part, referring to Dan and his leadership. You seem to disagree. Back to the actual topic...

Do you believe that unions have an inappropriate level of influence over Dan?

No... quote the line, sentence, paragraph, part, that you think is two leaders criticising Dan for being too influenced by unions...



And look at the difference from your statement, behind a paywall... to your comment now...

You were caught out, you *******.

5 years, 800 posts... legit...

 

[FireKrakouer]

No... quote the line, sentence, paragraph, part, that you think is two leaders criticising Dan for being too influenced by unions...



And look at the difference from your statement, behind a paywall... to your comment now...

You were caught out, you *******.

5 years, 800 posts... legit...

It's a shame, this was a good discussion before you entered the thread. You are obsessed with a pay wall when I provided a similar link with no pay wall. When I try to steer the thread back on topic you remain obsessed with bickering over a technicality. You resorting to childish personal abuse was the final straw. I will place you on ignore and hopefully continue a sensible discussion with others who may be interested.

 

[CM86]

It's a shame, this was a good discussion before you entered the thread. You are obsessed with a pay wall when I provided a similar link with no pay wall. When I try to steer the thread back on topic you remain obsessed with bickering over a technicality. You resorting to childish personal abuse was the final straw. I will place you on ignore and hopefully continue a sensible discussion with others who may be interested.

You didn't have a sensible discussion... You outright lied.

I called you out on it, and you tried to side step. I pulled you back and insisted you back yourself (giving you several opportunities to justify your comment), and now you run away, tail between your legs and claim to put me on ignore.

You're fooling no one.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Where do you get this information from?

I believe from Punter's other posts, he is/was a part of the Public Service.

 

[CM86]

I believe from Punter's other posts, he is/was a part of the Public Service.

So is Dan Andrews.

 

[sportsmaniac89]

Your perceived victimhood is related to comments that suggest Labor leaders are "morons" or a "dictator". We are allowed to judge your grip on reality by those comments. Whether you are part of a majority or not is completely irrelevant.

Judging the reliability of a source is key to understanding the internet and the world. You should be judging other posters to see how what they say actually matches with real life. You should be judging yourself based on how reliable your own opinions are.

e.g. pretending to be high and mighty and saying you don't judge other posters in the same post where you refer to a "typical Labor supporter response to personally attack someone that disagrees with them" - that's inconsistent and hypocritical.

1) the dictator comment is based on his behaviour during the CFA dispute

2) I judge what posters say but generally I disagree

3) I value my opinion and beliefs and personally if I'm shown something different, I'll look at it, doesn't mean I agree.

4) Yes that was inconsistent but at the same time, I am open to being surprised. Regrettably that is my experience and what I've encountered.

Irrespective the topic is whether unions have too much influence on Dan and I've not seen anything to the contrary

 

[JoseMourinho]

Did you think that Andrews might have been organised to make sure the government paid nothing to end the contract, as is, without even needing to go to court? But the added clause with the bullshit side letter, made it so now he had to pay something, no matter what?

I mean... what if he well knew the terms and outlays of contracts, and he had it all planned (being an evil unionist), but because this clause was added, the booby trap worked just as Nappers had hoped?

He would have to pay Lendlease something no matter what. If Andrews paid zip to Lendlease, they would have taken him to Court for breach of contract. Equity would have entitled them to receive atleast their costs back unless Andrews could get the contract frustrated (and based on the facts infront of us, there is no way in hell that the contract would be frustrated).

They didn't really need the side letter at all to get compensation. They could have potentially pursued profits they may have received (slim chance though).

 

[Farm Boy]

I would rather trust a book over Labor spin.

I did say Union bosses HELPED. Nowhere did I say they were the ultimate reason for Iemma being removed unless you count John Robertson and Bernie Riordan as politicians now. Last I checked, around that time they were Union officials NOT elected by the Labor Party. I know full well about Obeid and Tripodi and the like but the discussion is of Union control over a government.

I don't hate Labor, just find they have people in the party who are absolute morons (Bill Shorten and Dan Andrews). If Jane Garrett rolled Dan Andrews, I would be more open minded towards her as she's a Labor politician with integrity (something that can't be said about Andrews and Merlino)

Garrett would be a lot better than Andrews. That isn't saying a lot though. Andrews is absolutely terrible.

 

[pazza]

If Andrews is so bad, what do we make of his opposition?

Matthew (I want big towers) Guy.