Politicians having affairs- does it change your vote?

[NSWCROW]

Wasn't it that coward abbott who said " the age of entitlement is over " ???............

 

[sherb]

Wasn't it that coward abbott who said " the age of entitlement is over " ???............

That was Hockey from memory.

And what an entitled twat he proved to be.

 

[Dry Rot]

That was Hockey from memory.

And what an entitled twat he proved to be.

And still is.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Latest Poll

ALP 37,
Greens 10,
Libs 33,
Nats 3,
PHON 8,
others 9

ALP 53 (+1)
Coalition 47 (-1)

if election was being held today
Labor 85 (+16) seats
Coalition 60 (-16) seats
others 5 seats

27th straight loss for Malcolm Turnbull

 

[Number37]

Gotcha. Where did you read about those specifics? This is the information available via the IPEA:

So the cost to us taxpayers for Campion, if she was on the trip, was not $62K. To add to the confusion, though, Campion wasn't meant to be a member of his staff at that time. Canavan lists no travel. So Joyce seconded her? Did Joyce list it because she would later work with him for a short period within the Quarter. That doesn't seem right, but I can imagine Canavan wanting Joyce to list it if it was dodgy. Joyce also has huge costs for employee travel domestically, which is meant to be Campion, so the 'non-partner' defence appears to be all he is hanging his hat on.

She appeared to still be working for him often. Turnbull must've known that. And as Savva said, the entitlements and travel is what reveals their time together. She wrote her column a month after that trip. Also, Joyce went to the mid-Winter ball with his wife 15 days after the trip.

There was no suggestion that the entire $62k related to Ms Campion.
Because employee costs are only recorded as aggregated it is easy for Joyce to hide who exactly those costs relate to.
Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue, but given Joyce's claims the questions are being asked so that he can provide clarity.
The suggestion is that he won't provide clarity because it will bring his entire story undone.
The suggestion is also that certain journos know that Campion was with him for the 2nd part of the trip but not the first. He won't answer why.

There is chatter on twitter that his wife attended the mid-winter ball at the request of senior Nationals. Given the ducks and drakes already at play to conceal his relationship with Ms Campion, it is a fair question to ask about whether he was conducting his personal affairs at the expense of the Commonwealth.

 

[Gough]

Turnbull doesn't get it. Apparently it's all about whether Shorten supports his bonk ban.

 

[Number37]

Turnbull doesn't get it. Apparently it's all about whether Shorten supports his bonk ban.

LNP Playbook

Step 1 - Blame Labor
Step 2 - Blame Labor
Step 3 - Blame Labor
Step 4 - if steps 1-3 don't work, try to turn it into an issue about Labor
Step 5 - Blame Labor

 

[Demosthenes]

In fairness, Shorten is letting Turnbull make this an issue. "Bosses shouldn't sleep with their employees" is a bit of a no-brainer, and you're not going to get a lot of traction with the electorate by opposing it.

The smart thing to do would be to quickly agree and take it off the table, like Howard did to Latham over the super thing.

 

[GreyCrow]

In fairness, Shorten is letting Turnbull make this an issue. "Bosses shouldn't sleep with their employees" is a bit of a no-brainer, and you're not going to get a lot of traction with the electorate by opposing it.

The smart thing to do would be to quickly agree and take it off the table, like Howard did to Latham over the super thing.

Shorten cant. Its a wedge tactic.

He agrees and then like the Dual Citizenship suddenly fingers are pointed across the aisle

He takes the hits for a day or 2 and the focus shifts back to Barnaby

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

There was no suggestion that the entire $62k related to Ms Campion.
Because employee costs are only recorded as aggregated it is easy for Joyce to hide who exactly those costs relate to.
Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue, but given Joyce's claims the questions are being asked so that he can provide clarity.
The suggestion is that he won't provide clarity because it will bring his entire story undone.
The suggestion is also that certain journos know that Campion was with him for the 2nd part of the trip but not the first. He won't answer why.

There is chatter on twitter that his wife attended the mid-winter ball at the request of senior Nationals. Given the ducks and drakes already at play to conceal his relationship with Ms Campion, it is a fair question to ask about whether he was conducting his personal affairs at the expense of the Commonwealth.

Of course. But it has been questioned, including via FOI, and is continued to be questioned. And you're being very generous to say "There was no suggestion that the entire $62k related to Ms Campion". You didn't answer where the info you had came from?

As someone that was a journalist, though never the heady heights of Canberra correspondent, the media absolutely dropped the ball here. Whether they were scared off by those in power angrily telling them it was a private matter or being too busy/lazy to realise there was more going on, I don't know. But everyone knew something not right was happening and chose not to report it. For ****s sake, Barnaby made veiled attacks on Windsor's family situation while stepping out on his wife. That alone made his indiscretion newsworthy.

Well, you can be the next batter to attempt to answer the question then, given others have failed, which is making this a repetitive thread.

What exactly were they meant to report? It sounds like you are saying it's the affair they should've revealed? As for the "veiled attacks" are you talking about the ad which riffed on voting for Windsor as if it was a relationship? Because that's another thing that people are wilfully misconstruing.

What in god's name?

It was common knowledge she was Barnaby's partner. How could a "reason" be more obvious? How could anybody see that situation and not think "potential jobs for the boys (girls) situation here"?

As a journalist that's where you dig, talk to people and find out what she's doing there, when she got there, whose job she took... in Canberra the story would come together very quickly.

Your desperation to defend the media is extraordinary.

It’s more permanent than a "cover up" you keep referring to. All this grubby affair shows is the unacceptable relationship between the media and politicians in Canberra.



Of course you're accusing her of being kept around due to her relationship... that's what happened! And any number of sources would have confirmed it at the time.

That's your job as a journalist. You constantly have to question people's credibility, motives and judgement. It's not the easiest of jobs (when it's being done properly, that is).

It gets back to what I was saying about there being a permanently unacceptable culture among the Canberra press. You dismiss it with "sex lives generally aren't reported on". That's simply unacceptable no matter what some unspoken "rule" is. A story about a relationship between an elected politician and a staffer is absolutely in the public interest and should be reported. If politicians have created some agreement with the press where it's not, then the journalists are derelict in their duties. The proof is in the pudding - a relationship with staff causes a situation that is ripe for corruption. Private businesses know this and thus it's usually dealt with.

Cultures such as this aren't uncommon btw. It's clearly the case with political reporters in Canberra. Many would say the AFL have a similar MO. Cultures and "agreements" among groups of journalists and their subjects happen quite a bit, and are a constant threat to press independence. They can't just be accepted.

Here you continue your attack on journalists, while you have your information wrong. So you think (as others do) that the situation was wildly obvious because you don't understand the situtation. She didn't take anyone's job. With the information we can glean in this thread (i.e. actual information, not angry accusation), it appears she still worked, at least every now and again, with Barnaby. She was technically under Canavan, then Joyce again, then Drum, but she was consistently seen doing work for the National Party. As you would expect.

Do you think that there would be obvious delineations between different MPs which would make a journalist focused on issues and MPs suddenly think that they should see if something odd has happened with Campion's pay structure? Journalists were digging around Joyce's travel claims. Are you aware that Campion is qualified? Because you claim she was "kept around due to her relationship" as if there is no other potential reason for her to be there?

 

[GreyCrow]

Ratts , are you a journo?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Wasn't it that coward abbott who said " the age of entitlement is over " ???............

Now we have a different set of numbers, which contradict what was posted on the previous page.

Why don't people care about facts anymore?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Of course. But it has been questioned, including via FOI, and is continued to be questioned. And you're being very generous to say "There was no suggestion that the entire $62k related to Ms Campion". You didn't answer where the info you had came from?

Well, you can be the next batter to attempt to answer the question then, given others have failed, which is making this a repetitive thread.

What exactly were they meant to report? It sounds like you are saying it's the affair they should've revealed? As for the "veiled attacks" are you talking about the ad which riffed on voting for Windsor as if it was a relationship? Because that's another thing that people are wilfully misconstruing.

Here you continue your attack on journalists, while you have your information wrong. So you think (as others do) that the situation was wildly obvious because you don't understand the situtation. She didn't take anyone's job. With the information we can glean in this thread (i.e. actual information, not angry accusation), it appears she still worked, at least every now and again, with Barnaby. She was technically under Canavan, then Joyce again, then Drum, but she was consistently seen doing work for the National Party. As you would expect.

Do you think that there would be obvious delineations between different MPs which would make a journalist focused on issues and MPs suddenly think that they should see if something odd has happened with Campion's pay structure? Journalists were digging around Joyce's travel claims. Are you aware that Campion is qualified? Because you claim she was "kept around due to her relationship" as if there is no other potential reason for her to be there?

You’re so far off, I don’t know what more to say to you.

She was Barnaby’s partner. That’s the starting point. Not her qualifications. Not her made-up “work”. Of course they should bloody check the roles and pay structure. Employing somebody’s partner presents an enormous risk for conflict of interest. Anybody in any workplace can tell you that. Any journalist that dug a little would have found the issues.

They simply didn’t report it because of the cushy relationship that MPs have created with the press gallery. This time it’s gone too far and what looks like an open and shut case of corruption has gone unreported for months.

You’re also arguing it shouldn’t have been reported due to the positions that MPs would take - “she’s qualified, she has other reasons to be there...” etc etc. That’s not a journalist’s job to argue the subject’s shaky defences. Report the facts and let them do that.

 

[NSWCROW]

Now we have a different set of numbers, which contradict what was posted on the previous page.

Why don't people care about facts anymore?

I'd say a major part of it is the fact there's all these different media outlets , each with their own " dog in the fight "
Mixed messages , murdoch anti-turnbull , ch9 pro-turnbull anti-barney , throw in twitter and we have this.

I think it's just that the majority of australians are sick of hearing the same spin so are searching out for themselves.
That's just my opinion.

 

[Demosthenes]

Ratts , are you a journo?

With his grammar, I'd hope not.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You’re so far off, I don’t know what more to say to you.

She was Barnaby’s partner. That’s the starting point. Not her qualifications. Not her made-up “work”. Of course they should bloody check the roles and pay structure. Employing somebody’s partner presents an enormous risk for conflict of interest. Anybody in any workplace can tell you that. Any journalist that dug a little would have found the issues.

They simply didn’t report it because of the cushy relationship that MPs have created with the press gallery. This time it’s gone too far and what looks like an open and shut case of corruption has gone unreported for months.

You’re also arguing it shouldn’t have been reported due to the positions that MPs would take - “she’s qualified, she has other reasons to be there...” etc etc. That’s not a journalist’s job to argue the subject’s shaky defences. Report the facts and let them do that.

Your inability to listen is making the conversation pretty pointless. Campion is qualified. Her work isn't "made-up "work"". You still claim things are obvious, yet you cannot express them yourself. If it's "an open and shut case of corruption" you should be able to explain it.

I'd say a major part of it is the fact there's all these different media outlets , each with their own " dog in the fight "
Mixed messages , murdoch anti-turnbull , ch9 pro-turnbull anti-barney , throw in twitter and we have this.

I think it's just that the majority of australians are sick of hearing the same spin so are searching out for themselves.
That's just my opinion.

I think it's because we won't pay for journalism. So there are far less journalists. They are stretched. So they focus on the big story - Barnaby v Turnbull v other stakeholders - rather than doing detail. It's hard to find detail these days unless the more occasional, thorough commentators (like what Waleed used to do at Fairfax) turn their attention to it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Your inability to listen is making the conversation pretty pointless. Campion is qualified. Her work isn't "made-up "work"". You still claim things are obvious, yet you cannot express them yourself. If it's "an open and shut case of corruption" you should be able to explain it.

How is having a qualification and a made-up role mutually exclusive? The role didn’t exist before or after. She’s the squeeze of the party leader. It’s so stupidly obvious I don’t know what more to say to you.

 

[NSWCROW]

I don't even know where to start with this thick campaigner......

EDIT - LOON POND knows where !!!!

http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/2018/02/in-which-pond-hunts-most-dangerous-game.html#.WoorXOeYPIU

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

How is having a qualification and a made-up role mutually exclusive? The role didn’t exist before or after. She’s the squeeze of the party leader. It’s so stupidly obvious I don’t know what more to say to you.

What more to say? You've hardly said anything. Given you think it is such blatant corruption, yet the media isn't reporting it as you think they should, you should be able to mention the detail that you think is being under-reported or ignored. You're making massive accusations about people's jobs.

Gerard Henderson isn't that reliable, but according to him on Insiders, Campion was doing the same role for the National Party, just under different bosses. Given she appeared to still be doing work for Joyce, while not technically working for Joyce, that does seem likely. She worked for Joyce, they had an affair, and so she was (eventually) moved to improve the work situation in that office. Joyce's chief of staff demanded it. So her desk is then in Canavan's office, but she is still doing work for the National Party, and for Joyce. Is that really "made-up "work""? Doesn't seem like it.

If her salary was upped, as has been said, she would probably say she was doing more work as she wasn't only working for Joyce anymore. It's very hard for journalists to find out the truth, because the people she worked with are not only loyal to The Nationals, but loyal to Joyce and his mates.

It's obvious that Joyce is happy to spend our taxpayer money on his personal life. He should go. Due to this issue, his self-centredness on other issues (e.g. that department going to his electorate), and more importantly the other allegedly dodgy associations between Nationals' issues and odd happenings (e.g. water, and there are suggestions the inland rail project looks a bit dodge too, but they're on Twitter so need to be taken with a grain of salt).

I object to the claim of conspiracies. You see it everywhere these days, and we know the Russians deliberately stake it. I'm not saying that's the case here, but the culture online has been stoked to believe in conspiracies, and to promote cynicism. I've seen no reason yet to devalue the entire press gallery over this issue, beyond what we already know about them being constantly asked to do more with less, and so journalism's gone downhill this last decade.

The Nats still seem to think Joyce will survive this. i.e. Even with everything people know (or think they know), the Nats don't think he's done anything technically all that wrong (due to their 'she wasn't his partner at the time' defence).

You will keep thinking that means "an open and shut case of corruption", but you refuse to explain it in detail, and your general comments make it look like you don't understand the detail. So you will lose faith in Democracy without being able to fully explain why. That's a very high cost for little gained.

This is repetitive and someone will probably have a crack about length (or some other ad hominem distraction). But empathy & facts should be fought for.

 

[Maggie5]

What more to say? You've hardly said anything. Given you think it is such blatant corruption, yet the media isn't reporting it as you think they should, you should be able to mention the detail that you think is being under-reported or ignored. You're making massive accusations about people's jobs.

Gerard Henderson isn't that reliable, but according to him on Insiders, Campion was doing the same role for the National Party, just under different bosses. Given she appeared to still be doing work for Joyce, while not technically working for Joyce, that does seem likely. She worked for Joyce, they had an affair, and so she was (eventually) moved to improve the work situation in that office. Joyce's chief of staff demanded it. So her desk is then in Canavan's office, but she is still doing work for the National Party, and for Joyce. Is that really "made-up "work""? Doesn't seem like it.

If her salary was upped, as has been said, she would probably say she was doing more work as she wasn't only working for Joyce anymore. It's very hard for journalists to find out the truth, because the people she worked with are not only loyal to The Nationals, but loyal to Joyce and his mates.

It's obvious that Joyce is happy to spend our taxpayer money on his personal life. He should go. Due to this issue, his self-centredness on other issues (e.g. that department going to his electorate), and more importantly the other allegedly dodgy associations between Nationals' issues and odd happenings (e.g. water, and there are suggestions the inland rail project looks a bit dodge too, but they're on Twitter so need to be taken with a grain of salt).

I object to the claim of conspiracies. You see it everywhere these days, and we know the Russians deliberately stake it. I'm not saying that's the case here, but the culture online has been stoked to believe in conspiracies, and to promote cynicism. I've seen no reason yet to devalue the entire press gallery over this issue, beyond what we already know about them being constantly asked to do more with less, and so journalism's gone downhill this last decade.

The Nats still seem to think Joyce will survive this. i.e. Even with everything people know (or think they know), the Nats don't think he's done anything technically all that wrong (due to their 'she wasn't his partner at the time' defence).

You will keep thinking that means "an open and shut case of corruption", but you refuse to explain it in detail, and your general comments make it look like you don't understand the detail. So you will lose faith in Democracy without being able to fully explain why. That's a very high cost for little gained.

This is repetitive and someone will probably have a crack about length (or some other ad hominem distraction). But empathy & facts should be fought for.

I seriously don't understand your postion on this re Campions employment. If her work in those offices were genuine, why wasn't she replaced when moved?

Here is a direct quote on some of the work she did:

(Michelle) Landry was asked about the authenticity of a job Campion apparently ‘won’ after being moved out of Joyce’s office. And what she offered up not only shows that she’s still ‘hip to the groove of the youth of today, m’homies’, but it’s also quite possibly the quote of the year so far.

“My office has worked quite closely with Vikki (Campion)…. She did a lot for the Nationals, getting us more hands-on with the Facebook and the Twitter.”

And for her part, Campion must be worth her weight in gold. Landry now has a whopping 76 followers on her ‘the Twitter’ account, although she’s apparently been unable to work out how to get the official Twitter ‘blue tick’ thus far, despite being a member of parliament.

Note: Landry now has 82 followers and about the same on Facebook. LOL.

 

[Number37]

Campion is qualified. Her work isn't "made-up "work"". You still claim things are obvious, yet you cannot express them yourself. If it's "an open and shut case of corruption" you should be able to explain it.

It is a form over substance argument.
The entire purpose that the form of her employment changed was because it would have been a clear breach of the code of conduct had it continued as normal (as Barnaby's staffer). The only logical conclusion is that she was moved for the sole purpose of avoiding a breach, but she continued to work with Barnaby. There are photos on Twitter of her working with Barnaby long after the date she supposedly moved. The substance of her employment never changed.
As Mark Kenny said on Insiders, the purpose/spirit of the code of conduct is to stop exactly this kind of thing. Barnaby and Malcolm have simply been using weasel words to explain their way out of it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I seriously don't understand your postion on this re Campions employment. If her work in those offices were genuine, why wasn't she replaced when moved?

Here is a direct quote on some of the work she did:

(Michelle) Landry was asked about the authenticity of a job Campion apparently ‘won’ after being moved out of Joyce’s office. And what she offered up not only shows that she’s still ‘hip to the groove of the youth of today, m’homies’, but it’s also quite possibly the quote of the year so far.

“My office has worked quite closely with Vikki (Campion)…. She did a lot for the Nationals, getting us more hands-on with the Facebook and the Twitter.”

And for her part, Campion must be worth her weight in gold. Landry now has a whopping 76 followers on her ‘the Twitter’ account, although she’s apparently been unable to work out how to get the official Twitter ‘blue tick’ thus far, despite being a member of parliament.

Note: Landry now has 82 followers and about the same on Facebook. LOL.

Why don't you just read what I wrote?

She didn't work for Landry, so why quote figures for Landy? Is it because, "LOL", the other numbers for the Nationals aren't as useful to the spin?

The Nats have 25K followers on Twitter and about half that on Facebook. Joyce has 85K on Twitter and half that on FB. Should I keep doing all the work pointing out lazy thinking, or are you going to think for half a minute about whether some of the echo chamber's spin may be biased? That maybe Landry (who only became the Nats' whip this year) is going to suck on social media because she calls it "the Twitter"? That maybe her comments are an indication of what Campion had to work with, and why Joyce is therefore so needed by the Nats because he's the best way they can communicate successfully?

There really is a limit to what people can learn online if they don't pay attention to how life works offline and outside their bubble. This is a major problem for Democracy, and needs to be countered.

It is a form over substance argument.
The entire purpose that the form of her employment changed was because it would have been a clear breach of the code of conduct had it continued as normal (as Barnaby's staffer). The only logical conclusion is that she was moved for the sole purpose of avoiding a breach, but she continued to work with Barnaby. There are photos on Twitter of her working with Barnaby long after the date she supposedly moved. The substance of her employment never changed.
As Mark Kenny said on Insiders, the purpose/spirit of the code of conduct is to stop exactly this kind of thing. Barnaby and Malcolm have simply been using weasel words to explain their way out of it.

Exactly. But that's not what a few people in here think, and a lot of people elsewhere. I do think the media has done a poor job explaining it all. That will probably change now Joyce and the Nats appear to be thinking of keeping him on as leader, but lots of people don't listen to them anyway anymore and all this cynicism isn't going to help that.

 

[Number37]

You didn't answer where the info you had came from?

All over the place, yes including Twitter.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

All over the place, yes including Twitter.

Nothing wrong with that, if the sources are reliable. I wasn't asking as some kind of 'gotcha', I was asking to try and find out who was reporting on the issue with detail, because there doesn't appear to be much out there.

 

[JackOutback]

I think it's because we won't pay for journalism. So there are far less journalists. They are stretched. So they focus on the big story - Barnaby v Turnbull v other stakeholders - rather than doing detail. It's hard to find detail these days unless the more occasional, thorough commentators (like what Waleed used to do at Fairfax) turn their attention to it.

I agree entirely with that; I said the media's failure to get the story could be as much about being too busy as it is about being too lazy or scared. But there was something to see here and the media weren't looking.