Melbourne Chat

Bishop has been publicly criticised by both sides of politics over her performance.

 

It was Coalition MPs that ultimately forced her off the seat.

 

Anna Burke suffered no such disdain... unless of course you are attributing her performance to the behaviour of Coalition MPs in opposition? After all, they stopped the entire house 75 times for failed no confidence motions

 

It's almost as if the Coalition were taking industrial action to protest against their election loss in 2010. LOL

 

Section 94A is there to keep the house in order, not be used as a cattle prod despite Bishop's rather strange fascination for such a tool :o

Political criticism can be discounted as political maneuvering!

 

You have to agree that!

 

JSmith 

Quote:One counsels a little waiting and seeing.

Huge turn around as pointed out above tend to be followed by others.

Very True

BILL Shorten has bounced from record lows to be five points ahead of Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister, the latest Newspoll shows.

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking...7497359306
 
THE poll, taken for The Australian on the weekend, also shows Labor has a two-party preferred lead of 54 per cent to the Coalition's 46 per cent.
Mr Shorten's five-point lead as preferred prime minister is the first time he has been in front since mid-April. Mr Abbott is on 35 per cent having lost three points over the past fortnight, while Mr Shorten gained two points to be on 40 per cent. Mr Shorten enjoyed a surge in support as satisfaction with his performance jumped five points to a three-month high of 34 per cent.
 
The poll of 1706 people also reveals that, for the first time in five months, Labor has a higher primary vote than the government. (LOL) 
 
Core support for the Coalition fell one point to 38 per cent while Labor's support was unchanged at 39 per cent and the Greens were steady at 13 per cent.

There is a big black cloud hanging over Bill, hence the union attempts to cripple the enquiry into their behaviour.


The facts yet to emerge will sort out a few poll hiccups - don't you worry about that.


Sent from Mossman

Currently we have a superficial PM who only trades with his rich CEO buddies who want to take money off workers whether they are union members or not.


Why else would they use a non Government body to advocate a reduction of penatly rates?


I want to know who the real PM is?


Certainly not the bloke who claimed to be the "workers' best friend" prior to getting elected :ras:

Who are his richer buddies and are they the same as Bill's!


Do they share the same scrutiny of governance requiring a Commission to investigate?



Do these CEO's meet in backrooms to depose lawfully elected PM's - as Bill does?



I think u raised an important issue here - thank you!


P's 27 deg in Mossman

Do CEO's share the same level of scrutiny ?

 

Obviously not. Because if they did there would be a royal commission into their activities.

 

Thank you for agreeing with me

Maybe we should do a RC on the Liberal Party after this little episode.

 
 Victorian Liberals pay back almost $200,000 in taxpayer money, as Damien Mantach scandal grows

 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-25/vi...00/6724816

You reckon Bill Wil follow suit or will he follow Craig Thomson example?

By the by are you now supporting a Commission into Union excesses?

Quote:You reckon Bill Wil follow suit or will he follow Craig Thomson example?

At this point, Neither.

Quote:By the by are you now supporting a Commission into Union excesses?

Three things need to happen first.

1 - This current commission needs to be discontinued because its been compromised by a conflict of interest and will been seen as a political witch hunt.

2 - As per mello's post there needs to be a commission on the activities of all political parties at every level in the area of donations, travel expenses etc.

3 - An investigation of the activities of CEO's, financial directors and any other Lehman Brother wanabees.

Then do the unions, but run it independently, don't use Liberal sympathisers

No where near as mind boggling as Abbott's "Ditch the Witch" hatred of the left...

"To pay $1.2 billion not to build a road. What does that say about Victoria? It's an example of what

goes wrong when in a fit of absent-mindedness the people elect a Labor government."


From a Prime Minister that statement is totally unacceptable. If he can't accept the verdict of the people he is definitely in the wrong job. He is a fake. I can't wait for the above voters to flush him down the crapper next year.


The commission isn't any more or less biased than the ABC is. But it's still a conflict of interest.

 

Have a good weekend!

What humbug, discontinue a Commission that is legally constituted because corrupt union bosses are frightened of the truth being exposed?


To make the argument that all other questionable areas should be investigated first is a blanket red herring.


Investigate whatever you like but let's not halt an existing investigation first.


There is a stench of high level union leadership corruption that must be attended to - for the good of the worker, the country and indeed the ALP itself.


Why people side with very well off and very corrupt union leadership totally eludes me.


Siding against the union membership is very poor form indeed.

Very touching stance on the issue of the well being of workers :blink:
 
However this commission is nothing to do with helping workers, it doesn't even have anything to do with helping employers.
 
It's all about gaining political mileage for the Liberal Party against unions and the ALP.
 
The appointment and defence of Dyson Heydon merely confirms it.

Damned right he should be!


Dwindling union membership illustrates the issue.

Workers do not trust corrupt leadership and vote with their feet.


Swallowing union claims about a well respected senior legal figure - the Commissioner - can be safely left to those who are reluctant to make their own judgement with real data.

Meanwhile it becomes clear just who does run the ALP - Bill or the union leadership?


Answer: the folks who just turned Bill's policy on female representatives upside down - Who? You ask?


Those very same lads that are attempting to destroy a Royal Commission.

Dwindling union membership has nothing to do with thugs and standover men. It's simply because so called "independents" enjoy the same benefits as union members without supporting or paying for it. I know this because it's apparent in both jobs I work and neither union is corrupt and aren't being investigated.

Thugs and standover men says more about employers scabbing off their workers.

The Royal Commission isn't about anything other than a Liberal Govt destroying unions by proxy.

And that is that to your mind.


How can you speak for all those who desert their union?


Apparently they do it because their employers do not use standover men nd therefore do not feel the need to seek the protection of real stand over men.


Checkout the behaviours already aired at the royal commission not to mention the current stand over tactics being used against the Commissioner who has broken no law nor shown bias in his work.


Unless of course his right to free speech is somehow biased!

As previously mentioned, non members just want the benefits we fight for and they want them for free.
 
Our last EBA went from -9% to +4% p/a thanks to the union negotiations.

No union? We would've been stuffed.

No one is saying the Commissioner has broken the law

No one is saying the Commissioner has shown bias

But it's still a conflict of interest because reluctantly or not, as a Liberal member / supporter he can be seen to be to be compromising the integrity of the process.