Home > Australian politics, Media > Slippergate…FAIL!


Ah the Coalition…always good for a laugh. Whether it’s the batshit insane hyperbole they spout at the drop of a hat or the lengths they will go to to demonstrate their mastery of hypocrisy, they can always be relied upon to stuff themselves up eventually.

Without even delving into the depths of the Thomson affair, where they are repeatedly asking for his vote to be excluded in Parliament (in defiance of every democratic principle) because he is under investigation for a civil matter, neatly ignoring the fact that two of their own members are currently under investigation for civil matters as well (Mirabella and Turnbull) and that one of their own Senators has been charged and convicted of theft and assault and was still allowed to vote, we can see how laughable any of their intonations of being the party of integrity and principle really are.

Then of course we come to Utegate Mark II Slippergate.  It started out with dire predictions and commentary of corruption and homosexual predation of staffers, manna from heaven for the scum gutter press we have here.

As the days rolled on this has been revealed to be as flimsy as tissue paper, with Slipper first producing Cabcharge copies to refute those claims, resulting in Ashby dropping that issue from his case.  Then we had revelations that both Pyne and Brough, Slipper’s mortal enemy in his seat, had both had contact with Ashby prior to him proceeding with his case…but nothing suss here.  In fact, they both strenuously denied any contact with him only to be caught out later with proof.  Seriously amateur hour stuff.

Next we have a finding that Ashby is running a trial by media because he didn’t go through the normal procedures for sexual harassment of mediation etc., but went straight for the lawsuit and media angle.  Again nothing suss there right?  There have also been whispers around (provided by VexNews) that Ashby was paid $50000 to lodge his claim, which was suspiciously timed to be right before the Budget being handed down with the promised surplus.  I know it sounds a bit conspiracy-theoryish, but why did he sit on these claims for months and only produce them at the time most guaranteed to hurt the Government the most, and couple this with his contact with Pyne and Brough prior to lodging the claims and it looks seriously dodgy.

And now comes the final nail in the coffin, or more likely bullet in the foot.  Ashby has added further to his claims, with him accusing Bob Carr and Barnaby Joyce of “vicitimising” him by comments on Twitter.   I know there’s many people all over the world who are profoundly traumatised by negative comments on a free social network service, especially when you have to search to read those comments or opt to follow the people who are making them voluntarily…I mean it’s the worst pain in the world isn’t it?  /sarc

If this doesn’t immediately highlight the character of the sort of people in the LNP I don’t know what else will.  I fully expect Ashby’s case to be laughed out of court and him to be thrown to the wolves by his LNP/Coalition handlers.  If we’re really lucky he’ll name names and spill the details of how this was manufactured…even the media won’t ignore something this juicy that trashes their sponsors.

  1. May 18, 2012 at 9:34 AM

    The NO Coalition seem to have gone a bit quiet on this one, especially Whiney Pyne who appears to have vanished off the face of the earth. No Brough, no Phoney Tony.
    This whole business has been sus right from the outset.

  2. Catching up
    May 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    Eagerly waiting to see the witness list of the government.

    Lateline tried to present the government of attacking Ashby on behalf of Slipper. This is not true.

    It now appears the government is not allowed to defend itself against the charges made by Ashby.

    The cuckoo nest has nothing on this saga, as presented by the media.

  3. Kevin
    May 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM

    Funny how the whole Costello-Kroger thing was also BIG NEWS during budget week and is now nowhere to be seen as well, but I guess I’m just a mad conspiracy theorist.

  4. Neil of Sydney
    May 18, 2012 at 8:35 PM

    Massive Spray

    You forgot to add that the whole Thomson saga was organised by the Coalition. His phone was hacked by Turnbull and the prostitutes were organised by Hockey.

    The whole HSU thing was a media beatup. I am also sure that Murdoch was involved somehow.

    • May 20, 2012 at 9:18 PM

      Spot on, Neil.

    • jane
      May 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM

      Neil, I think Prissy and Brough seem to be the brothel creepers.

  5. BSA Bob
    May 22, 2012 at 1:03 AM

    And as one aspect of the Ashby claims is discredited, lo and behold something else pops up, to be taken just as ostentatiously seriously by the media support crew. Unless of course an aspect is no longer required, such as the allegations stretching back into Coalition history. In which case it is dumped and mentioned no more.

  6. Kevin
    May 28, 2012 at 6:44 AM

    My “conspiicy theorist” thought for week ending Sunday 27 May……… The whole Craig T saga seems to not be going the way the rabbit and co intended (expressions of concern by the opposition, so he should resign for his his well being, are meet with raised eyebrows by any thinking person) so up pops the perennial favorite….. A little bit of KRudd for PM speculation, you know, just to keep the white noise machine going……

    • May 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

      Yeah made me laugh as well Kevin.
      No sooner do the cracks start to appear in the latest round of Thomson beat-up than lo and behold…another Ruddstoration headline “appears” on the horizon.

      It’s getting to be beyond a joke now…how anyone with half a brain can take anything reported in our media seriously is beyond me.

  7. Min
    May 28, 2012 at 11:41 AM

    Massive, the timing is all important..just when a snippet of good news for the government might grab a headline or two. The Thomson saga currently rests on the memory of a lady of the night from 7 years ago and who has been offered $50,000 should her story ever go to air. Poor lady, her story is very unlikely to ever happen..but it had the desired effect, that is giving credibility to the story.

  8. Catching up
    May 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM

    Min, I suspect that lady has been able to return to her homeland with the help of the media. NZ

  9. jane
    May 28, 2012 at 9:01 PM

    Massive, great post and I reckon you’ve nailed the Liars Party perfectly.

    • Neil of Sydney
      May 28, 2012 at 9:30 PM

      Liars Party??

      You must be talking about the party lead by Gillard. She shook hands, verbally agreed and signed a written document with Wilkie to get his vote. Gillard then welshed on the written agreement.

      Most vile PM this country has ever had is Gillard.

      • jane
        May 29, 2012 at 12:37 AM

        Would that be the same Wilkie the government is currently working with to frame new pokies legislation?

        If you’re going to gibber on about handshakes and written documents betrayed, you’d better keep up with the facts, Neil.

        Nice try, but no cigar as usual.

        • Neil of Sydney
          May 29, 2012 at 4:11 AM

          Gillard is a shocking liar. She broke a written agreement. You people of course support this since you are as corrupt as Gillard. And Wilkie is still upset.


          “INDEPENDENT MP Andrew Wilkie says he has been treated like a pawn and his relationship with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will never be the same again.
          Despite their landmark agreement on watered-down poker machine reforms this past week, the crossbench kingmaker said of negotiating with Ms Gillard: ”You do feel used. I am a pawn to be moved around the board.”

      • Bacchus
        May 29, 2012 at 8:05 AM

        Ms Gillard is an amateur Neil…

        TONY ABBOTT’S take no prisoners approach to politics resulted in the federal government and opposition being absent from Margaret Olley’s memorial.

        The Arts Minister, Simon Crean, was scheduled to attend the memorial and Malcolm Turnbull was to represent the opposition. They would be paired with each other.

        Mr Abbott withdrew a written agreement to pair Mr Crean with Mr Turnbull, which meant neither could attend the state memorial.

        The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, also had to receive the President of the Seychelles but, in an unprecedented move, Mr Abbott refused to grant her a pair and she was unable to vote.

        That really was a low “dog act” by the greatest liar since John W Howard himself…


        • Neil of Sydney
          May 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM

          My understanding is that all pairs are written agreements. They are a little like I am allowed to take some time off work agreements. But if the boss needs you because some situations change the boss may change his mind.

          To compare that to a signed written agreement to form the Government of Australia shows you have totally lost it.

          Gillard lies all the time. It is in her nature. Just like the people who voted for her.

          All Gillard had to do was to submit Wilkies gambling reforms to parliament and when they were defeated she could have said that at least she tried. She didn’t even do that.

        • Bacchus
          May 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

          No Neil – that was a dog-act. He didn’t “need” either Simon Crean or Malcolm Turnbull in parliament that day. Just the spitefulness of a mean-spirited little man who went back on his written word to provide pairs, simply for base political motives – REALLY, REALLY LOW!

          • Neil of Sydney
            May 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM

            Really?? If it was mean-spirited he was mean-spirited to both sides. Abbott expected that everybody turn up to vote. I think from memory it was on the Carbon tax. Such an important vote means no time off from work.

            Still can’t call Gillard a liar can you?? Even though it is written down and documented that she LIED to form govt. No you have to bring up some unicorn.

          • Bacchus
            May 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

            Will you call John Howard a liar Neil? Will you agree with a former treasurer who said Mr Howard was a profligate spender? 😆

            Julia Gillard isn’t in the same league as Howard or Abbott when it comes to lying – she’s got a very long way to go to get anywhere near to either of them…

  10. Min
    May 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    With Windsor and Oakeshott both stating that they wouldn’t support Wilkie’s legislation in it’s original form..common sense would dictate to go back to the drawing board and find something acceptable to the Indies.

    • jane
      May 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

      Hellooo, Min. Common sense and Neil shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence.

      Neil, pairing is a tradition in the Westminster system. And in fact Liealot had agreed to continue the pairing arrangements that all governments have had for any a long year, in writing, I believe.

      But because he thought he could get political advantage, he trashed the agreement, not because it was unworkable, but for grubby political reasons.

      Pokie reform was part of labor’s platform in the 2010 election, so Gillard was already committed to it. However, because there was no hope of pushing the reforms through in the form Wilkie wants, another approach has to taken.

      Incidentally I agree with Wikie’s proposed legislation and I think Gillard does as well, but beating your head against a brick wall is counter productive; all you get is a massive headache and a lump.

      So you have to approach the problem from another angle, something the PM is very good at. No doubt Wilkie is still smarting, but at least SOMETHING is in the pipeline, which is a bloody sight more than the NO he’d get from Liealot and his mates in big gambling.

      And I’d say that she’s thinking well ahead of the pack on this. I wouldn’t mind betting that there are future amendments up her sleeve.

      BTW massive, here’s Ben Eltham’s take on the 1700 foreign workers for the Roy Hill mine. It’s interesting reading.


      • Neil of Sydney
        May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM

        But because he thought he could get political advantage, he trashed the agreement, ”

        What advantage would that be?? He forced his own side to turn up as well. Abbott just wanted everyone to vote on the Carbon Tax.

        However, because there was no hope of pushing the reforms through in the form Wilkie wants, another approach has to taken.”

        Well then she should not have shaken hands, verbally agreed and signed a written document to deceive Wilkie.

        She LIED to win govt.

        • jane
          May 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM

          Grow up, Neil. Granting a pair would have made no difference to the outcome. He knew Turnbull would vote along party lines and he knew Crean would do the same, so they didn’t need to turn up.

          He didn’t give a sh!t about everyone voting-it was pure spite and malevolence.

          It was a slight on Margaret Olley and yet another signal that he’ll trash anything and anyone to get his grubby paws on power.

          WRT Wilkie at the time the agreement was made obviously she thought the legislation would go through.

          What she didn’t anticipate was that Liealot couldn’t give a toss about pokie addiction and its disastrous effect on the addict and their families, friends, co-workers and employers.

          I’ll admit the PM wasn’t too smart about that. She foolishly thought Liealot cared about ordinary folk, not just big

          She didn’t lie to get anything, when it came time to put it to the House, she found that there would not be bi-partisan
          agreement and had to adapt to the change.

          If Windsor and Oakeshott were in support, we wouldn’t be debating the issue. It would have been done and dusted.

          • Neil of Sydney
            May 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

            “He didn’t give a sh!t about everyone voting-it was pure spite and malevolence”

            Really?? How do you know. i think you are making stuff up again. So he did not give a pair to spite Malcolm Turnbull. Are you crazy??

            “WRT Wilkie at the time the agreement was made obviously she thought the legislation would go through.”

            Now you are in la la land. Her own party would have voted against it. They were getting a lot of heat from the clubs and many ALP voters like to go to clubs.

            She should never have made the agreement when she knew her own party would vote against a signed written document.

            She LIED from the beginning to the end. She LIED to Wilkie, she LIED to the Australian people, she LIED to everyone.

            And she put the LIE in writing.

          • Bacchus
            May 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

            Your unbelievable spin on history is, not surprisingly, askew Neil. Labor members didn’t start going weak in the knees until the Clubs Australia lobby started their $20M advertising splurge, specifically targeting Labor members and the Independents. If it had been put to the parliament, the Labor members would have voted for it (and you know very well that is true – Labor members can’t cross the floor.)

            As Jane says, if the Lieberals had supported it, or the Independents had been willing to support the bill, Ms Gillard would have presented it to parliament AND it would have passed.

            I’m 100% sure she expected to get enough support when she signed that deal, but it didn’t work out that way.

            In the absence of sufficient parliamentary support, she negotiated other options. Yes, Mr Wilkie had a bit of a sook for a while, but soon realised that Ms Gillard’s approach was better than what he was set to get any other way.

      • Bacchus
        May 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM

        Nothing so “noble” as the Carbon Price Neil, just more grubby politics Tony Abbot style 🙄

        Eager to keep the heat on the government over the Craig Thomson affair, the opposition moved a motion at 9am yesterday demanding Mr Thomson make a statement to Parliament.

        To pass, the motion needed an absolute majority of 76 votes, so Mr Abbott cancelled all pairs.

  11. Neil of Sydney
    May 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

    “Ms Gillard would have presented it to parliament AND it would have passed.”

    O.K. Why did she not present it to parliament??

    If it did not pass at least she could say she tried.

    Gillard should have attempted to pass the Legislation as she promised.

    • jane
      May 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM

      Neil your selective quote won’t get you anywhere! Here is what Bacchus wrote:

      “if the Lieberals had supported it, or the Independents had been willing to support the bill, Ms Gillard would have presented it to parliament AND it would have passed.”

      No point beating your head on a brick wall, all you’ll get is a giant headache and an egg on your forehead.

      The PM is a practical woman and doesn’t see much point in giving herself a giant headache and an egg, so she and Mr Wilkie have put their heads together to rework the bill.

      • Neil of Sydney
        May 29, 2012 at 8:21 PM


        Gillard has the numbers to pass anything through parliament. I have heard many times about how much legislation has passed through parliament.

        Gillard did not present it to parliament because her own party was against it. I suspect many Liebor party members would have abstained from voting or have not been in parliament when the vote was taken.

        • jane
          May 30, 2012 at 12:23 AM

          Neil, even if your scenario is accurate, if the opposition would have supported it, the bill would have succeeded. The facts are that the opposition as usual just said NO. and the two key Independents Windsor and Oakeshott also did not support it.

          If you don’t have the numbers, the bill doesn’t pass. Simple arithmetic.

  12. Catching up
    May 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

    I am also sure that the PM does not want to leave lying around any bills that maybe used for a DD election. Wise decision that.

  13. Bacchus
    May 29, 2012 at 11:16 PM

    That’s an interesting one CU. Could (or would) an incoming Coalition government use bills defeated in the Senate to attempt a DD election? I think it may be a bit more complex than that 😉


  14. Catching up
    May 29, 2012 at 11:37 PM

    It is extreme and would need a lot o fall into place.

    This is only my reading of the situation.

    If the PM lost the confidence of the house, that would leave it up to the GG.

    She would I believe order Abbott to form government. If Abbott obtained the numbers he would be obliged to do this.

    If he or no one else can, there would be another election called, but only for the lower house. The houses have been so long in sync, I don’t think many would remember that this is not the norm. There would a short term and early election somewhere down the track to bring them into sync.

    If Abbott did get the numbers, he would be tempted to go to a early election. He cannot call both houses out till the end of July next year. Now unless there is a landslide, like none we have seen before, it is gong to be a long time before he gets control of the senate.

    I believe if there were bills sitting there, that have qualified for a DD, he would be able to call one. Now I could be wrong.

    I do not know what would happen if there were DD bills available and the GG called an election. From my recollection, we have only been here once before. I believe Labor took over from Menzies, with an election down the track. It was was wartime I believe. The GG might be tempted to call a DD if it was possible. This action would keep the houses in sync.

    It is a unlikely scenario. Labor losing at this time IMO is not the worse outcome. Abbott winning both houses is.

    Why take the risk by having a couple of DD bills.

    It is unlikely to happen, that is even if it is possible.

  15. Catching up
    May 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM

    No, Neil, the Greens and some of the Independents won’t.

    Keep to the facts.

    • jane
      May 30, 2012 at 12:28 AM

      Fat chance, CU. Neil doesn’t like FACTS, he likes factoids.

  16. Bacchus
    May 30, 2012 at 12:44 AM

    In terms of a DD trigger CU – the government would need to get a bill passed by the lower house and have it rejected by the senate. A minimum of three months later, the lower house passes the legislation again and presents it to the Senate. If the Senate rejects the bill a second time, the government can then ask the GG for a DD.

    Put into current discussions – The PM puts up the pokies legislation bill to the HOR. If it’s defeated, all ends there. (this is the current realistic scenario). If it’s passed by the HOR & goes to the Senate, IF they reject it, the government needs to wait 3 months before presenting it to the HOR again.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that after the first rejection of the bill by the Senate, an election is held which, deity forbid, gives the Coalition a majority in the HOR, but not the Senate.

    * What’s the chance of an Abbott government presenting the same, unamended pokies bill to the Senate?
    * Even if they did, what’s the chances of it being rejected with the threat of a DD hanging on that vote?

    Realistically, Abbott couldn’t fabricate a DD trigger until an absolute minimum of 3 months and a few days after an election – he’d have to pass legislation through the HOR that he knew would be rejected by the Senate, wait 3 months, present it again, have it rejected again, then he’s got his trigger.

  17. Neil of Sydney
    May 30, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    The fact is Gillard LIED to win govt. She should have put Wilkies reforms up for a vote. Then she could have said at least she tried.

    She LIED to everybody

    • Bacchus
      May 30, 2012 at 9:17 AM

      The image I’m getting of Neil atm – eyes tightly shut, fingers in ears, singing LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA, LA 😆

      • Neil of Sydney
        May 30, 2012 at 9:19 AM

        Well Bacchus she should never have signed a written agreement if she was never going to put it up for a vote.

        Gillard was just being sneaky.

        • jane
          May 30, 2012 at 11:52 PM

          Neil, how do you know she never intended to put it to a vote? All you know is that when it did come to put it to the vote, the numbers weren’t there.

  18. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    Neil, there is legislation going forwarded with Wilkie’s support. Would say that matter has been dealt with.

    Since when does one only expect legislation to reflect one hundred percent of what is promised or proposed.

    One puts up the proposal. One then drafts the laws.

    One then revises and emends.

    What we hope emerges is the best options available.

    This is what has occurred.

    Due process has led to a bill that is likely to be passed.

    That is the real world.

    That is democracy.

    Remember Mr. Howard could not deliver the GST he promised. He changed his proposals to get the law through.

    Mr. Howard did not delivered the changes to land rights he promised. He had also had to move from his promised position.

    I believe that Mr. Wilkie is learning that politics is not about what is promised, but about what is possible.

    Yes, it is the art of the possible.

  19. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    PS. I believe this and most other PM’s make promises in good faith.

    We should also know that conditions can change, making it not prudent to keep literally to promises.

    This is good sense. It is stupid to tie one to a promise when a better option emerges.

    Some PMs have found the better option is too adopt the Oppositions position. Now that is amazing.

    What we want is the best answers. That maybe different than promised.

  20. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    Opposition has moved two suspension of standing orders already today. Thomson voted twice with Opposition.

  21. Neil of Sydney
    May 30, 2012 at 1:57 PM

    Since when does one only expect legislation to reflect one hundred percent of what is promised or proposed.”

    When you sign a written agreement so that person will support your effort to form a minority government.

    There were no changed conditions.

    • May 31, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      Wrong Neil…the changed conditions were that Oakeshott and Windsor wouldn’t support it.
      Gillard delivered Labor’s votes but Wilkie couldn’t convince the two holdouts to agree. Unless the PM has an amazing ability to foretell the future there was no way this could be known when the agreement was signed.
      Not hard to understand is it?

  22. Bacchus
    May 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

    Hmmm. Is that anything like signing a written agreement to provide pairs, but then reneging for base political motives when there’s to be a vote in the HOR on the Thomson saga of all things, denying two senior frontbenchers attendance at the funeral of an important and well respected public figure? 🙄

    With Tony Abbott, it’s all about Tony getting the keys to the Lodge by fair means or foul, while with Julia Gillard, it’s about achieving the possible in a hung parliament.

    I repeat CU’s sage words in bold – I believe this and most other PM’s make promises in good faith.

    • Neil of Sydney
      May 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM

      What base political motives??? Abbott wanted everyone to be in parliament for the Carbon Tax vote. Just because you say it was for base political motives does not mean it was. I cannot remember but I think Labor changed the date of the vote so it is O.K. to change your mind about allowing people to take time off work.

      Gillard LIED to win government She showed everybody what drives her. Lust for POWER.

    • Bacchus
      May 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

      Read the link I posted yesterday morning Neil.


      TONY ABBOTT’S take no prisoners approach to politics resulted in the federal government and opposition being absent from Margaret Olley’s memorial.

      Eager to keep the heat on the government over the Craig Thomson affair, the opposition moved a motion at 9am yesterday demanding Mr Thomson make a statement to Parliament.

      To pass, the motion needed an absolute majority of 76 votes, so Mr Abbott cancelled all pairs.

      The Arts Minister, Simon Crean, was scheduled to attend the memorial and Malcolm Turnbull was to represent the opposition. They would be paired with each other.

      Mr Abbott withdrew a written agreement to pair Mr Crean with Mr Turnbull, which meant neither could attend the state memorial.

      http://contagiouscommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lalalala-listening.jpg 🙄

      • Neil of Sydney
        May 30, 2012 at 4:05 PM

        I will say it again. WHAT BASE POLITICAL MOTIVE??? Abbott treated both sides equally.

        What is the political advantage in denying a pair???

        • jane
          May 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM

          Ask your mate Liealot; he signed the pairing arrangement, but tore it up when he glormed onto the rumours about Craig Thomson

          He did it because he’s a very nasty piece of work. Always has been, always will be. He has a history of it. A bully and a misogynist.

      • Bacchus
        May 30, 2012 at 5:31 PM

        The point is he needed an absolute majority of 76. Is it now I thump you behind the left ear with the 4×2? 😉 Are you listening now? We’re not talking about a simple majority of 1/2 the members present + 1, but an absolute majority – 76 votes no matter how many are present in the parliament at the time.

        And this for such an “important matter” 🙄 as demanding Mr Thomson make a statement to Parliament – a matter so important, members of the government and the Coalition were not able to attend Margaret Olley’s memorial.

        Excuse the French, but that’s fckn disgusting to any decent human being!

  23. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    When one signs agreements. They are not in reality set in stone. Circumstance change. Action needed change.

    What evidence do you have that the agreement was not made in good faith. Have you seen the agreement. Maybe, like most agreements, it had a let out cause. A cause that makes allowance for unseen circumstances.

    There is one vow most take and sign. That is that of marriage. We promise until death do part. How many take this literally today.

    Most, I believe, when they get marriage are genuine and intend to keep the promise.

    Whats more this promise has been kept in great part. It has not been dumped in it’s entirety.

    • Neil of Sydney
      May 30, 2012 at 4:09 PM

      It is amazing how opinions change when the ALP is in power. All I remember is Howard being condemned because of his core and non-core promises. I actually do not know what the non-core promises were but i do remember the abuse ALP supporters gave him.

      I do know that the situation had changed. In 1996 the ALP told the Opposition that the budget was in surplus. When Howard got in he found that Kim Beazley had lied and there was a $10B black hole. So they could not do everything they wanted.

  24. Min
    May 30, 2012 at 4:08 PM

    Cu, indeed circumstances do change. Tony Abbott has promised to turn the boats around, however his chances of doing this are zero. So when he doesn’t achieve it, it will of course mean that he LIED.

  25. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    Min, if he wants to try something else after he fails, he will have to go back to the people.

    Is that good governance?

    • Min
      May 31, 2012 at 12:31 PM

      Cu, I suspect that Tony’s next pair of budgie smugglers will last a lot longer than this promise.

  26. Catching up
    May 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM

    Mr. Howard, bought in legislation, so the next government could not hide the economic health of the country. He also bought in legislation that tested the promises of all.

    It appears that legislation had a words missing. It was only meant for Labor.

    The black hole that Mr. Keating and Hawke found after Mr. Howard’s reign as Treasurer was much bigger. So were the interest rates during his time as Treasurer.

  27. Neil of Sydney
    May 31, 2012 at 5:56 AM

    I cannot believe you people are trying to make some comparison between denying pairs, which is just permission to take time off work and a signed document to deceive Wilkie to get the Government of Australia.

    Gillard is a nasty piece of work (like the people who voted for her) and the worst PM this nation has ever had.

    And there were no changed circumstances. She deceived Wilkie to win govt.

    • Bacchus
      May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM

      That’s just your opinion Neil, and you know what they say about opinions… 😉

      Your opinion is no more valid than say CU’s above. In fact, given your appalling lack of critical thinking skills, I’d say hers is more considered and more valuable than yours could ever hope to be…

      • May 31, 2012 at 8:59 AM

        +1 Bacchus

      • Neil of Sydney
        May 31, 2012 at 9:56 AM

        Well that is just your opinion.

        Too bad you cannot condemn Gillard for breaking a written agreement as you would have done if it was JH.

  28. Catching up
    May 31, 2012 at 10:55 AM

    Neil, it also seems to be the opinion of Mr. O’Farrell as well.

    He said yesterday, after breaking an commitment, that one has to govern according the parliament that the voters deliver.

    The PM is not there to keep promises but to delver good governance.

    I say this, because the needs of the whole community have to be met.

    I heard a comment this morning that is time to do away with a two party system.

    The problem is that perception id false. We do not vote for a party. The fact that we have a minority governmental, duly elected as per the Constitution proves that.

    We vote for one MP in our electorate.

    The parliament is made us of individual MP’s , who have made different promises and have different agenda’s, that I assume are supported by those who voted for them.

    The house as a whole represent the many different views.

    Therefore to believe who ever wins must literally put the promises they made into operation is a little short sighted.

    It is up to the PM to govern once they get into power. That is a lot more than keeping promises. it is doing what is best at the time. It means taking the views of others that are also elected.

    It was a wonderful tactic pf the Liberals hero, Mr. Menzies to adopt many of Mr. Caldwell’s policies once elected.

    I do not condemn that, because it means they have the ability to recognized and accept that sometimes there is a better way.

    Now back to those shocking lies the PM told.

    Carbon Tax. Promised not to have one. Promised to address carbon emission. Well we do not have a carbon tax. We have a cost on carbon emission. We have a promise kept, earlier than planned.

    Poker machines. Agreement made with Wilkie. His proposals did not get support of the cross benches. If Mr. Wilkie wanted it all kept, it was up to him to convince others. He was unsuccessful. What we will have a fairly strong legislation on poker machines for the first time in history. I would say the agreement has been kept, in as much as the house allows.

    This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of Mr. O’Farrell. All promises cannot be kept.

    Breaking agree parliamentary protocols because one thinks they can win, is not playing to the rules. It is the same as hitting below the belt in a boxing match. It is not accepted, and one is disqualified.

    I have read that this is the way, your man behaved within the ring. One thing for sure, he is consistent.

  29. Neil of Sydney
    May 31, 2012 at 4:04 PM

    So I get it. ALP politicians are allowed to tell lies if the situation changes.

    Furthermore falling interest rates are due to the genius of Wayne Swan but our budget deficits are due to the GFC.

  30. Catching up
    May 31, 2012 at 7:09 PM

    Neil, you do not get it. No one has said anyone is entitled to lie.

    You appear to have your own meaning of what a lie is, that you only apply to the PM.

    You are implying the PM is unethical.

    I suggest that those who push the myth of the great big lie, that they know is not a lie, are the unethical ones.

    You can include yourself in that bucket.

    When one knows that the debate at the time was between the merits of a carbon tax V an ETS, takes half a statement, ignoring the climate it was made in, deliberately phrased to give it a different meaning, is unethical.

    That is what has occurred, and most with a little nous knows this to be true.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: