As the title asks is Bill Shorten a man the workers of Australia can trust to represent them as a friend, and political leader, possibly a future prime Minister. Unfortunately there is growing evidence that Shorten is both a political sellout to ordinary Australians, and in his union days was guilty of undermining the rights of workers within the union he represented, the Australian Workers Union, all for reasons best known to him.
In my days of union activism as a member of the AMWSU, the large right wing union the AWU was always seen as a sellout, an organization that did not truly represent its membership, “a lackey of the bosses” no less. Shorten spent plenty of time as Victorian head of the AWU. He now needs to explain the deal he struck with a big employer of his members Thiess John Holland, the builder of the $2.5 billion Eastlink Tollway in Melbourne. A deal between the company and Shorten’s AWU which seemed to very much favor the company at the expense of the workers. Before the people of Australian put their trust in this man, he needs to explain his involvement in this affair, as well as a few other questionable matters which need explaining. For me Shorten has never been a decent alternative to Abbott, and Labor would do well to look elsewhere.

It's a long time since Labor was the friend of workers. Labor actually exploits workers via unions.

Is it really so bad that a union recognises the need for operations to be reliable and profitable? I'd be more concerned if the opposition leader were from one of those unions that didn't!

Make up your minds.

Either unions are greedy miscreants blackmailing employers and destroying the economy with their demands or they are swindling their members and lowering their conditions by doing deals with the bosses.

It seems the unions cant win. If they advocate for better conditions for workers they are scum and if they do deals to keep employers happy they are scum.

Wake up leftys. You cant beat evil by being nice to it.

Dear Paul,

As a union leader during the mine catastrope
in Tasmania Mr Shorten achieved a reputation of
helping solve the problems created by the
mining industry. His name was frequently mentioned
in the news in a positive manner. I suspect that's why
he was initially invited to join the Labor Party in
Parliament.

When he speaks in the media he appears to have his facts
and know what he's talking about.

I guess time will show us what kind of stuff Mr Shorten
is made of - it's still too early to judge.

"When he speaks in the media he appears to know what he is talking about".

Hell's bells, Foxy. You either have terminal leftitis, or you are confusing Shorten with someone else. He has never answered a straight question, and he has never offered policies. His media performances are really very sad. Every time he opens his mouth, Abbott gets a free kick and a hike in ratings. We will inevitably have another Labor government in the future, but it will not be lead by Shorten.

Deat ttbn,

We're all expressing opinions here
and yours is not any more valid than
mine. And, labeling me for my opinion
is not an appropriate way to argue.

Many commentators have stated that
Bill Shorten has little incentive to change his
tactic of lying low and letting the government muck
things up. Especially while the opposition is ahead
of the government in the polls.

Also Mr Shorten is not in danger of losing his job -
the new party rules changes between elections made
during Kevin Rudd's second term as Prime Minister
has made that extremely unlikely.

I read somewhere that -
Australia's politics is always a two-horse race and
in a two-horse race the winner just has to be ahead of
its only opponent. If one horse stumbles the other
horse can canter to the finishing post under very little
pressure. That is the position we have at the moment.

True Foxy, my opinion is no more valid than yours; but it is your perception, not your opinions, that I am questioning. I've never heard anyone, including rusted on Laborites, say anything positive about Shorten's struggles in front of the media. I feel sorry for the man, but his ineptitude in responding to and (not) answering questions is just another indication that he is unsuited for leadership. He's so bad at handling the media that he makes Abbott look like a real smoothy. How much worse could he be, Abbott being pretty hopeless and only listened to because he is PM.

You don't name your 'commentators', but don't give them too much credence. Following the abysmal performance of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, no body advising Shorten would tell him to do what he is doing and just wait for Abbott to 'muck up'. That isn't going to happen. There's nothing the Coalition can do between the now and the next election that will wipe away the horrors of the last Labor government

The way the unions have monopolies and don't have to open their books guarantees that unscrupulous men such as Shorten will exploit those they are supposed to represent to enrich themselves.

Foxy,

I love the way you assume left whingers are innocent until they are jailed but instantly assume that coalition MPs are guilty of imaginary crimes.

Dear ttbn,

People tend to see things from a viewpoint
of subjectivity. They can adopt varying
perspectives on the same subject.

If the
world consisted simply of some self-evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly
the same way, there might be no
disagreement among observers. But the truth of
the matter is that what we see is shaped by what our
past experience has prepared us to see and by what
we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Inevitably, then, we like anyone else, will be
guilty of some measure of bias - the tendency, often
unconscious, to interpret things according to one's
own values.

It is perfectly legitimate to give as
objective an account as possible of what one is perceiving
(as in the case of Mr Shorten) and then to add a
subjective judgement - making it clear that the
judgement was presented as a matter of personal opinion.

In my personal opinion therefore - based on my perceptions
of the man and the fact that as opposition leader he not
only united the Labor Party but he has
kept Labor in a competitive position for almost the
whole term of the Abbott government. Labor's ascendancy in the
polls means that Mr Shorten's political strategy must
be working. He has made himself a small target and done
an extra-ordinary job as opposition leader considering
that he's only been in the job for shuch a short time.
He appears to be determined not to make the same mistakes
that occurred in the past. And who can blame him.

Mr Abbott heeps shooting himself in the foot. There's no
need to compete with that.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/laura-tingle/being-governed-by-fools-is-not-funny-20150319-1m2wd1

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't assume anything.

Sooner or later the evidence appears
and as has been the case in the past -
the Coalition's history is nothing to be
proud of regarding corruption and playing
dirty. Why even our Prime Minister's
catch-phrase of late is - "Whatever-it-takes!"

Pot/kettle black!

Hi Foxy,

I agree Shorten was painted in a very positive light by the media during the Tasmanian mine disaster, and deservedly so, however I think that is mostly irrelevant when it comes to today's contemporary judgment of him. What I am questioning here is his qualities and his commitment as a political leader, and a potential PM to truly represent the aspirations of those that would vote him into that position, and again I am not comparing him to Abbott and his dismal performance and policies on a range of issues.
Clearly I am not a Shorten fan, and I was not a fan before he entered politics, because of his industrial behavior, or lack of, and in his political life I find him to be much the same, just another right winger masquerading as a friend of the people. It might be skeptical of me, but I find him to be more a friend of Bill Shorten and his political ambition that anyone else, not that ambition is a bad thing, a most common trait in politicians, particularly those that aspire to the top job, and that is the majority.
My Green friends are always telling me, we have to accept the lesser of two evils, we have to be pragmatic and not create divisions with Labor, for the sake of the cause, we must accept ever who and what ever Labor throws up, as it has to be better than the conservative alternative. I am a supporter of a truly progressive government for Australia, as are most of my friends, but they see the road to that goal somewhat differently to me at times, they see the need to divert down the Labor path to fight the conservative enemy in the short term. i do not agree.

Foxy,

You don't consider Shorten's signature on multiple contracts that strip away penalty rates accompanied by payments to the union as "evidence"?

Shorten or his union officers negotiated an agreement that Tony Sheppard claimed brought higher wages, better work safety practices and industrial peace to a major project. That seems like a winning situation for both sides.

In business, and I ran my own business successfully for ten years after 30 years in heavy industry management, it is a practice to have a third party collect money owed to a business. It is call factoring or using an agency. The party collecting the money is paid a fee.

A company collecting membership fees on behalf of a union is performing a factoring task and entitled to get a fee for doing so.
Shorten was not doing anything wrong; he was following the normal business practice of using and paying an agent.

To the conservatives a company following a business practice can do no wrong but a genuine small "l" liberal or union person following the same practice is up to some evil.

Please give some thought to a situation before writing nonsense.

Hi Paul,

I agree with you: call it like it is, clean out the rubbish and move on. How can any cause be worthy unless it is based on truth, justice and integrity ?

Joe

Yes, you are most certainly subjective, Foxy.

Dear ttbn,

I'm pleased to see that you recognise the
importance of subjectivity.

Spoken like our other impartiality expert -
Ms Bronwyn Bishop.

Well done.

to be far to Bill he along with most people has always been about self interest. He is no difference from the rest of humanity. The mask of representing and caring about workers however is disgusting. The Labour/Greens are heroes of taking the high moral ground while really being about lining their own pockets. The climate religion believers have shown this time and time again.

Dear Paul,

I feel that it's still early days to make
judgements on Bill Shorten. He hasn't been
leader for that long. However, as Ben Eltham
points out in his latest article - "Mr Abbott's
time as Prime Minister has been marked by
gaffes and bungles, some trivial and some so
serious that his colleagues came within an ace
of removing him."

The Abbott-led Coalition has an image problem.
"It is seen as nasty, punitive, and out of touch."
And "those ministers who are pulling their weight
are Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison and they only
serve to highlight the mediocrity of time-servers
like Peter Dutton, George Brandis and Kevin Andrews."

Eltham confirms that "Joe Hockey is one of the
government's biggest problems but internal tensions and
leadership worries prevent Abbott from re-shuffling him."

In comparison to all that Bill Shorten and his team is
looking better all the time.

Just to spice things up here is a video of Bill Shorten caught on camera picking his nose and eating the snot.

http://www.2gb.com/article/ray-hadley-video-shorten-picking-his-nose#DwujQbSPRrcYrGWJ.99

Dear Shadow Minister,

No more than you consider the PM's
refusal to answer questions about the
government's payment to people smugglers
as "evidence."

We'll have to wait and see on both fronts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am pleased to see that you're really "raising
the bar" in this discussion - in typical
Abbott "Liberal," fashion.

You really are a "child" of the Liberal Party
it seems.

I'm no fan of Mr SHORTIN or his Party, but these allegations against him, emanating from media sources reporting from the Royal Commission, are scurrilous in the extreme ! Mr SHORTIN is entitled to be heard by the Commission, 'before' anybody's got the right to impeach his character or his integrity !

Even then, the evidence gathering process from the RC, needs to be properly tested by a constituted court of law, only then can these allegations be appropriately determined. Far too many people have had mud thrown at them during these Commissions of Enquiry, therefore having their good fame and character, forever arraigned, without the recourse of the law. It happened to me in the police force, it turned out to be unfounded, nevertheless that stain remained on my record, for my entire career ? You wouldn't want it to happen to you, would you ?

Shorten has been under attack from within his own party. What does he believe in and what does he stand for?

For someone who has been in public life for so long and is the leader of a major party, it is very average indeed that he cannot find answers to such simple questions. His recent problems can only add to that.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/bill-shorten-causes-labor-dismay-over-lack-of-ideas/story-fnbcok0h-1227272018488

Shorten could take some advice and get some spine from his mother in law. A leader cannot be so self-obsessed, egocentric and lazy. That is the way with career politicians though. Labor has too many like that on its front bench - all spin and self-promotion and bugger-all REAL concern for the exasperated electorate they are supposed to be representing.

Foxy,

You really are a piece of work. You say it's too early to judge Shorten, but you are quite happy to give Abbott a serve, even though both have been in respective roles for about the same time. As I said, you certainly are subjective: but, after your above response to me I am not sure that you understand the meaning of that word. Subjective means one sided; objective means open minded and open to argument. I am objective (perhap not always, being human, but I try). You are subjective in all your posts. There is only one way for you - your way and, in this case, Billy's way. I, on the other hand, rubbished both Shorten and Abbott.

Dear ttbn,

Criticising the Prime Minister's actions, his gaffes,
his bungles - does not equate with "rubbishing" him.
As a voter and tax payer, I am entitled to do precisely
that.

As for Mr Shorten ? He's not the one in government.
And so far he has done an extraordinary job as
opposition leader to get Labor into and keep Labor
in the competitive position that they have been in for
almost the whole term of the Abbott government.

As I told you earlier - Bill Shorten has little incentive
to change his tactic of lying low and letting the
government muck things up. The opposition is ahead in the
polls. And this will continue as long as Mr Abbott keeps
shooting himself in the foot.

Foxy,

You are the one that was talking about body gas in another thread, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

P.S. Flatulent also =
inflated or pretentious in speech or writing.
"his flatulent oratory"

Secondly if you knew anything about evidence you would know that a signature on a contract is hard evidence, where as your opinion of what is implied is not.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Not so fast.

You Sir, were the one who brought up the topic of
flatulence calling Michael Gordon's excellent
article as "flatulence postering."

I merely responded to it.

If you now claim that I'm the one without a
leg to stand on then - in that case - you have
no standing whatsoever.

As for "evidence?"

In most courts evidence by witnesses is fully acceptable.
And in the PM's case there have been quite a few.
A judicial inquiry is definitely necessary. No government
should be above the law. Certainly not this one - with
its penchance for twisting the facts to their own political
gain.

No point in arguing with Foxy, folks. She thinks she alone has the answers. (I don't know why I said 'she'. I don't have the slightest idea of Foxy's gender). But, irrespective of gender, Foxy is the most pig-headed person I have ever come across. He or she would never be wrong, is my guess. I don't know how long she/he has been pounding those oddly formatted ideas out, but I'm assuming I would not the first to give up.

Dear ttbn,

Firstly, let me set the record straight.
I certainly don't have all the answers
and my views are not set in concrete.
But, why should they change if I haven't
been convinced of the strength of your
arguments. Evidence and facts have to
be provided to substantiate your claims.

Still, I can understand your wish to give up.
You know your self better than any of us.
And I realise that the art of
reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill that
is not easily acquired. You will undoubtedly
improve given enough time on this forum -
dealing with all sorts of posters.

To quote an old age -

"By perseverance the snail reached the ark."
(Charles Spurgeon).

BTW: I am a female.

cont'd ...

Ooops - excuse my typo.

Before citing the quote the sentence
should read:

"To quote an old adage." (not age)

Whatever she says. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

BTT

Fox, "Bill Shorten has little incentive to change his tactic of lying low?"

You are a political partisan to applaud Shorten's refusal to be answerable even for Labor policy, while you scold the government for not revealing intelligence that would, not could, be used by the international criminal gangs involved in people smuggling - along with other wicked crime such as drug trafficking and sex slavery.

You will be disappointed to know that as a result of his own frontbenchers' unrest at his incapacity to come up with policy ideas and his earlier mentioned ducking questions (that you see as a positive quality!), Shorten has finally agreed to be interviewed for the ABC's Insiders.

What chance that Australia (and his colleagues!) might finally find out what this slippery career politician stands for? Everyone is fed up with his ridiculous, over-practiced and laboured one-liners.

Shorten presents as smug, smarmy, oozing with self satisfaction and above all, elitist. He is seen as the political manipulator. The last thing his previous leaders have heard before the factions' stilettos slipped pass their ribs was Shorten's assurance of his 100% support.

Is it too much to expect that Shorten might at last drop his careful guard to be a mite open and frank with Barrie Cassidy on what he actually stands for and what he actually believes in?

Perhaps this thread should be headed, "Is Bill Shorten the employers' friend or foe ?"

What is being alleged ? That Shorten did deals with at least one company, which - in return for payments into union accounts, to be transferred to Labor Party accounts - netted at least one company hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is alleged that, in order to do this, Shorten short-changed that company's work-force by, roughly, hundreds of millions of dollars.

As well, it is alleged, the company agreed to sign up every worker in its employ as AWU members, without their knowledge. A consequence of this is that the AWU can appear to have many more members on its books, giving it more power at national conferences, which - as we know - has the dominant power to elect the leader of the Labor Party.

i.e. Shorten. It's a long and involved road to power, isn't it ?

If Labor cannot refute these accusations, and its unions won't protect the rights of workers, then I'm voting informal next time. And thereafter.

Joe

Foxy, you said "As for Mr Shorten ? He's not the one in government.
And so far he has done an extraordinary job as opposition leader to get Labor into and keep Labor in the competitive position that they have been in for almost the whole term of the Abbott government."

I don't remember you giving Abbott similar allowance or credit as an Opposition Leader. In fact at the time you wouldn't have given Abbott credit for being able to tie his shoes. You criticised every word Abbott ever uttered in opposition.

Who do you think has proven to be most effective in the role, the man who went from opposition leader to PM, or the opposition leader with no plan, about to be replaced?

Foxy,

The dictionary definition of "flatulent posturing" is "pretentious posturing", but if you had a firm grasp of the English language you would already know that. But I do admit to enjoying the double entendre.

As for evidence, Bill Shorten's signature on an agreement between a company and his organisation that ripped off workers, and hundreds of $1000 of payments by the company for non existent services to his organisation is considered pretty hard evidence. On the other hand comments made by known criminals that is clearly in their favour, not so much as the last debacle proved.

The questions asked by the Age:

Q. Were Winslow workers in 2005 (when the company paid for their dues) aware that they were AWU members?

Q. What did Winslow get in return for paying the AWU?

Q. Was it common practice for the AWU to have companies pay for the membership dues of workers when Mr Shorten was state secretary?

Q. Is it appropriate for companies to pay the union dues of members?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Tony Abbott won the party leadership by just
one vote and his term both in opposition and
in office has been marked by a passionate
embrace of negative campaigning across the
political spectrum. As I've stated earlier -
honing negativity to a fine art in opposition
undermines public fonfidence in the institutions of
government and creates a monster that threatens to
consume them in power.

Yes, I have had serious concerns about Mr Abbott's
judgement and I have questioned whether he's fit to
lead the party at the next election. Mr Abbott's
unbelievable faux pas, the utter confusion and the\
fact that he seems to be in touch with an Australia
50-60 years out od date -I became convinced that
someone else must be ab le to do a better job.

However, I have never used derogatory terms such
as those used by other to describe our former PMs -
Julia Gillard, or Kevin Rudd. My criticism of Mr
Abbott has been of his actions, judgement, policy
flaws, and fitness
as leader. And I am not alone in this. His own MPs
have the same serious concerns.

As Judith Ireland points out in her article in the
Sydney Morning Herald - "3 years is not long enough
for federal governments to settle in. They get 12 months
to have a crack before people start to look nervously
at the next polling date."

She points out that - "the job has become so demanding, so
difficult, so breathless, that it would take a mix of
Gandhi, Superman, Princess Diana, Socrates, Queen Elizabeth I,
and Zeus to do it properly.
Any takers?"

Dear Shadow Minister,

I am pleased that Bill Shorten has agreed to appear on
the ABC programme "The Insiders," this Sunday for an
interview with Barrie Cassidy. Answers to questions
should be resolved. When do you think that our Prime
Minister will do the same regarding the payments to
people smugglers?

Foxy,

I'm just giving up on you, not OLO. You need much more help with your delusions than I could give you. There are some people who learn by rote what they think is right, and they can never change. I grew up in a strict Labor regime. I actually fell for your socialist utopia until I left home, grew up, and started to meet people who didn't have totalitarian politics drummed into them. I proved capable of thinking for myself, and capable of change.
I am still capable of change. While I have been a conservative for long time, and always will be now, I am effectively disenfranchised by the party that, until now, has been the closest thing we have had to a conservative party. Thanks to the total disconnection of Abbott and Hockey from the real world and real people, they have lost my support. I obviously won't vote for ALP wreckers, so I will not vote at all.

My final comment to you is: loosen up. People and situations change all the time. No politician can be trusted.

ttbn,
Foxy has been posting here for longer than I care to recall.

This is what she said about her view that Australia is racist

"People who are in denial about racism in this country are simply ignorant. Lets look at the facts - we imprison
brown asylum seekers, we once celebrated our national day
with a white racist riot. There were assaults on Indian
students, a little political organisation called
One Nation, and of course "the intervention" - the heraldic
beak on our long hawkish treatment of Indigenous Australians".
Foxy, OLO Friday 18-4-2014 12.18.35

These are the 'facts' she uses to support her views. I pointed out her error on a number of occasions but she refused to correct or withdraw.

Dear tbbn,

You giving up on me?

I wasn't aware that I was in need of your approval.
However, now that I know. I guess it's something
I shall have to learn to live with (sigh).

Thank You for sharing your political background with me.
And for being so open and honest. It is appreciated.

I grew up in a Liberal Party supporting
- conservative household.

However, having lived and worked in the United States
(at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles),
I found the US Democratic Party attractive.
Coming back to Australia - I still voted Liberal until
the last term of Mr Howard - where I began to question
what I saw as flaws in not only policies, but his
judgements, and his ability as leader. The rest as they
say is history.

I still voted Liberal at the state elections - but
with Mr Abbott as the leader - federally this is not
going to happen unless there's a change of leadership.

There you have it.

We've both learned something about each other.

One of our most intelligent posters on this forum
is David F. He once gave the following piece of
advice to another poster which I think is appropriate
to pass on here. David told him:

"One way of arguing is to cite one's opinion as fact ...
Which is what you have done. Another way of arguing is
false labeling. Which you have done...
If you wish to argue with me please keep your comments factual
and don't confuse your opinions with fact."

Dear Banjo,

Once again you've taken things out of context.
It would help if you had explained the topic
of the discussion - that was taking place and
the context of my remarks.

This you've neglected to do in your attempt to
slur me - which is typical of your strong
stance against immigrants (especially Muslims).
That is the drum that you keep beating on this
forum - and the skin is wearing a bit thin.

Anyway I shall stand by my posting record.
Yours speaks for itself.

Free Fox burns, ow, ouch! LOL

Foxy,
You will note that I cited the date and reference of your comments, so that anyone, who wishes to do so, can easily look them up. They can then asses the context in which they were made.

What you have done is endeavor to portray your opinion on various events as facts. An honorable person would recognize this and withdraw the comments.

I used to think of you as a nice person but naive.

Dear Banjo,

Not good enough.
You need to explain the context
knowing full well that nobody would
bother ploughing through all of my
posts - and there's heaps of them despite
the given date. Only a person with an
agenda would have done what you did.

However, I still think that you are a
good person with a big heart and you
mean well. I refuse to believe that you
are mean and nasty. We may not agree on
many things but as I've told you in the
past you have influenced me a great deal in
the past. If I have disappointed you somehow
I shall try to be more flexible in the future.

On the Beach,

Too bad you don't have marshmallows.
You'd enjoy the fire even more.

Foxy,

Your unwavering support of Shorten and the unions is amazing. I bet you anything that Shorten effectively says bugger all on Q&A. Maybe he will try the Thompson defense (someone forged my signatures).

Shorten being in charge of wages and conditions is like the Catholic priests in charge of children raping them.

Shorten received a Jesuit education, didn't he?

http://www.xavier.vic.edu.au/xavier/

Banjo,

Yeah. Like all people who misuse and abuse the word 'racist', Foxy is appallingly ignorant of her own language. She and her mates have picked it up from their equally ignorant Labor overlords who use the word as a form of abuse because they can't come up with anything else to shut us up. It's likely that none of them has ever owned a dictionary. But you know all that, and know that it's a waste time trying to get any sense out Foxy. Probably probably a decent women who should mix more. I'm quite over her.

Dear ttbn,

How can you be "over" somebody you've never met and
don't know.

You're pre-judging someone without seeing the full
picture.

But then perhaps if you've got a small screen you
can't really see the full picture adequately.

Just an expression, Foxy. Not sure about the 'small screen' quip, but I 'm sure a polite lady like you isn't into double meanings.

Anyway, I note that you are the only one to respond to my windfarm post so far, so I can't push you away altogther.

Dear ttbn,

Not quite sure what double-meanings
you're referring too here.

My previous reference was straight-forward
referring to the screen
image size. If the screen size is too small then
you shall miss out on seeing the big picture.
You may need tech tips to adjust the screen.

I hope this helps clarify things for you. ;-)

Politicians put on a great performance. Performances are so good, viewers can barely tell the difference between true human reactions or great contrived acting performances. Is Bill Shorten the Workers friend? isn't there something more policy informative than a question that has many guessing answers?

Here's a real question: why is education so traumatising to children? why does education take 10 or more years to learn nothing useable in society? why are many school leavers so untrainable? Why are many people suffering from mental illness complaints: depression; suicide; etc. Why are most school leavers suitable employment limited to manual labouring? why are school leavers unskilled thinking people?
A question should be: why are politicians always talking about themselves?

"Like all people who misuse and abuse the word 'racist', Foxy is appallingly ignorant of her own language"

The terms are used indiscriminately, in lieu of argument and to bully. The Cultural Marxists have won and their political correctness is so widespread and systemic that most folk don't evenb realise when they self-censor.

Seinfeld pointed to the problem recently and how it affects the young,

<Jerry Seinfeld Says Colleges Are Too Politically Correct, Kids Don't Understand Racism Or Sexism

College kids are too politically correct for Jerry Seinfeld.

The comedian spoke to ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd for an episode of "The Herd with Colin Cowherd" to promote the latest season of "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee," and the two talked about political correctness and comedy. Cowherd commented how comedians like Chris Rock and Larry the Cable Guy won't perform at college campuses for this very reason.

"I hear that all the time," Seinfeld said. "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.' I'll give you an example: My daughter's 14. My wife says to her, 'Well, you know, in the next couple years, I think maybe you’re going to want to be hanging around the city more on the weekends, so you can see boys.' You know what my daughter says? She says, ‘That’s sexist.’ They just want to use these words: 'That’s racist'; 'That’s sexist'; 'That’s prejudice.' They don’t know what they’re talking about.”..>
http://tinyurl.com/ne3febe

This great man witnessed the early days of Cultural Marxism's political correctness in the US and cautioned a graduating year of Harvard lawyers against it,

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm

otb,

Don't you have any Australian examples for us?

Australian culture does deserve some recognition from
a self-proclaimed "decent, hard-working,
True-Blue Aussie bloke" such as yourself -
surely.

As for your false labelling of me on this forum.
Give it a rest. That approach has well and truly
been worn thread bare.

Still - WFYB!

Fox,

The quote was not mine but another posters, as you are fully aware.

Nonetheless it did provide an opportunity to broaden the discussion. If you reckon it all applies to you then so be it I guess. Whatever floats your boat.

BTT

otb,

The quote may not have been yours, however you
chose to use it nevertheless. And then carried on
in your usual style.

As I said - WFYB!

Yep Bill ensured workers received less conditions than they would of under work choices while being pocketing the donations/bribe. Typical Labour hyprocrisy. Friend of teachers/nurses, Yeah!

Shorten had his couple of days before the Abbott inspired anti union RC, and in my opinion has come up short! Never been a Shorten fan and even less of a fan of his right wing union the AWU. I recall a few verbal clashes with that long gone forumite Belly over his beloved AWU. Shorten's $40,000 oversight opens a can of worms, given that the money was "donated" directly from capital who's interests are opposed to the very workers Shorten claims to represent.
A big noise within the Labor Party, Bob Hogg, the former ALP national secretary has called on Shorten to resign. If that was to be the case who within the parliamentary Labor Party could take over and put up a creditable fight against the Abbott government? Given the lackluster bunch in government now that normally should be easy for the Labor Party, but it is not. My vote would go to Penny Wong but I am not a party member.

Meeow

Paul1405, "My vote would go to Penny Wong but I am not a party member"

LOL, sly move.

Remembering Wong as the unqualified, limp Minister for Finance in the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments.

As a Green you would be looking forward to Labor collapsing from within. Heh, heh, how many Grrls did it take to destroy Don's Democrats, or to nobble Labor in the States and federally?

Maybe Penny Wong as the Minister for Spin and Indignation, who always has a set script to follow.

I've been trying to put this debacle into some sort of hypothetical perspective. Here goes:

Imagine that some major crime gang has been menacing a city. Instead of bringing in Batman or Captain Marvel, the population have to rely on real people, especially the police.

Imagine that the local police heads do deal with the crime bosses - we'll keep bullquitting the population that we are fighting crime, you blokes can inch up your criminal activities just a little, perhaps a few more abductions and rapes, murders (even of junior police), hijackings of hospital supplies, etc., but nothing too brutal - IF you give us a monthly back-hander of, say, a million or so, broken up into payments into fifty bank accounts, which can be laundered and brought back into one account in the Caymans.

Imagine some of this million is slid across to politicians and judges who are especially favourable to the interests of the police in their respective fields. In return, the police always vote for those politicians, and 'help' judges along.

See ? Almost everybody is happy ! The crime scene is more controlled, they're happy, the police, politicians and judges are happy ! What's not to like ?

Jesus, the thought just crossed my tiny mind that ........

[Xxx]

If Shorten had been in the corporate world and had negotiated on behalf of Party A with Party B whilst taking money from Party B, and signing A to contract with B such that A lost $400m, Shorten would be looking at a very long jail term.

The unions thanks to years of labor have almost no oversight leading to corruption, extortion etc, but they do reward Labor and the greens for doing their bidding by laundering dirty money and funnelling it into their election warchests.

Shadow,

I would have thought Shorten would have been your ideal union leader, "a sellout of the workers."

I'll have to stop referring to you as 'Rumpole Of The Bailey' giving those learned legal opinions, now you are passing judgement's "Shorten would be looking at a very long jail term." Can I now refer to you as the forums Judge Jeffreys

Hi Paul,

Yes, I've been torn between whether, in this situation, to be a capitalist or a socialist: I was thinking that, if I were in Melbourne, I would buy up a truckload of baseball bats and take them around to the court for Shorten's next appearance.

But my dilemma would be:

* do I sell them for five times the wholesale price ? or

* do I give them out free ?

Either way, I know they would go like hot cakes.

In every election that I've voted in, my vote has ultimately gone to Labor, one way or the other. But from now on, my vote will go to the Australian Informal Party. Unless Nick Xenophon decides to contest every lower house seat in SA as well.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

I suppose my limited knowledge of the law is threatening to your complete ignorance. In the realm of the blind the one eyed man is king.

No I don't applaud the crooked deal that Shorten engineered. The problem with the dirty deals done by the unions is that the corrupt companies that deal with them get special labour rates don't only screw their workers, but put other businesses with integrity out of business so the workers on std rates lose their jobs.

Shorten is crook, and I am happy to not only prosecute the unions involved, but the companies too.

News that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten failed
to declare $40,000 in donations to the Australian
Workers' Union comes hot on the heels of Mafia-linked
donations to the Liberal Party.

As one reader in the Saturday Age, July 11, 2015 pointed
out - few people are naïve enough to believe donors are
doing it for selfless reasons, and logic demands that they
will call on elected governments for favours.

Perhaps that's the reason political parties are often
reluctant to declare such donations.

This particular reader suggests that we outlaw private
political donations and introduce a system where taxpayers
fund political advertising campaigns on an equitable basis.
As this reader states - it would be better to pay upfront for
a clean democracy than have to pay long term through this rot
in our political system.

I agree with Shadow Minister there should also be serious
media or government efforts to hold to account the companies
which made the donations.

Hi Foxy,

Forty thousand is small change.

Look more closely at the Cleanevent scam: some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia, required to work weird hours, had their effective hourly rate cut from $ 25 to $ 15, something like that, with the removal of penalty rates for early mornings and weekends - just for this one company, Cleanevent. Other companies - and this is the vital part of the scam - still paid the award rates. Since they couldn't now compete with Cleanevent, they went out of business.

In return for the union-assisted monopolising of the business, the company agreed to sign up all its employees, mostly casuals, to the union, the AWU. So, unawares, the workers were, by hook or by crook, whether they knew it or not, whether they wanted to or not, AWU members. We're talking about many thousands of workers, so this has added considerably to the AWU's standing at national conferences etc. Since they backed their man, Bill Shorten, to head the Labor Party, it's intriguing to speculate whether or not this Cleanevent scam has crowbarred Shorten into that position - and potentially that of Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, Cleanevent has made, on one estimate, four hundred million dollars since the deal was struck.

But that's not all ! For a considerable period, Cleanevent was giving the AWU a back-hander of forty thousand dollars per year, perhaps half a million dollars during the life of the arrangement.

So how many other deals, each more devious and anti-worker than the last, have been done by the man who would be Prime Minister ?

[TBC]

[Continued]

I was in a fairly good union once, out of half a dozen. I was a dough-presser in a major bakery which made most of the State's pies and pasties. Winters were very busy, summers very quiet. In summer, we did the day's work in six hours but got paid for eight.

One day, early in summer, the employment bloke called the women workers together and asked them if they would mind getting paid only for the six hours they worked. Nobody said no. Meanwhile, us blokes kept getting our eight hours' pay and, to our shame, not one bloke remarked about the deal. [This is back in the days when women workers rarely had cars, so they had to get taxis to start work at five a.m., 1.30 a.m. on Fridays, or get their husbands to drop them off].

After about eight weeks, one woman grumbled to one of the blokes, who went around to see the union bloke in the Trades and labour Hall. He said that if he got one complaint, the deal would be overturned. After the next shift, one woman rang him up and complained. He immediately saw the Industrial Advocate who ordered the company to immediately reinstate the arrangement for women as well as the men, AND to repay the women all the back-pay that they had missed. None of the blokes gave a toss.

Looking back, I realise that surely the Union would have known through its on-site man, so they could have acted much sooner - and one wonders if they would have at all, if nobody had put them wise to it. Still, it broke my faith in both unions AND in 'worker solidarity'.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I shall repeat what I've stated in the past.

I am a member of a union, but I've never been put in a
position where I've had to go out on strike. And although
I'm also frustrated when the union does its job badly,
I support without reservation the right of all working
people to join together so as to preserve and protect
their livelihoods.

What I do admire about Mr Shorten is that he's not of the
"old guard." He has stated that the only way in which
the country can work properly is for management and labour
to co-operate with one another, not condemn one another.
He recognises the fact that union s have to be more
sensitive to the realities of modern economic conditions and
that sectarian attitudes and greed serve the cause of labour
badly.

It will be interesting to see the findings of the Royal Commission.
Mr Shorten may well be bruised by them.
He faces many difficulties ahead of the next election -
including the Labor Conference at the end of July.

The Opposition Leader will face difficult questions on a variety
of things - including asylum seeker policy, party reform,
recognition of Palestine and free trade - amongst others.

However, Labor is still ahead in the polls and Mr Shorten is
still the preferred PM (by a few points). So neither the
Coalition or Labor should be too conifdent at this stage.

Both parties still run the risk of losing their support base
and having it drain away. We know that things can change in
politics in a flash.

Interesting times ahead.

cont'd ...

This made me smile:

Bruce McMillan, wrote in the Saturday Age, July 11,2015:

"$80 million to discover Shorten is Opposition Leader.
Money well spent."

Hi Foxy,

Yes, you may be right about " .... sectarian attitudes and greed serve the cause of labour badly."

Those greedy cleaners, getting up at four in the morning to clean toilets - who the hell do they think they are ?

Or do you mean the unions ? Or the Labor Party ? Can you honestly say that the Labor Party still serves workers ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I am quite familiar with how hard people work.
Be they toilet cleaners, factory-workers, or
any one else earning a crust -
so there's no need for your patronising attitude.

From your posts I gather that you are anti-union.
Fair enough. I'm not. As I told you earlier -
I support without reservation the right of all
working people to join
together so as to preserve and protect their livelihoods.
We are in critical times and Australia requires a
re-assessment of the relationship between labour and capital,
a re-assessment which takes into account the politics of
industrial democracy, profit, and job sharing, and long-term
planning.

What I don't believe in is business having the right to get
whatever it wants - and that this is in the best interests
of the working people of this country.

What we don't need is the "kick-the-worker-today-and-take-the-
money-tomorrow" attitude that comes from the Cold War warriors
who are currently at work around the place. I believe in
conciliation - not arbitration. I believe that things can be
worked out if there is co-operation between Management and labour.
So does Mr Shorten.

Hi Joe,

As far back as the 1970's when I was active in the union, the left wing AMWSU, operating on a large industrial site where a numbers of unions operated under the umbrella of the 'Works Committee' including the right wing ETU (electrical). The exception was the AWU which covered the production workers, who were the biggest group of employees. The AWU always operated independently and was very much seen as a 'bosses union' not getting involved in disputes, working through strikes and waiting until things were settled and signing lesser 'sellout' agreements covering their memberships. It was suspected AWU officials and delegates were in the pay of the employers. Many of their own members would feel disgusted with the industrial agreements signed off on. it was a fact the AWU could have obtained much better outcomes for their members many times but for some unexplained reasons never did.

Hi Foxy,

No, I'm certainly not anti-union in principle, it's just that I've rarely been in a decent one. I certainly support 100 % the right of workers to voluntarily and knowingly join a union which wholeheartedly pursues their interests, to the detriment of union-employer relations. Christ, such relations OUGHT to be strained at all times, and in favour of workers, especially the lowest-paid, for people on lousy hours, and doing lousy jobs.

Somebody's got to do those jobs, and they should be well-paid for it, with their pay and rights protected. And THAT's the role of a genuine union. Not that the Labor Party would know about that these days.

No, I'm not being patronising. It's just that I don't trust this need for 'reassessment' if it means favouring one company over all others, and doing the workers in as a consequence. Don't believe everything you read, Foxy. It sounds too much like '"kick-the-worker-today-and-take-the-money-tomorrow", i.e. on the part of some favoured employers and some unions, and I'm sure many workers would see that dirty deal for what it is. "Co-operation" - yeah, right. So who is "co-operating" with whom ? What a bunch of harlots.

Cold War warriors, etc. ? I'm sure that the Libs are praying that Shorten stays where he is, and sinks the Labour Party with him at the next election. And the Labor Party know it, and is just too gutless to do anything about it. Chickens come home to roost ......

Joe

"especially the lowest-paid, for people on lousy hours, and doing lousy jobs." In my experience Joe that applies to unskilled non-unionised workers, or workers covered by large right wing unions like the AWU and SDA (shops).

Hi Paul,

Thank you, and yes, why aren't unions trying to encourage those workers to join unions by doing something useful for them, like going into bat for them ? Too hard ? The unions and the ALP have got what they want out of the scam, and to hell with the workers ?

But aren't they the very people who need the protection of a good union ? Or they as scarce as Poirot's unicorns ?

Barry O'Farrell resigned when it became known that he had accepted a $ 7000 bottle of wine. Cleanevent, it seems, made four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) out of its deal with Shorten, to date. I wonder what the equivalent expiation could be for Shorten.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

I agree, both Shorten/the union and the companies need to feel the force of the law.

Dear SM,

Let us wait and see what the Royal Commission finds
and recommends.

Hi Joe,

You wont get disagreement from me on why aren't unions trying to encourage those workers to join unions by doing something useful for them, like going into bat for them ?
The thing we often forget about unions is a lot is done when a worker is in trouble or has an individual dispute over pay and conditions. i am still a union member and I had reason to call on the union last year after being unable to resolve a 'holiday' issue with my employer. At the same time the union picked up on an hours issue, which I was not aware off, that under the workplace agreement I was entitled to more set hours (I work part time). It was all resolved in my favor and i'm now $30/day better off, with security of hours. My partner "T" is a union deleo in her job, the other day she represented a member over his wanting to return to night shift (more money), unfortunately as he had voluntary taken day shift when returning from 2 months sickness, it wasn't winnable for him. My partner spends lots of unpaid hours on union business, sometimes I tell her to give it up, she says i think I can make a difference, particularly for those with bad English and don't understand, they would have no one to represent them, all I can say to her at 66 is "You're a better man than me Gunga Din."

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2015/07/12/1227439/303717-4915e178-2879-11e5-825e-016da8875d2e.jpg

"It beggars belief that Bill Shorten does not see any conflict of interest between representing his union’s members and receiving undisclosed payments from their employers. That those payments benefited him personally, by helping to finance his political career, only makes his claims all the more implausible.

.....It is, in other words, acceptable to claim payments are for one ­purpose when they are really for another. Why? Because the standards that apply to unions are different from those relevant elsewhere. And in that special world, conduct can be tolerated that usually seems reprehensible.

Unfortunately, that double standard is not exceptional; rather, it is at the heart of Labor’s world view. The result is that after denouncing inquiry after inquiry as a witch hunt, Labor has persistently shut its eyes to the covens those inquiries have found, while opposing each and every attempt to bring union misconduct under control. And that was exactly as true of the Hawke and Keating governments as it is of Shorten today."

Shadow, I agree with you there about Shorten and a conflict of interest. However you tend to be somewhat bias and inconsistent, as you did not see the conflict in NSW of Liberals illegally accepting political donations from developers and then passing approvals which favored those very developers. Just to refresh your memory the conga line of Liberals parading before the ICAC, or Joe Hockey's cash for access saga.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I'm sure there are some very good people out there, going into bat for workers who, these days, would be overwhelmingly non-Anglo, mostly migrant or refugee, who desperately need good union people to protect them from rapacious employers. Like Cleanevent.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cleanevent's workers were mostly in that situation, the very people who Shorten short-changed (allegedly) to simultaneously:

* cut the wages of the most vulnerable, while

* ensuring that that one company could, by paying lousy wages, monopolise the cleaning business and drive competitors out of the market (payoff = $ 400 million, to date), while

* the union got a monthly kick-back AND, unbeknownst to those vulnerable workers, got them added to its books, giving it that much more clout at national conferences, elections for ALP leader, etc.

Both Baldrick and John Grisham would be envious at such a devilishly cunning plan.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

I don't think it has been an accident that large powerful right wing unions like the AWU and SDA control large numbers of workers in poor paying jobs. The employers years ago saw that it was in their interest to see that the "right" sort of people ran the union. The consequence of mass industrial action by those employee would hit the employer very hard and very quickly, and such workers have a lot of power.
You can see with retail, the big employers have very much got what they wanted over the years, be it extended trading hours with reduced penalty rates, or the introduction of self serve check-outs. All the union offers as an incentive to join, is a discount voucher book and little else

Paul,

Firstly you forget that the "Hockey Saga" to which you refer saw Fairfax shell out $100ks of dollars in defamation damages and $ms in Lawyers fees. Secondly, the MPs that took donations were sacked and have left Parliament other than the Labor and greens who took sums of money from developers via the unions, and the Pedophilia problem in the greens.

Shadow, there was no compensation paid to Hockey over the content of the articles. those Liberals only got the flick because they were un-electable.
Conservatives are apt to make wild and exaggerated claims about pedophilia, take the SA Liberal Peter Lewis and his unsubstantiated claims. Tony Abbott the one time would-be catholic priest had confidential talks with George Pell before pulling money out of the Royal Commission on that very subject. A very dirty subject you go into Shadow.

Paul,

The reason that Fairfax got caned in the defamation suit and will probably end up $3m poorer, was not because of the content of the article, but for the Headline that said that he was for sale which was not supported by the content of the article, and the judge found that there was deliberate and malicious intent behind this. Perhaps he was just the typical left whinger that pushed poetic license to the point where it became a lie. Something that you are wont to do.

Pedophilia is a dark subject that at least one green got into as well.

Shadow,

I do not know of any Green that "Pedophilia is a dark subject that at least one green got into as well." Would you care to name that person and I will forward it onto The Greens on your behalf.

Shadow,

I gave you opportunity to make good on your weasel words;

"Pedophilia is a dark subject that at least one green got into as well." Name the person and I will pass it on for you so action can be taken.

Or are you simply a troll trying to flame. I think you are, and have now slithered off to hide under a rock, concerning the person you refuse to name and associate with your weasel words of pedophilia. Of course if you make such a claim and can not provide evidence then that is another story altogether, right Rumpole!

Dear oh dear, it's so easy to slip off-topic, and so entertaining, isn't it ?

Meanwhile the Royal Commission is uncovering thuggery in the CFMEU.

The Labor Party is busy labelling the Royal Commission a witch-hunt: who would have thought that it might uncover so many real witches ?

And so much more to come: wouldn't be dead for quids.

Joe

Hi Joe,

As a unionist I make no apology for the actions of some sections of the movement at times, other than to say the CFMEU is a tough union operating in an equally tough environment today. An environment that many of us have never been subjected to, and therefore have no understanding of the reality of the industry. But that doesn't make it right. On balance I say the likes of Laurie Carmichael AMWSU in my day, and Brian Parker CFMEU today have been a positive for the membership, Brian has never been a "shrinking violet" nor was Laurie when it came to leadership and union matters in those tough industries. Can I say, "have these people always acted within the law", I doubt it.

"A Canberra building project manager has told the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption an ACT construction union official pushed him over on a worksite." ABC News

To that I would say, is that all "pushed over"! In my day I have witnessed much worse, even bashing's, even from the employers side, I could give you a good example of that, never to be condoned, but it did and does happen. I find the actions of the likes of Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson in ripping off low paid workers from the HSU far worse, and now Kathy Jackson has a lot to explain.

Paul,

You won't need to report Karel Solom of the pedogreens as he has already been arrested as well you know.

I wonder if you could comment on the vast amount of money that the greens are taking from the unions last year (nearly $600k) incl >$100k from that quasi mafia union the CFMEU, and whether the Greens decision to block independent oversight of the construction industry is a conflict of interest due to being beholden to the unions?

Shadow,

If you can't find a beat up from one of Murdoch's fish wrappers, you simply invent your own load of rubbish.
What experience do you have with unions, I would think none, simply been another union hating "suit" who's only experience with industrial relations was the times you got pinged by the boss for having another one of those 2 hour long lunches, some of the non productive paper pushes, now computer jockey's, think they are so entitled to.

Paul,

Now I have you cornered, the information was from the parliamentary disclosures by the greens. Here is the information from the greens.

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/07/14/1227442/058504-2e386132-2a2c-11e5-9e41-70fbd812ceac.jpg

As for HR in constructing new plant I have had more than a little experience of the CFMEU their stand over tactics and corruption. With attempts to shut the site over BS safety issues and "taxes" on food vendors, the image of the CFMEU is more organised crime than organised labor.

It would appear that the greens are for sale.

Shadow,

You refer to perfectly legal donations, all above board and transparent, unlike those illegal property developer donations in NSW which seen a conga line of corrupt Liberals paraded before the ICAC. This illegality by the Liberal Party resulted in mass resignations and adverse findings galore, at least a dozen party criminals were flushed out from the Liberal nest of vipers. To quote from one of your own 'The Daily Telegraph' in 2014:

"In nine months, 11 Liberal politicians have resigned, stepped down or moved to the crossbenches amid corruption investigations. Labor’s ship has been equally rat-infested, with names like Obeid, Macdonald, Kelly and Tripodi now bywords for the stink in Macquarie St."

I would pick you as being an 'anti union anti safety' type, a statistics which would be meaningless to you;

"As at 14 July 2015, 83 Australian workers have been killed while at work."

Since 2013, 551 workers have been killed on the job. That is more than the total number of Australians the Liberal Party had killed during the entire Vietnam War. It was safer to be in Vietnam under the Liberals than on a job site today with them in government. If Abbott don't get you with his 'Work No Choices' lack of safety will.

Of course you would say safety issues are BS on construction sites, not withstanding 62 people have lost their lives in 2 1/2 years in the construction industry alone, were you on some kind of bonus system to get the job done? Despite the vigilance of the CFMEU there are still cowboys, bosses and their lackeys who pay lip service to safety on many building sites.

Paul,

Notably the same law in NSW that makes donations from developers illegal also makes donations from unions illegal, So the NSW have broken the law.

I am not against all unions or safety, but I am against criminal unions using bogus safety claims to threaten during negotiations.

A prime example of this is during one negotiation with the union, one of the CFMEU shop stewards ordered the site closed, because he thought he might have got an electrical shock. The only problem was that in the area that this supposedly happened there was no electrical power at all within 50 meters.

The union's miscalculation was that in the site agreement safety issues could close down one area of the large site, but allow people to work in others. The stop work was treated as a strike, and the workers lost 2 days pay. This didn't happen again, and the shop steward wasn't seen on site again.

I would guess that at least some of the injuries at work can be attributed to the CFMEU crying wolf too many times.

Shadow,

From your link, what was the total amount of union donations received by the NSW Greens? Answer Zero, Zilch, Nil, Nothing! Unlike the corrupt Liberals, The NSW Greens respect the law of the land and abide by it.

Are you more concerned in trying to do a little bit of union bashing here, instead of making comment on workers killed on the job site. The likes of you would be perfectly safe at your employment, unless you accidentally stab yourself with a ball point pen and require hospitalisation you should not be in much danger.
Shadow, it is all on the public record, the number of workers killed on the job in Australia. How many of those deaths can you attributed to the CFMEU cry wolf, as you put it?

Paul,

So you are prepared to vouch that not one cent of union money found its way to the NSW Greens? If you claim that it is only the federal, WA, SA, and Vic greens that are corrupt, are you sure that not one cent found its way to NSW, or that the unions never ran any advertising etc for NSW greens?

What is clear is that the Greens senators will vote whatever way the unions want.

Dear SM,

Will the Liberal Party vote against the vested interests
that support it and give it money?
Pot/kettle/black.

Foxy,

I guess that the Liberals will continue to provide policies that are friendly to business, the taxpayer and the economy in general. The liberals are beholden to no one.

As a completely unbiased observer of this thread, I would say that most contributors are - to use Foxy's most appropriate words - pot/kettle/black.

A pox on both of your houses.

Joe

Dear SM,

If the Liberals are beholden to no one - how come
they all speak as one on all issues?
They all toe the party line.

Then we have the various interest
groups (such as mining companies - to name just one
vested interest) who donate money to election campaigns
and certain candidates. They certainly expect a
great deal in return.
Even you have to admit that our party system encourages
people to try to influence the way individual legislators
vote on specific issues.

And toeing the Party line is the way our party system
functions.

We all know that interest groups may be large or small,
temporary or permanent, secretive, or open, but they all
try to gain access to, and sway, those who have power.

Foxy,

So do the greens and Labor politicians generally follow the party line, partially because they share common values and partially because as a party you make collective decisions and stick to them.

There is also a difference between interest groups putting their viewpoints in a persuasive manner, and the iron grip that the unions have over Labor candidate selection and policies.

Given that the unions are now probably the biggest funder of the Greens, it looks as though the Greens are falling under their sway.

Dear SM,

Could you provide us with some evidence of your
claim that the unions are the biggest funder of
the Greens?

This is news to me.

Given that developers were pouring illegal money into the NSW Liberal Party, no wounder they approved 98% of development applications.

Mafia figures donated tens of thousands of dollars to the discredited NSW Liberal Party fundraising vehicle, the Millennium Forum, as part of an ultimately successful campaign to allow a known criminal to stay in Australia. SMH June 30th 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/key-liberal-fundraising-body-took-mafia-money-for-access-20150629-gi07yb.html

"There is also a difference between interest groups putting their viewpoints in a persuasive manner"

Shadow is "interest group" your new name for the Mafia. Do you say "I guess that the Liberals will continue to provide policies that are friendly to the Mafia."

Shadow, The Greens have broken no laws federally or in the states, unlike the corrupt NSW Liberal Party which illegally took donations from property developers!

Foxy,

I said probably. I can't imagine any other group donating nearly $600 000 in one year. I would be happy if you could show otherwise.

Paul,

From a party that has accepted $hundred of thousands of dirty money laundered by the unions, you don't have a leg to stand on, especially after an independent review found nothing untoward in the granting of the visa.

The Coalition being pro business approved projects that had met all the environmental and other criteria that had been waiting years for the incompetent labor green government.

I gather you are no longer disputing that the pedogreens are now beholden to the unions.

What a joke Shadow " I can't imagine any other group donating nearly $600 000 in one year. I would be happy if you could show otherwise."

Liberal Party Donors 2013 federal election

Mrs Roslyn Packer $580,000 look after me boy Tone!
AUSTRALIAN HOTELS & HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION INC. $406,250 keep that booze a flown' Tone.
Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited $250,000 more cluck for your buck Tone.
Pratt Holdings P/L $250,000 one pratt giving to another prat a Tone.
J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd $206,750 Now that 's a load of rubbish for ya Tone.

No lest than 25 millionaires or big business gave $100,000 or more to The Liberal Party before the last election. That does not include shady money channeled through front organisations, set up to hide money from who knows where.

Dear SM,

At least with the Greens and the unions you do admit there may
be some doubt.

Can you say the same about Liberal Party donors.
And I wonder what Liberal body parts they've got a firm grip on.

But enough of the finger-pointing.

Once that starts - we'll run out of fingers.

Paul,

I was making the assertion that the Greens were beholden to the unions and specifically about donations the unions being the single biggest source of donations to the Greens. I assume that your attempt at deflection is acknowledgement that the unions have influence over the decisions of the greens.

As for donations to the liberal party, the party and its members are committed to growing the economy through private enterprise. To this end will approve projects that have met their obligations with respect to community and EPA, while Labor and especially the greens have shown themselves to steadfastly against business will seldom approve projects and are reluctant to let businesses grow without a fat back hand.

Shadow,
Put simply what can the AHA expect in return from the Liberal government for their $406,250 investment in Tone? The Greens refuse to take corporate investments (donations) because we won't be compromised by them like other parties are!

Paul,

The Greens are hypocrites, having taken the biggest corporate donation in Aus history they have no wiggle room.

What the AHA can expect from the libs is not to introduce stupid gambling laws promised by Juliar to swing seats to stay in power.

Hi Paul,

My faulty memory has dug up a multi-million donation to the Greens from some hi-tech entrepreneur; you may be able to correct me on that.

And let's not mention the $ 100,000 (or more ?) from the CFMEU :)

Cheers,

Joe

Shadow, do I understand correctly: you're accusing the Greens of taking donations from the unions, not because of any actual evidence but simply because you can't imagine anyone else donating that much to them?

And what is so stupid about those gambling laws? They'd reduce the amount that gambling addicts lose, with very little effect on anyone else.

Hi Joe,
That particular donation was made by an individual and not a corporation, at the time many within the party including myself opposed such a large amount, Lee was very outspoken about it. Those in support pointed out it was a private donation and that had been made clear to the donor , which he accepted.
I support the public funding of elections with a limit of private expenditure from private donations being set at $30k per.candidate per seat with individual private donations limited to $10k per donor. In other words if you want to support 1 person you can donate $10k to that person 10 candidates $1000 each. Not hard to come up with a system that does not disadvantage minor parties and independents.

Aiden,

The donations by the unions were as declared by the Greens. Look it up.

The donation to the greens was From Wotif. The greens requested that he change the name on the cheque from his solely owned company to his name, however, the funds still came from the company. The pedogreens are still morally bankrupt.

Hi Aiden,
That is exactly what Shadow will tell you is stupid about those gambling laws, they reduce the amount gambling addicts lose. So the gambling lobby makes a big fat donation to the Liberal Party so no anti gambling laws are introduced to slow the huge amounts flowing into the pockets of big gambling. Shadow will tell you it is a good investment by big gambling. He might even tell you it is a win/win all round, a win for the Liberal Party and a win for big gambling, no losers just a couple of winners!

Paul,

The gambling laws were because the restrictive laws were applied to everyone putting a burden on casual gamblers and imposing vast costs on venues that are already marginally profitable.

The result is that licensed gambling in Aus would largely close down and internet Pokies that pay no tax nor take any precautions to prevent addictive gambling. Essentially clubs close, taxes go up, and problem gambling is not helped.

Shadow,

You once again fail to explain how $406,250 from the gambling lobby to the Liberal Party is of assistance to problem gamblers. The fact is Abbott in office had done zilch to tackle problem gambling in Australia, could this have something to do with vested interests donating money to the party. "Venues that are already marginally profitable" you say, so you would put profits before people, typical conservative philosophy, its better for people associated with problem gambling to crash and burn than to have a few gambling business types losing out on profits.

You attack The Greens for taking a donation from a private individual, linking it to a business donation, would you like to do the same for the Roslyn Packer $580,000 donation to the Liberal Party, was it on behalf of James Packer's business interests? Packer's business interests at Barangaroo seem to be getting very good treatment at the hands of the Liberal Government in NSW,

Paul,

The point I was making was that the gambling laws would have little to no effect on problem gamblers as there are plenty of other ways of gambling.

The greens are the ones that took a huge corporate donation in spite of being the only party to ban it in their rules, and taking dirty money from corrupt unions. The liberals have no unions to fund them and are perfectly happy to take donations from uncorrupted members of the public.

Shadow,

Taking $340,000 from a mysterious foreign investment company, in this case the 'Hong Kong Kingston Investments', is just the Liberals being "uncorrupted". Please explain what benefits the Abbott governments were able to bestow upon this Chinese mob in return for the $340,000 gift.
The Liberal Party is a joke when it comes to taking foreign money. Who is Jiefang Huang and why did she donate $100,000 to The NSW Liberal Party? The Liberal Party is a political harlot when it comes to taking money, they will bestow their favors upon anyone, providing the price is right.

Paul,

The benefits that the libs give to all businesses is competent government free of the 1000s of stupid red and green tape regulations that labor and the greens love imposing.

Shadow,

Could this be the answer?

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce says "the world has gone mad" after his own government approved the highly contentious Shenhua Watermark coal mine (CHINESE COAL MINE) in his NSW electorate, despite his vehement protests.
I think it is ridiculous that you would have a major mine in the midst of Australia's best agricultural land" SMH

For a few bob more Abbott would have done a jig naked around Canberra on a frosty winters morning just to entertain the Chinese!

Shadow, just on our other topic 'Pig Iron' Bob the Nazi, did you cop the pic of Pig Iron's favorite Queenie giving the good old "SIEG HEIL" at Buck House? We know Uncle Eddy was a Hitler lover, does it run in the family? Shameful, shameful indeed.

Paul,

FYI, The money for the mine was taken by labor when they charged the Chinese $300m for the exploration rights for the area. These rights that Labor awarded them give them the right to mine the deposits they found subject to meeting the EPA and other requirements, which from what I have read they have already met.

The problem now faced by the Coalition is that the Chinese having paid a fortune to NSW for the rights, having done the exploration and environmental studies, now have a legitimate expectation that they can proceed. If the mine is rejected for no valid reason, the Chinese can sue the federal and NSW governments for $bns, and the revenue and jobs will be lost as well. This is excluding the damage done to Australia's reputation.

As for the queen at age 7 doing the Nazi salute in 1933, I would guess that even then she was more mature than you.

Shadow,

I am surprised that even you would condone a 7 year old giving a Nazi salute! What is the excuse for her mother doing the same thing, and she was a bit older than 7.

"she was more mature than you." getting personal, tut tut that's not your style, or is it. This was published in 'The Sun' in England and according to the newspaper it was in the public interest to publish, your not trying to censor this because it concerns the queen, are you?

And again I ask who is the Hong Kong Kingston investments? and how did they benefit by donating $340,000 to The Liberal Party?