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?