Diary of our stinking opposition

[village_person]

Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh shifts position on previous support for a GP fee

Labor's shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh was once a strong supporter of a compulsory fee for visits to the doctor - a policy now slammed by the opposition as a “GP tax” that would hurt the community’s most vulnerable.

But in a 2003 Sydney Morning Herald article Dr Leigh, then a PhD student in economics at Harvard University, argued a Medicare co-payment was “hardly a radical idea”.

“As health researchers have shown, cost-less medical care means that people go to the doctor even when they don't need to, driving up the cost for all of us," Dr Leigh and co-author Richard Holden wrote.

“But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all.

“As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment - not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc."

Dr Leigh argued the fee should be enough to deter “frivolous GP visits”, but not enough to limit genuine preventive care. The fee should apply to everyone, including pensioners, except those who are chronically ill, he wrote.

Dr Leigh, who has opposed the proposal in media appearances over recent weeks, told Fairfax Media: "Since 2003, a lot has changed in the health care system, and I've changed my view on co-payments.

 “A GP co-payment was originally a Hawke government proposal led by Brian Howe, a member of the Left faction,” he said.

“As long as it is applied fairly across the community, a co-payment is a perfectly valid policy measure. If Andrew Leigh, before he had to toe the party line, recognised that then I welcome his contribution to the debate. I respect Andrew Leigh as a sensible economist.”

On Saturday, Dr Leigh, a former professor of economics at the Australian National University, distanced himself from an article he wrote in 2004 supporting fee deregulation for universities – another policy opposed by Labor.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-frontbencher-andrew-leigh-shifts-positio...

Yes, it’s the very well respected ALP whey-faced Dr Andrew Leigh who virtually declared his previous books and speeches as mere works of fiction. This brings into sharp focus Dr Leigh's economics degree.

[village_person]

 Who remembers the day a bottle of red caused Fatty O'Barrel to hand in his badge? Fatty's brave battle with ebriosity was revealed for all to see. He had a memory lapse and paid for it by doing the honourable thing. How 'bout Bill 'the bagman' Shorten, will you do the honourable thing?

Bill Shorten under pressure at union royal commission over $40k election campaign donation

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has denied he was waiting to see whether a $40,000 donation to his 2007 election campaign would emerge in the trade union royal commission before deciding to declare it this week.

Counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar tabled a letter on Wednesday showing a campaign donation, dating back to the 2007 federal election, was only fully declared to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Australia's electoral watchdog on Monday.

The letter, from Mr Shorten to ALP official Kosmos Samaras, details more than $40,000 received by Mr Shorten to pay for the services of a campaign manager.

The former Victorian and national head of the Australian Workers Union, who appeared before the commission for the first time on Wednesday, faced questions over several cases raised so far at the hearings, including claims about deals that were allegedly detrimental to workers but helped business.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-08/shorten-under-pressure-over-2007-electoral-funding-disclosure/...

C'mon Bill 'the bagman' Shorten, do the right thing.

[village_person]

More bad press for Bill 'the bagman' Shorten.

Bill Shorten walks away from Royal Commission grilling with lingering problem

THE spectacle of a private company paying for a trade union leader’s campaign for Parliament will jar with many voters.

That’s the problem Bill Shorten walked away with yesterday after six hours in front of the Trade Union Royal Commission today, and with another day to come.

The 2007 campaign funding deal with labour-hire company Unibilt will seem unnatural to some — like dogs playing with cats - and suspicious to others. Was this a pay-off for services rendered at the expense of union members?

There was no evidence, certainly not on day one of his appearance, that the Opposition Leader did anything illegal, immoral or unethical while he was Victorian and national secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union.

And the AWU members working for the donor company enjoyed wages and conditions above industry standards. In fact, they did very well from Mr Shorten’s negotiations.

But the late declaration of the election donation of $40,000 — lodged just 144 hours before he fronted Justice Dyson Heydon today — will add to those lurking suspicions.

He was not the first candidate to fail to make financial declarations on time. Both Joe Hockey (14 years late in one instance) and Tony Abbott have records of tardiness in satisfying public accountability.

And former Labor MP and Australian Council of Trade Unions executive Greg Combet said it was not unusual for candidates to get funds from companies, whether they be Labor or Liberal aligned.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/bill-shorten-walks-away-from-royal-commission-grilling-with-ling...

[village_person]

Now even the Commissioner (who votes Greens by the way) is unimpressed by Bill 'the bagman' Shorten.

LABOR leader Bill Shorten has been admonished and his credibility as a witness questioned as he repeatedly avoided answering questions at the royal commission into trade union corruption in Sydney today.

Commissioner Dyson Heydon said he was concerned about Mr Shorten’s credibility as a witness and warned him to give “proper” answers as he faced questions over his deals as union boss.

Mr Shorten was being quizzed over $300,000 in “bogus” payments from building companies that secured union co-operation on the giant Melbourne EastLink project.

But he continually offered long and convoluted answers that failed to answer specific questions about invoices.

“A lot of your answers are non-responsive,” Commissioner Heydon said.

“Some of your answers are responsive, but then add something that isn’t responsive.”

He added: “What I am concerned about more is your credibility as a witness. A witness — and perhaps your self interest as well.”

Commissioner Heydon warned Mr Shorten that it was in his self-interest to concentrate on “giving a proper answer”.

Mr Shorten replied: “I’m conscious of the commissioner’s advice that if we want to be here two days, move along and answer questions.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/bill-shorten-arrives-for-second-day-of-grilling-at-royal-com...

Bill 'the bagman' Shorten has had a few memory lapses of late so his memory was put to the test. He was blindfolded and then asked to find the pay office in the federal parliament building. Sure enough he found it with no trouble. Seems like his memory only fails now and then.

[icyfroth]

Bill Shorten and Labor's leadership dilemma

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has endured a dreadful week on the witness stand of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, on top of a shocker of a month politically, during which colleagues cannot have regarded him as anything other than a liability.

"Very damaging", was the conclusion of one of Labor's most senior and respected figures after monitoring the commission hearings.

Shorten's shifty performance under cross-examination on relations between unions and employers exposed the Labor dilemma for all to see.

Put simply, the question is whether an already compromised William Richard Shorten – Shorten was disloyal to two Labor leaders, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – is electable under any reasonable scenario, including widespread disaffection with Tony Abbott.

And, more immediately, whether Shorten, given that he is damaged goods, will have the authority to assert himself over Labor's national conference at the end of this month at a time when his own right faction is yielding ground to the left?

Nothing that happened before the royal commission will have lessened a public perception of Shorten's untrustworthiness – or rendered him more electable, or knowable.

Among criticisms – fair or not – is that the Opposition Leader does not stand for anything beyond his own advancement.

Labor insiders could not help contrasting Shorten's meandering performance this week with a crisp appearance by Gillard before the royal commission in which she dealt relatively effectively with embarrassing personal questions about her relationship with a former AWU official.

"When I was a lawyer I never had a client on a witness stand as bad as him," is the judgement of one Labor insider.

Entire Article Here

If that's the best Labor's got I'd hate to see the rest.

[tezza2844]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Bill Shorten and Labor's leadership dilemma

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has endured a dreadful week on the witness stand of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, on top of a shocker of a month politically, during which colleagues cannot have regarded him as anything other than a liability.

"Very damaging", was the conclusion of one of Labor's most senior and respected figures after monitoring the commission hearings.

Shorten's shifty performance under cross-examination on relations between unions and employers exposed the Labor dilemma for all to see.

Put simply, the question is whether an already compromised William Richard Shorten – Shorten was disloyal to two Labor leaders, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – is electable under any reasonable scenario, including widespread disaffection with Tony Abbott.

And, more immediately, whether Shorten, given that he is damaged goods, will have the authority to assert himself over Labor's national conference at the end of this month at a time when his own right faction is yielding ground to the left?

Nothing that happened before the royal commission will have lessened a public perception of Shorten's untrustworthiness – or rendered him more electable, or knowable.

Among criticisms – fair or not – is that the Opposition Leader does not stand for anything beyond his own advancement.

Labor insiders could not help contrasting Shorten's meandering performance this week with a crisp appearance by Gillard before the royal commission in which she dealt relatively effectively with embarrassing personal questions about her relationship with a former AWU official.

"When I was a lawyer I never had a client on a witness stand as bad as him," is the judgement of one Labor insider.

Entire Article Here

If that's the best Labor's got I'd hate to see the rest.

Any idea who these "Faceless Men of the Labor Party" are?

---

[icyfroth]

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Bill Shorten and Labor's leadership dilemma

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has endured a dreadful week on the witness stand of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, on top of a shocker of a month politically, during which colleagues cannot have regarded him as anything other than a liability.

"Very damaging", was the conclusion of one of Labor's most senior and respected figures after monitoring the commission hearings.

Shorten's shifty performance under cross-examination on relations between unions and employers exposed the Labor dilemma for all to see.

Put simply, the question is whether an already compromised William Richard Shorten – Shorten was disloyal to two Labor leaders, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – is electable under any reasonable scenario, including widespread disaffection with Tony Abbott.

And, more immediately, whether Shorten, given that he is damaged goods, will have the authority to assert himself over Labor's national conference at the end of this month at a time when his own right faction is yielding ground to the left?

Nothing that happened before the royal commission will have lessened a public perception of Shorten's untrustworthiness – or rendered him more electable, or knowable.

Among criticisms – fair or not – is that the Opposition Leader does not stand for anything beyond his own advancement.

Labor insiders could not help contrasting Shorten's meandering performance this week with a crisp appearance by Gillard before the royal commission in which she dealt relatively effectively with embarrassing personal questions about her relationship with a former AWU official.

"When I was a lawyer I never had a client on a witness stand as bad as him," is the judgement of one Labor insider.

Entire Article Here

If that's the best Labor's got I'd hate to see the rest.

Any idea who these "Faceless Men of the Labor Party" are?

---

You're asking me? At a guess I'd say they're probably "the rest".

[tezza2844]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Bill Shorten and Labor's leadership dilemma

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has endured a dreadful week on the witness stand of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, on top of a shocker of a month politically, during which colleagues cannot have regarded him as anything other than a liability.

"Very damaging", was the conclusion of one of Labor's most senior and respected figures after monitoring the commission hearings.

Shorten's shifty performance under cross-examination on relations between unions and employers exposed the Labor dilemma for all to see.

Put simply, the question is whether an already compromised William Richard Shorten – Shorten was disloyal to two Labor leaders, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – is electable under any reasonable scenario, including widespread disaffection with Tony Abbott.

And, more immediately, whether Shorten, given that he is damaged goods, will have the authority to assert himself over Labor's national conference at the end of this month at a time when his own right faction is yielding ground to the left?

Nothing that happened before the royal commission will have lessened a public perception of Shorten's untrustworthiness – or rendered him more electable, or knowable.

Among criticisms – fair or not – is that the Opposition Leader does not stand for anything beyond his own advancement.

Labor insiders could not help contrasting Shorten's meandering performance this week with a crisp appearance by Gillard before the royal commission in which she dealt relatively effectively with embarrassing personal questions about her relationship with a former AWU official.

"When I was a lawyer I never had a client on a witness stand as bad as him," is the judgement of one Labor insider.

Entire Article Here

If that's the best Labor's got I'd hate to see the rest.

Any idea who these "Faceless Men of the Labor Party" are?

---

You're asking me? At a guess I'd say they're probably "the rest".

---

When people start a conversation with everybody knows, it's common knowledge, you and I know, I heard it on the grape vine etc etc I tend to think here comes a load of bulls**t.

Like wise when I read or see articles that claim to come from a reliable source, a high placed party member (of any political party) "the rest" , a party official I usually doubt it as a factual statement and more of opportunity to get a bit of fiction into the public eye. e.g "A  Liberal Party member has said that Sophie Mirabella is one of the most kindest and soft hearted people in Australian Politics".

[icyfroth]

---

@tezza2844 wrote:

When people start a conversation with everybody knows, it's common knowledge, you and I know, I heard it on the grape vine etc etc I tend to think here comes a load of bulls**t.

Like wise when I read or see articles that claim to come from a reliable source, a high placed party member (of any political party) "the rest" , a party official I usually doubt it as a factual statement and more of opportunity to get a bit of fiction into the public eye. e.g "A  Liberal Party member has said that Sophie Mirabella is one of the most kindest and soft hearted people in Australian Politics".

---

of course you do.

[debra9275]

I don't know who these faceless men are either, on last nights news, they were reporting that the Labor party fully supported Shorten.

the only people I've seen calling for him to step down are the Murdoch press, the LNP, an ex Labor party  person (Bob Hogg) and I think Laurie Oakes

[moonflyte]

They have to keep Bill, they couldn't possibly do another knifing of a Lab leader could they? Well yes they could if his stocks keep sinking but consider the alternative, the ultra left wing Plibersek and her ilk getting control of the party, Labor will never let that happen.