Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
IQSRLOW
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:26 pm
Post
by IQSRLOW » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:34 am
Entrusted to goons
Kevin uses 30 year old "advisors", Julia uses bodyguards
In claims that will fuel the distrust between the Gillard and Rudd camps, sources have told The Weekend Australian that when Ms Gillard was deputy prime minister she regularly failed to attend cabinet's national security committee meetings. Instead, she reportedly sent her former bodyguard and junior staff member Andrew Stark.
A spokesman for Ms Gillard said cabinet confidentiality meant she could not defend herself from the damaging allegations.
Sieve leaking incompetence
-
HIGHERBEAM
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:51 pm
Post
by HIGHERBEAM » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:23 am
Its good to see you out and about,how was it inside the santarium
Will the Board survive under this Admin? Yes
Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius
ut operor nos ban monachus
-
Ethnic
Post
by Ethnic » Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:15 pm
A junior staff member sent to cabinet national security meetings? Is this idiot for real? Forget the 'santarium', Gillard should be in a sanitarium. HIGHBEAM what the fuck is a 'santarium' anyway?
-
mantra
- Posts: 9132
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:45 am
Post
by mantra » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:08 pm
More propaganda I assume. Is there any proof of this? Who are these sources - coalition shadow ministers no doubt.
Rudd was supposed to attend the meetings - wasn't he? Howard didn't attend once and sent someone else in his place. Why is Gillard getting the blame for this when it was Rudd's responsibility?
Rudd wasn't a team player and didn't "share" with his staff. Gillard may not have had a say in the matter.
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:41 pm
mantra wrote:More propaganda I assume. Is there any proof of this? Who are these sources - coalition shadow ministers no doubt.
Rudd was supposed to attend the meetings - wasn't he? Howard didn't attend once and sent someone else in his place. Why is Gillard getting the blame for this when it was Rudd's responsibility?
Rudd wasn't a team player and didn't "share" with his staff. Gillard may not have had a say in the matter.
Your ABC reported it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 969711.htm
-
Sappho
Post
by Sappho » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:08 pm
Ethnic wrote:A junior staff member sent to cabinet national security meetings? Is this idiot for real? Forget the 'santarium', Gillard should be in a sanitarium. HIGHBEAM what the fuck is a 'santarium' anyway?
It's like a sanitarium, but with added salt and sugar... for taste.
-
IQSRLOW
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:26 pm
Post
by IQSRLOW » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:08 pm
mantra wrote:More propaganda I assume. Is there any proof of this? Who are these sources - coalition shadow ministers no doubt.
Rudd was supposed to attend the meetings - wasn't he? Howard didn't attend once and sent someone else in his place. Why is Gillard getting the blame for this when it was Rudd's responsibility?
Rudd wasn't a team player and didn't "share" with his staff. Gillard may not have had a say in the matter.
It was a leak from Labor party sources.
What's the matter Mantra? Starting to panic now the real Labor party is starting to show their true colours?
Nice to see that you couldn't bear to be critical of any of the fuckups no matter how bad they get
-
Sappho
Post
by Sappho » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:15 pm
United we stand. Divided we fall.
-
J.W. Frogen
- Posts: 470
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:11 pm
Post
by J.W. Frogen » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:56 am
I have never been to national security briefings but I have been to a lot of regional military security briefings and believe me it is often just a reiteration of what is already known.
Critical meetings are flagged thus, new, breaking information is rare and would be signaled that the PM should attend.
I have no problem with any PM sending a rep to the more mundane meetings.
Just because a meeting is tagged with the exciting term 'National Security' does not mean anything important is going to be said in it.
Last edited by
J.W. Frogen on Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
HIGHERBEAM
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:51 pm
Post
by HIGHERBEAM » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:06 pm
National security meeting under Labor
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Will the Board survive under this Admin? Yes
Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius
ut operor nos ban monachus
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 58 guests
