GG Bryce and ethics re- son in law ALP Bill Shorten

[mellie]

I just think it's important the public know what they're voting for, don't you?

Time to call a spade a spade.

Some Labor in-siders speculate the GG's daughter was the harlot, this and trapped him (Getting pregnant), though given he was married to a Lib's daughter meant his own were reluctant to trust him, often jeering him..."He's in bed with the Libs"....I think he realised that he had to not only ditch Debbie to further his career, but needed to go above and beyond....and who better to seduce than the GG's daughter herself who he knew was having martial troubles?

The difference between Bills and Chloe's spouse was Bill's wife Debbie had no idea her marriage was even on the rocks until Bill dumped her at the grand final.

He used her to further his career also, (Her father being a staunch republican and a Lib MP) then Bill used another, to propel himself further.

The GG is not a stupid woman, this and would know this herself.

But it's done, what can you do?

Make the best of a bad situation is one way, but I don't see why the rest of our country should have to pay for her daughters mistake.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 1117539555

"Everyone thought they were the Princess Diana and the Prince of the party.''- re- Shorten and estranged ex-wife Debbie Beale

Meaning Chloe Bryce is Camilla?

Shorten had the gift of the gab, absolutely, though he looked more like a bullfrog than a Prince charming with that massive over-sized head of his.

I'd say nothings changed, and think he'd still be quite discrete with respects to his affairs.
A leopard ever changes it's spots, he was rewarded career-wise for having done the deed before, (received positive reinforcement by way of escalating to what he has) so I'm inclined to believe the rumor mill again this time, given it was right on the mark last time round.

[skippy]

When I think about mellie two words come to mind, obsessive nutter.

[mellie]

When I think about mellie two words come to mind, obsessive nutter.

Why Thank you Skip, always a pleasure bringing you up to speed.
I doubt you needed to be though.

This and think you probably already have the goss.

[mellie]

From top to bottom, the ALP is dysfunctional to the core, on this may we agree skip?
It seems, the "make-over" wasn't all they had hoped it would be.

Why should Australia pay thrice for a bad government?

Time they called it a day.

[boxy]

back when PM Paul Keating took us to a referendum to become a republic.

Wasn't that PM John Howard, who took us to a referendum to not become a republic?

[mellie]

http://australianpolitics.com/issues/republic/

It was the culmination of a debate that has lingered throughout Australian history, which gathered momentum following the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975, reignited by moves by Prime Minister Paul Keating back in the 1990s.

Howard was aware of the lingering debate niggling at Australian voters upon having won the 1996 election, thus vowed to place the decision in the hands of voters, the same way he allowed Australians to vote for/against a GST also.

It's called democracy, Labor should give it a crack.

[boxy]

So, it was Howard who took us to a referendum.

Thanks.

[mellie]

So, it was Howard who took us to a referendum.

Thanks.

Keating ignited the debate with a speech when he was PM, thus Howard felt obliged to settle the score and give voters a choice. It was unfinished business.

Refer to both Howards and Keatings for/against republic speeches.
See, rather than contend with a future deceptive Labor government sneaking it in when they took office next, Howard decided to educate the public and hand the vote over to the people.

This was a good move, because had he sat on it, this and swept it under the carpet, (or stifled debate re- a republic) there would have been no debate then, and under a new Labor government (such as the one we have now) we may have been persuaded to vote for a republic, this and gone in with our eyes closed, unaware of the cons.

Howard may have taken us to a referendum, though it was the lingering unrest courtesy of a failed Labor government that ensured that had he not done so, they would have most certainly achieved this in their next term.

Howard was a clever man, was always thinking ahead.

Bottom line....

A failed ALP PM Keating who spiraled us into a recession back in the 1990's advised we should become a republic, though a successful Liberal PM Howard who worked hard and bailed us out of a recession, this and delivered us a surplus strongly advises against it to this day.

Keating started it, Howard finished it... and now we are left with a dysfunctional Labor government attempting to revive it as a last ditch effort to save their skins on board a sinking ship.

[mellie]

Refer to the flag debate of 1988 also...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_flag_debate

And refer to Michael Bryce (GG's husband) sitting on the Ausflag judgment panel, grinding away at Australian voters with other republicans , whittling away at Australian voters causing a shit-stir, (When Howard had only just taken office) even Labor premiers were in on the act, were holding school-based competitions for new Australian flag-designs, (Still are)... so as you can see, they are quite relentless.

[mellie]

Before deciding, I strongly recommend you read both Keatings and Howards for & against republic speeches.
You would have to be incredibly stupid not to, irrespective of your political lean.

I can tell you now, those who voted for a republic, would not have read both...unless they were a corporate multinational, with little regard for our nations sovereignty and independence.