Gazza still getting square with those who wronged him

johnboy 30 September 2010 37

Senator Humphries, returned victorious to his seat in the Senate is still lashing out at all who encouraged any outcome but his return.

It’s been 20 days since the last outburst against Lin Hatfield Dodds for having the temerity to try to unseat him.

Today we get this:

GETUP IS A FRONT FOR THE LABOR/GREENS ALLIANCE

Senator Gary Humphries has today in a speech to the Senate declared GetUp! to be a front for the ALP and Greens.

This follows revelations in The Monthly that former GetUp! Executive Director Brett Solomon considered dropping the organisation’s guise of independence in 2007 and openly campaigning for Labor.

“GetUp! is a front for the Greens and, to a lesser extent, for the Australian Labor Party,” Senator Humphries said today in the Senate.

“It is not a credible independent observer of Australian politics; it is a player for one side.

“It is a party in all but name, and it should be regarded so by the Australian community.

Senator Humphries added that “as someone who has been the subject of two concerted campaigns from the Labor/Greens/ GetUp! alliance to try and elect extreme left candidates to the Senate for the ACT, I am very switched on to what they’re up to.

“GetUp! was funded at the recent election to the tune of a million dollars by the unions– possibly the same unions that fund the Labor Party.

“It’s time for Labor and the Greens to stop pulling the wool over the eyes of Australians and out their silent partners.

“I am very happy that Senator Eric Abetz has written to the AEC to seek an investigation into this blatantly partisan group,” Senator Humphries concluded.

30 September 2010


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to Gazza still getting square with those who wronged him
Filter
Order
nhand42 nhand42 8:51 am 02 Oct 10

Grail said :

nhand42 said :

“Senator Gary Humphries has today in a speech to the Senate declared GetUp! to be a front for the ALP and Greens.”

Well he’s not wrong. That’s exactly what they are.

Do you have any means to support that statement beyond, “well, both groups say the same things”?

That’s not what I said. I said GetUp is an obvious front for the Greens. Are *you* saying both groups say the same things?

Greens have become a religion. Their acolytes are more annoyingly fervent than even the God-botherers. Yet when push comes to shove, it’s a rare acolyte who actually knows the Greens policies. Ignorant and devout; that’s a religion.

Grail said :

Consider for a moment how the Liberal party develops policy: they ask their biggest sponsors (News Ltd) what their policy should be.

Consider for a moment how the Labor party develops policy: they ask their biggest sponsors (trade unions) what their policy should be.

/rolleyes. Maybe you think they’re getting their marching orders from the Illuminati as well. Behold the devious plans for the New World Order, only the Greens can save us from World Domination by the Evil Forces of CHAOS. Are you really that nutty?

The majority of the population votes Labor, Liberal and National. Are they all brainwashed? Are they all stupid? Or are the policies of the three major parties simply more in-line with what the majority of the population wanted? Think through your answer carefully.

Grail Grail 4:43 pm 01 Oct 10

housebound said :

Hatfield-Dodds ran on the same platform this time.

There’s a gigantic chasm between, “we only need 2000 more votes” and “this is our platform”. The platform for The Greens is laid out on their web site (http://greens.org.au/policies).

The statement about 2000 more votes was not a platform, it was a motivator for Greens supporters to get the word around that Greens actually have some decent policies (especially when compared to Lib/Lab). As it turns out, The Greens would only have needed 40 fewer people to vote for Liberals in order to get the second senate seat in Canberra.

Hopefully by the time the next election rolls around, there will be 40 fewer people willing to give any Liberal candidate the time of day, especially considering the kind of nonsense Gazza is spewing forth at present.

Fluges Fluges 4:22 pm 01 Oct 10

So, what’s the bet on how Humphries will vote on the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation)

Jim Jones Jim Jones 1:27 pm 01 Oct 10

Bosworth said :

Jim Jones said :

Skidbladnir said :

‘granting equal value to ignorance and expertise and assuming nobody will notice the difference’.

Oooh, you just discovered the foundation behind the Liberal climate change policy.

And Labor’s 150 person Citizens Assembly!
:p

Nah, the Citizen’s Assembly is founded on spending money on an elaborate distraction and hoping that nobody notices that you’re not actually doing anything: an appalling exercise in stalling. Although I suppose ignorance vs. expertise come into by the whole pretending to be ‘listening to the people’ thing (as if ‘the people’ know more about climate change than … y’know … scientists, and people who’d actually devoted a large portion of their lives researching this stuff).

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 1:26 pm 01 Oct 10

la mente torbida said :

“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to” (with apologies to Bryan Ferry)

Wow, I didn’t expect to see Tony Abbott contributing to RiotACT!

la mente torbida la mente torbida 12:45 pm 01 Oct 10

“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to” (with apologies to Bryan Ferry)

Bosworth Bosworth 12:09 pm 01 Oct 10

Jim Jones said :

Skidbladnir said :

‘granting equal value to ignorance and expertise and assuming nobody will notice the difference’.

Oooh, you just discovered the foundation behind the Liberal climate change policy.

And Labor’s 150 person Citizens Assembly!
:p

housebound housebound 11:51 am 01 Oct 10

GetUp lost me at the 2007 election when the ACT candidates for labor and greens (and maybe dems?) all ganged up on the libs to declare we needed to vote for anyone but the Libs. Anyone that aligns so conspicuously with a major party can’t be independent.

Hatfield-Dodds ran on the same platform this time.

I really resent the idea that the ACT people really aren’t worthy of representation. All we are is a seat to be bagsed as part of a bid for early senate power. It’s just a tad too cynical as a vote-winning exercise in a system that already stinks.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 11:22 am 01 Oct 10

Skidbladnir said :

‘granting equal value to ignorance and expertise and assuming nobody will notice the difference’.

Oooh, you just discovered the foundation behind the Liberal climate change policy.

PM PM 11:12 am 01 Oct 10

Not commenting on Gary’s media release, but the material GetUp! was handing out on election day didn’t include the Libs’ plan to increase refugee places, for example, which would have given them an extra tick. This, while claiming all the facts were on that page. It was skewed. Even Greens were embarrassed by it, and that there wasn’t a single cross against their column. Having said that, I wasn’t surprised because I knew what GetUp!’s agenda was.

An all parties try to develop policies which will win them seats without alienating their existing base. No point blaming unions or News Ltd. End of story.

Grail Grail 10:28 am 01 Oct 10

nhand42 said :

“Senator Gary Humphries has today in a speech to the Senate declared GetUp! to be a front for the ALP and Greens.”

Well he’s not wrong. That’s exactly what they are.

Do you have any means to support that statement beyond, “well, both groups say the same things”?

How do The Greens set their policies? They ask the people of Australia, they listen to public sentiment, they think things through before deciding on a policy.

How does GetUp determine their “action points”? They ask the people of Australia, they listen to public sentiment, they think things through before deciding on a course of action.

Does it come as any surprise that GetUp comes up with issues to push that are somewhat in line with policies developed by The Greens?

Consider for a moment how the Liberal party develops policy: they ask their biggest sponsors (News Ltd) what their policy should be.

Consider for a moment how the Labor party develops policy: they ask their biggest sponsors (trade unions) what their policy should be.

Does it come as any surprise that Liberal and Labour policies differ markedly from the issues championed by GetUp?

    johnboy johnboy 10:46 am 01 Oct 10

    I thought Clive Palmer was their biggest contributor?

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:19 am 01 Oct 10

Jim Jones said :

When dealing with the Liberal party, ‘difference of opinion’ means that all available evidence points to a singular conclusion … which the Liberal party refuses to acknowledge.

I’ll admit that maybe it is possible that he has his own statutorily independent body somewhere that has done the analysis for him.
(This isn’t Highlander afterall, there may actually be ‘more than one’ beyond the AEC’s position in these things, but they’d be very well hidden…)

But trying to argue with the independent experts without providing any factual support or showing relevant expertise is also known as ‘granting equal value to ignorance and expertise and assuming nobody will notice the difference’.

DarkLadyWolfMother DarkLadyWolfMother 10:18 am 01 Oct 10

Is that a core, or non-core “difference of opinion”?

I’m rather glad I lost my respect for Gary years ago, or I might be feeling disappointed about now.

pierce pierce 10:02 am 01 Oct 10

By this logic, does that fact that I’ve considered having sex with Angelina Jolie make me a starf*cker?

Cool.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 9:52 am 01 Oct 10

Skidbladnir said :

So Gazza is calling the Australian Electoral Commission a bunch of liars?

Oh no, it’s just a ‘difference of opinion’, like the $11 billion dollar black whole, and the constitutionality of certain parliamentary reforms, the role of government action in preventing the effects of the GFC in Australia, and so on.

When dealing with the Liberal party, ‘difference of opinion’ means that all available evidence points to a singular conclusion … which the Liberal party refuses to acknowledge.

Bosworth Bosworth 9:45 am 01 Oct 10

haha, Gungahlin Al beat me to it. 🙂

Bosworth Bosworth 9:44 am 01 Oct 10

“THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER IS A FRONT FOR THE LIBERAL/NATIONAL ALLIANCE”

“Bosworth has today in a comment to the Riotact declared The Australian to be a front for the Liberals and Nationals.”

“This follows revelations in The Australian that current Editor Chris Mitchell considered dropping the organisation’s guise of independence in 2010 and openly campaigning to destroy the Greens. “

““The Australian is a front for the Liberal/National Coalition and, to a lesser extent, for the Family First Party,” Bosworth said today in the Riotact.”

““It is not a credible independent observer of Australian politics; it is a player for one side.”

““It is a party in all but name, and it should be regarded so by the Australian community.”

“Bosworth added that “as someone who has been the subject of two concerted campaigns from The Australian/Liberal/National alliance to try and elect extreme right candidates to the Federal Senate, I am very switched on to what they’re up to.”

““The Australian was funded at the recent election to the tune of a million dollars by News Limited – possibly the same company that kidnaps babies and sells them to infertile Chinese couples.”

““It’s time for the Liberals and the Nationals to stop pulling the wool over the eyes of Australians and out their silent partners.”

““I am very happy that Senator Eric Abetz has written to the AEC to seek an investigation into this blatantly partisan group,” Bosworth concluded.”

“30 September 2010”

Buzz2600 Buzz2600 9:34 am 01 Oct 10

What’s Gary’s problem? He’s starting to sound like an angry little dictator. His election campaign was solely based on “you better vote for me ’cause the libs are going to win”! The fear mongering worked and Canberrans voted him back in. Now he’s sitting on the opposition backbench again and desperate to find a way to make himself relevant.

Anyone with half a brain can see Get Ups agenda (advocating for refugee rights, environmental issues, privacy and human rights etc…) sits in line with most (not all) of the Greens and Labor policy positions.

Here’s a tip Gary. Why not get on with the job you were elected to and do something useful, like trying to come up with creating ideas to help people with mental health problems, refugee issues, sustainability, environment etc, etc, etc. the list goes on. If attacking Get Up! is the best he can do, its going to be a long three years for him – and for us.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 9:05 am 01 Oct 10

When there’s an organisation who sees it role is to just provide profile to and information on issues relevant to political decisionmaking, and receiving this information leads to voters steering further away from a conservative point of view, maybe its just called “Letting people see for themselves and make up their mind about how progressive they want to be” instead of “OMG THEY ARE ATTACKING THE LIBS (AMONGST OTHERS) THEREFORE THEY ARE A FRONT FOR MY ENEMIES!”.

So Gazza is calling the Australian Electoral Commission a bunch of liars?

(Bolding mine for emphasis)
GetUp and Bennelong Institute
THE MATTER:
Whether GetUp, a registered business name of GetUp Limited, and whether the Bennelong Institute, a registered business name of Jeremy Goff and Associates Pty Ltd, are associated entities.
HOW MATTER RAISED:
Referred by the Special Minister of State

AEC CONCLUSION:
After reviewing the available information, the AEC is unable to conclude that the entities are associated entities for the purposes of the Act. The entities do not appear to be controlled by one or more registered political parties, nor do they appear to operate wholly or to a significant extent to the benefit of one or more registered political parties.

In particular, the currently available information does not show a real or actual benefit to any party or parties, nor does it show a sufficiently direct link between the entities and any political party or parties. As a result, the AEC has insufficient grounds on which to undertake a formal investigation under the Act.

(By the way, if in the opinion of the AEC, GetUp doesn’t have any detectable benefit or significantly favourable effect for any party, are GetUp’s organisers really doing anything more than taking a salary, leading a high-profile lifestyle, and spending member’s money under the pretext of ‘providing support to issues their members care about’?)

    johnboy johnboy 9:29 am 01 Oct 10

    well that’s what I always thought GetUP was about.

Thumper Thumper 8:37 am 01 Oct 10

Wow, sounds like quite a few pissed off green voters out there. Here’s the tip, Humphries may be a nob, but Hatfield Dodds lost, by lots.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site