The votes Simon Corbell means, and the votes he doesn't

Chris S: You mustn’t have been around very long. Katy G has been hammered many a time here. When people think she has stuffed up, they comment on it.

I won’t take the bait, I’ll just say that in the time that I knew him alot of repsect was lost. Mr Corbell has a way of presenting himself to be a man trying to better himself and I think he genuinely believes he does well for the community. But his personal issues I feel sometimes cloud his judgement. Regarding KG, I do not know her personally or otherwise. Having once been a strong labor supporter, I find it sad that there is in reality no side to support any longer.

ON Simon’s background, people who went to NSW Uni in the 90s remember Simon from Young Labour. He was a bit of a light weight then I think. They were amazed when he became an ACT minister.

Evee and LG, Simon Corbell has held some fascination for RiotActers, due to his inconsistent and illogical decision-making while in public office. Katy Gallagher has not been subject to the same scrutiny, as she seems to be much more highly regarded.

evee, we’d be very interested in your views, provided that they relate to his public performance rather than anything personal (well, perhaps just a bit personal…). It is often these behind-the-scenes views that reveal much more about a person, and why they behave the way they do, and/or if they are dispaying a consistently appalling pattern of behaviour.

all this Corbell bashing, Ms Gallagher did the same thing and used the same excuse.

As tallian said, as the former education miniter (until just before the budget) Gallagher would have been involved in creating the policy – or the function review made the decisions without input from the department. either could be true

He has no concept of ethics or morality. Speaking from personal experience, I know this about Corbell. I would like to say more but I won’t, for now.

If you choose to be in the Left faction you are effectively bound on policy positions. Consequently you get the hypocrisy evidenced in the voting of the Ministers on the weekend. This is markedly different from the right and independent factions in the ACT (and hence some of the scattered voting patterns of those groups on policy issues). There is a time-honoured way out though for left members who do not agree with a particular position and that is to leave the room and not vote.

“…stanhope runs the whole show….”

That is more worrying than sad simon’s pathetic voting

Thumper is right on the mark – Corbell can now have his cake and eat it too. He has said what his personal views are, so if ever he’s challenged, he can say with hand on heart what he believes.

However, he has also played footsie with his faction, thereby ensuring that he continues to get endorsed. Win-win for Corbell.

However, for most thinking people with some skerrick of ethics and morality, such a situation would be untenable.

However, Corbell, through his noted and well-used ability for cognitive dissonence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) is able to put aside all doubts as to what is right and what is wrong.

Corbell has displayed this ability for self-deception and self-delusion consistently in his planning and former health portfolios, and will continue to do so at an even more extreme level as Attorney-General. The bloke’s a fruitloop.

Corbell and the ALP spin team must be kidding. He basically explained it to the media in terms of I voted that way – breaking cabinet solidarity – because my faction requires it. But as he emphasised its OK – I don’t agree with the way I voted. And this fellow expects us to believe him about the Epicentre matter.