Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Ghost Patrol]

A roundabout near me took months to do, and millions of dollars. I wish I had government contracts, just write your own cheque.

Mates and I joked we could have done it quicker and cheaper with some shovels. Not sure how much of a joke that was looking back...

Seeds can you explain roundabouts to burge please?

 

[phantom13]

The roundabout is a circle, Phantom. Please dont justify obvious rorts. Just because all these wheels claim to need greasing, doesnt make it so. They are ripping us off blind

Im not justifying it. Aus standards are ****ed on this stuff. You say its a circle but its not, do you know the required camber for drainage and base layer requirements? Have they been designed and certified but a qualified engineer? Traffic engineer checked the entry points, existing roads? Traffic modelling been done? Community consultation? The ****ing line marking paint for this stuff is a product specified as being only one type and its not Australian (at least it wasnt when i last did any roads stuff).

All this stuff is required even on the smallest road changes.

You dont have to like it, i dont like it, but thats the world we live in.

 

[Saint]

The problem is indeed incentive.

When I was at a VicRoads office, the Delivery team used to pressure the Development team to increase the budget.

The Delivery team was proud that it was consistently delivering 120% of project requirements.

They were pressuring the budget to have too much money, then building more guardrail (in places they didn't really need it) or adding parts to the scope which didn't need to be in there.

Then patting themselves on the back about how great they were, but it was just an accounting trick.

Same with major projects. They add in a lot of bloat so that they "definitely" don't go over budget, then as the project close draws near, everyone fights over the additional available funding until it all gets eaten up. So every project uses too much of its contingency.

This was over 15 years ago, but nothing much seems to have changed.

 

[Festerz]

Governments invent 'Special Envoy' posts for one of two reasons - often both.

1. To create a cushy job for a former or current politician to keep them occupied and/or to pay back a favour; or

2. To give the appearance of doing something on a populist topic or giving credence to a valuable financial or media backer or lobby group.

Create one and you need to create more. Until everything is 'special'; every problem is seen as binary; and the root cause is lost. Especially if done for religious reasons in a multi-cultural country like Australia.

Was crap divisive policy under the Coalition. Is crap divisive policy under Albanese. Especially with the failure of the Voice Referendum denying a separate voice to Parliament for the First Australians.

Why not just strengthen the funding, independence and better define the powers of the Australian Human Rights Commission (er)?

Edit: also

 

[peetoo]

The problem is indeed incentive.

When I was at a VicRoads office, the Delivery team used to pressure the Development team to increase the budget.

The Delivery team was proud that it was consistently delivering 120% of project requirements.

They were pressuring the budget to have too much money, then building more guardrail (in places they didn't really need it) or adding parts to the scope which didn't need to be in there.

Then patting themselves on the back about how great they were, but it was just an accounting trick.

Same with major projects. They add in a lot of bloat so that they "definitely" don't go over budget, then as the project close draws near, everyone fights over the additional available funding until it all gets eaten up. So every project uses too much of its contingency.

This was over 15 years ago, but nothing much seems to have changed.

Except it’s probably MRPV these days

 

[phantom13]

The problem is indeed incentive.

When I was at a VicRoads office, the Delivery team used to pressure the Development team to increase the budget.

The Delivery team was proud that it was consistently delivering 120% of project requirements.

They were pressuring the budget to have too much money, then building more guardrail (in places they didn't really need it) or adding parts to the scope which didn't need to be in there.

Then patting themselves on the back about how great they were, but it was just an accounting trick.

Same with major projects. They add in a lot of bloat so that they "definitely" don't go over budget, then as the project close draws near, everyone fights over the additional available funding until it all gets eaten up. So every project uses too much of its contingency.

This was over 15 years ago, but nothing much seems to have changed.

I’ve just moved from delivery into developments. For the most part there is a set budget envelope anyway and most of our job now is working with that envelope into deliverable outcomes (focused on election commitments firsts because they should be the “need”).

Delivery is always pushing for more money/time and less scope but they rarely ever get it.

Vicroads may be different. As may mtia etc. but the building authorities all operate like this.

 

[Xtreme]

Sounds like tax cuts are good for those who are “smart” with their surplus income.

100" TV is a very good investment!

 

[spinynorman]

The Antisemitism Envoy condemned criticism of a hospital being attacked.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The Antisemitism Envoy condemned criticism of a hospital being attacked.

So the Zionists get a voice to parliament without a referendum?

 

[Gralin]

The Antisemitism Envoy condemned criticism of a hospital being attacked.

A South African Zionist millionaire who wants universities to prosecute students that protest genocide.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[peetoo]

They are projecting quite a lot on a short comment by Wong

Bigfooty would be proud

 

[Gralin]

They are projecting quite a lot on a short comment by Wong

Bigfooty would be proud

What comment?

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Payman crossed the floor because she agreed with the stance of the Greens , recognising Palestinian statehood.

Here is the official view of the government.

https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/occupied-palestinian-territories#:~:text=Australia%20does%20not%20recognise%20a,security%2C%20within%20internationally%20recognised%20borders.

Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. We are committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders.
--------------

Australia's official engagement with the Palestinians is through the Palestinian Authority. The Australian Representative Office in Ramallah (ARO), established in September 2000, facilitates Australia's relationship with the Palestinian Authority, and enables Australia to engage on political, economic and social developments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

The ARO aids Australia's support for the Middle East Peace Process through regular engagement with the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations, including the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, other representatives of the international community and civil society organisations.

The ARO also oversees the implementation of Australia's development cooperation program and humanitarian assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, which reflects and responds to Palestinians’ needs, and supports Australia’s interest in a more stable, secure Middle East.

------------------------------
I see the view of the Government more as more rational than that of the Greens/Payman.

It's absolute political suicide if the ALP take the Greens position on this issue. Don't understand why people can't see this. There was an interesting debate in the senate last week when Birmingham in all his confected outrage was implying that the government wasn't doing enough for Israel and their "right" to defend themselves. You have two sides to this debate which are the total opposite. Wong actually made some reasonable counter argument points relating to having such a definitive position on such a complex issue. She than was accused of supporting terrorists. This is the sort of hyperbole that is going on with all this ATM. The ALP position is a sensible position. It's not a reality to have Gralin's view on this issue for example being implemented out of principle. There's just way too much collateral that goes with it not that I don't agree with what he is saying.

 

[peetoo]

What comment?

Keep up gralin

 

[Gralin]

Keep up gralin

You could have just answered the question you know

 

[Gralin]

That's great Albo
Have you thought about actually doing something like raising income payments and removing partner income testing so people can leave?


Great but raising the rate and abolishing the partner income test was what the sex discrimination commisioner told you you needed to do

 

[Festerz]

So who exactly called for the creation of this Special anti-semitism Envoy ? Not the Jewish Council of Australia that's for sure.

“We are also concerned about the proposed envoy’s track record, in previous roles, of lobbying for Israel, opposing voices that support Palestinian human rights, and painting all Jews as supportive of Israel’s actions.” - Jewish Council of Australia.

(N.B I have the same grave concerns about a Special Counsel against Islamophobia which will be announced by the government in coming days).

 

[kickazz]

It's a bizzare move.

I've gotta be careful not to draw false equivalences here, but Albo has only very recently smacked down a defector and decried identity politics, specially religious politics, in the process. I think he did that well, but less than a week later we have this.

I know it's different, but looking at the week holistically one would think it's all based upon lobby interest rather than principles.

 

[Gralin]

It's a bizzare move.

I've gotta be careful not to draw false equivalences here, but Albo has only very recently smacked down a defector and decried identity politics, specially religious politics, in the process. I think he did that well, but less than a week later we have this.

I know it's different, but looking at the week holistically one would think it's all based upon lobby interest rather than principles.

Got to be "seen" to be doing something

 

[Goroyals22]

It's a bizzare move.

I've gotta be careful not to draw false equivalences here, but Albo has only very recently smacked down a defector and decried identity politics, specially religious politics, in the process. I think he did that well, but less than a week later we have this.

I know it's different, but looking at the week holistically one would think it's all based upon lobby interest rather than principles.

It’s each way Albo at his finest playing both sides of the road


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ghost Patrol]

It’s each way Albo at his finest playing both sides of the road


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Can you explain this both sides theory? Because what was just described looks quite biased towards one side.

Or are you just throwing slogans without actually thinking about what you are replying to?

 

[Saint]

It's absolute political suicide if the ALP take the Greens position on this issue. Don't understand why people can't see this. There was an interesting debate in the senate last week when Birmingham in all his confected outrage was implying that the government wasn't doing enough for Israel and their "right" to defend themselves. You have two sides to this debate which are the total opposite. Wong actually made some reasonable counter argument points relating to having such a definitive position on such a complex issue. She than was accused of supporting terrorists. This is the sort of hyperbole that is going on with all this ATM. The ALP position is a sensible position. It's not a reality to have Gralin's view on this issue for example being implemented out of principle. There's just way too much collateral that goes with it not that I don't agree with what he is saying.

This might be true if the withdrawal of support for Israel might lead to Hamas turning the tables in the battle.

But what we're witnessing is a slaughter. The position the Greens want is for Australia to stop supporting slaughter of civilians.

Let's say the ALP said "enough is enough, no more support for Israel, we're cancelling defence contracts with them and can't directly supply F-35 parts".

How are the Libs going to respond? If they vociferously support Israel even more and the ICJ find Israel committed genocide, the Libs are on the side of Genocide. At worst, they could point at the death of one Israeli soldier every couple of days, while the ALP could say "what about the 20 innocent civilians killed?" It's an easy position to defend and has the backing of the ICJ, UN and every humanitarian organisation. On the Libs side is all the orgs who are always on the Libs side anyway. Why is everyone making it seem like it would be hard to join the side of MSF, Save the CHildren, UNHCR, UN, EU, most western nations and every aid organisation.

They could easily now just say "since the ISraeli Govt has done next to nothing about the death of an Australian aid worker, hundreds of journalists, UN Aid and health workers we're withdrawing co-operation in their war, we will resume trade and contact when the war ends"

While lots of people might have views one way or the other on Israel v Palestine, the UK election just showed that only the Muslim population are going to change their vote because of it.

Evangelical Christians or Catholics might say they support Israel, but they won't change their vote just because the ALP stopped a defence contract or recognised Palestine.

Ongoing support for Israel will cost the ALP inner-city seats and maybe a couple of Senate seats as left-ALP people move to the Greens. It's already cost them one Senate seat.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Can you explain this both sides theory? Because what was just described looks quite biased towards one side.

Or are you just throwing slogans without actually thinking about what you are replying to?

Reading from the liberal party manifesto.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

This might be true if the withdrawal of support for Israel might lead to Hamas turning the tables in the battle.

But what we're witnessing is a slaughter. The position the Greens want is for Australia to stop supporting slaughter of civilians.

Let's say the ALP said "enough is enough, no more support for Israel, we're cancelling defence contracts with them and can't directly supply F-35 parts".

How are the Libs going to respond? If they vociferously support Israel even more and the ICJ find Israel committed genocide, the Libs are on the side of Genocide. At worst, they could point at the death of one Israeli soldier every couple of days, while the ALP could say "what about the 20 innocent civilians killed?" It's an easy position to defend and has the backing of the ICJ, UN and every humanitarian organisation. On the Libs side is all the orgs who are always on the Libs side anyway. Why is everyone making it seem like it would be hard to join the side of MSF, Save the CHildren, UNHCR, UN, EU, most western nations and every aid organisation.

They could easily now just say "since the ISraeli Govt has done next to nothing about the death of an Australian aid worker, hundreds of journalists, UN Aid and health workers we're withdrawing co-operation in their war, we will resume trade and contact when the war ends"

While lots of people might have views one way or the other on Israel v Palestine, the UK election just showed that only the Muslim population are going to change their vote because of it.

Evangelical Christians or Catholics might say they support Israel, but they won't change their vote just because the ALP stopped a defence contract or recognised Palestine.

Ongoing support for Israel will cost the ALP inner-city seats and maybe a couple of Senate seats as left-ALP people move to the Greens. It's already cost them one Senate seat.

So let's just rile up the anti Semites even more. Withdrawing support for Israel totally will vindicate that movement and won't stop all the targetting of anything associated with Israel. Reality is there's alot of people out there that don't think it's a genocide. Instead of inflaming tensions we need to bring a balance to the debate. This is actually an issue to have an each way opinion on it whether we like it or not. There's a reason it's not in the news cycle that regularly because it's the position newscorp are happy with and there not drilling the government. And before anyone says the media shouldn't dictate decision making it absolutely does whether we agree with it or not. That's the world we live in.

 

[Gralin]

So let's just rile up the anti Semites even more. Withdrawing support for Israel totally will vindicate that movement and won't stop all the targetting of anything associated with Israel. Reality is there's alot of people out there that don't think it's a genocide. Instead of inflaming tensions we need to bring a balance to the debate. This is actually an issue to have an each way opinion on it whether we like it or not. There's a reason it's not in the news cycle that regularly because it's the position newscorp are happy with and there not drilling the government. And before anyone says the media shouldn't dictate decision making it absolutely does whether we agree with it or not. That's the world we live in.

dude if your argument for supporting genocide is it will vindicate antisemites then you're taking a zionist position on it

that's what they do, they conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, its no the same thing and supporting the ongoing massacre of civilians so some chuds can't say see I was right is a really dogshit reason to do something