That really was an entertaining game but I would have preferred fewer lead changes once we hit the front 🙂
Hawthorn certainly played well early and were able to disrupt our game with their pressure … and some suspect umpiring decisions. That we were able to come back and take control of the game is a real credit to the girls and Bucky.
Darcy was magnificent in her 100th game; one of the best of her illustrious career 👏
I think that Tara Bohanna’s inclusion was important and meant that our forward line retained its potency when Poppy Scholz went behind the ball.
Poppy looked proppy at the end of the game. Hopefully it’s just a corky.
Congratulations to Darcy Vescio for reaching 100 games, the first Blue to do so. Congratulations to Harriet Cordner, who reaches 50 games in Navy Blue.
Yes, congratulations to both on their milestone games - hasn't Harriet Cordner been a great recruit!
That looks to be a very strong lineup ... on paper!
I think that a lot will depend on Tara Bohanna. If she is back to near her best, it should make life a lot easier for Poppy Scholz.
I’m not sure what the public servant was thinking, but apparently even the unredacted version of his diary doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The problem with a diary is that there are no demand on syntax or language, it can be as cryptic, vague or specific as the notetaker likes but it doesn't need to be consistent.
Yes, when I was a public servant we were told that our diaries weren’t subject to Freedom of Information because they could be in the owner’s version of shorthand and couldn’t be reliably interpreted by someone else. However, FoI is not a Royal Commission and the diarist can be compelled to explain their diary entries.
If I remember correctly, several cases of ball tampering have been detected by the umpires noticing a change in the condition of the ball.
Cummins was pretty staunch in his rejection of Khawaja’s allegation and was somewhat Dan Andrews like in his willingness to stay and answer all questions put to him.
I’m none the wiser but I can’t help but think that those involved were incredibly naive to think that they wouldn’t get caught 🙄
The unredacted diary was provided to the Commission as soon as it was requested, with an apology for originally providing the redacted copy.
I’m not sure what the public servant was thinking, but apparently even the unredacted version of his diary doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The journalists covering the Commission get to see the documents to be tabled and are told who will be called on the following day but are under an embargo and can’t reveal any information until the documents are tabled and/or witnesses are called.
You really need to think before you post nonsense Shawny ... and you need to stop trying to deflect with continual references to Taco in this thread and continual references to Australian governments in the Taco thread. They're completely separate issues ... and threads.
It is the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. It was called by the State Labor Government "to inquire into and report on matters relating to corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on or in relation to major construction projects in Victoria." The allegations that prompted the Royal Commission concerned corruption and criminal conduct by the CFMEU and construction companies and poor oversight by government agencies and, potentially, the Government. The Commission is in the first week of its first block of public hearings and, to be perfectly honest, it hasn't even begun to warm up.
Your spinning responses actually remind me of Andrews with his covid responses when pressed. Avoid any part that may show you up and go off on a tangent raising different points to move the narrative.
I will try one more time: Why is a royal commission needed if our polices (cheques and balances) are set up to prevent corruption.
I think you mean checks and balances - cheques are last century now.
A Royal Commission is the ultimate in checks and balances.
Public hearings started in the same month as the election and will erode any support that the ALP may still have. The report should be handed down well into the first year of the new government who will be able to use it to their advantage. Damage control would have been calling the commission far earlier and retaining management of the report.
I’d say that it’s more like self-inflicted, terminal damage.
Sorry DJC, I respectfully disagree.
This was part of the Jacinta Allen knifing and Ben Carroll handover to attempt to save face leading up to the election race. Just like the pothole fixing that they are doing.
The spectre of it, was hanging over the Labor government.
Strategically they knew she would lose, and offed her to bring in Ben Carroll. Would the Royal Commission have occurred had that not happened? Its a way to attempt to distance Ben Carroll from Jacinta Allen, and save face, and blame the outgoing leader for all the woes.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I cannot fault the strategy, but to think this is noble thinking or "falling on ones sword" is naive, and Ben is actively spruiking it on advertisements as him trying to fix things.
Even if they had a point, the labor government at state level has ruled the roost for a very long time. You would be better off mounting an argument that Federal government is more culpable as the Libs have dictated that component for longer.
There's no doubt that Carroll called the Royal Commission in an attempt to distance himself from Allan and Andrews, but the timing couldn't have been worse for the ALP. We're in the final fortnight of the election campaign and every day there's going to be headlines from the Commission driving another nail in the coffin just like yesterday's scolding from the senior counsel over the redacted diary. Jess Wilson should be instructing her candidates to keep their mouths shut and let the Commission do their work for them.
I suppose that Carroll really had no option but the unwritten rules of Royal Commissions are never call one if you don't know the outcomes and can't control the timing of the report. Allan should really have called it when she took over, but it would probably still be just moving deck chairs on the Titanic.
You really need to think before you post nonsense Shawny ... and you need to stop trying to deflect with continual references to Taco in this thread and continual references to Australian governments in the Taco thread. They're completely separate issues ... and threads.
It is the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. It was called by the State Labor Government "to inquire into and report on matters relating to corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on or in relation to major construction projects in Victoria." The allegations that prompted the Royal Commission concerned corruption and criminal conduct by the CFMEU and construction companies and poor oversight by government agencies and, potentially, the Government. The Commission is in the first week of its first block of public hearings and, to be perfectly honest, it hasn't even begun to warm up.
this happened on Labor watch, and its an exercise in damage control 6 months out from an election.
Public hearings started in the same month as the election and will erode any support that the ALP may still have. The report should be handed down well into the first year of the new government who will be able to use it to their advantage. Damage control would have been calling the commission far earlier and retaining management of the report.
I’d say that it’s more like self-inflicted, terminal damage.
For the record, I have never been a member of any political party and have voted for Labor, Liberal, Australian Democrats, and independent candidates. Vote Compass says I’m right of centre.
I was talking to an RSL mate at our Remembrance Day commemoration today and he just happens to be our local One Nation candidate. He’s pretty switched on and I think that he would be a decent local member. I can’t vote for him because his party is based on racism and bigotry, has no policies, and is owned by Gina Rinehart.
Another mate is running as an independent candidate and she is far and away the most intelligent and well-educated in the field. She’d be a great MP but, realistically, has no chance. I could vote for her, knowing that my vote would go to my second preference.
I didn’t speak to the sitting State MP today - the Commonwealth MP told me that I looked “sharp”! - but she is very popular and will probably retain the seat.
The Liberal candidate seems to have accepted that outcome and is doing an excellent impression of the invisible man. The Greens candidate just makes up the numbers.
The thing is that I have worked with every Victorian State Government from Henry Bolte to Denis Napthine, and have briefed and advised Labor, Liberal and Nationals Ministers in the Bracks/Brumby and Baillieu/Napthine governments. Some were risk averse, some were “courageous” as Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, some acted on advice, others wanted the advice to fit their agenda, all were driven and believed in what they were doing, and there was only ever one hint of corruption; a planning minister ignored departmental advice and approved a development that was later overturned on appeal. This was all in the days before IBAC but the Auditor-General and Ombudsman still kept a very tight rein.
I’m sure that nobody really gives a fat rat’s clacker about your bizarre political beliefs, or mine for that matter, but don’t presume that you know anything about my politics, or how the State Government is run. Right wing conspiracy theories aren’t real, and neither are the left wing equivalents.
Seeing you dodged my point i will do the same on that long winded spin reply about nothing.
Have you noticed the Big build royal commission going on?
Or do you refuse to acknowledge it because its the labour government being accused of corruption?
Pretend the same inquiry was with Trump instead.... Would be 50 pages written on it if the names were swapped.
Cheques and balances
You really need to think before you post nonsense Shawny ... and you need to stop trying to deflect with continual references to Taco in this thread and continual references to Australian governments in the Taco thread. They're completely separate issues ... and threads.
It is the Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. It was called by the State Labor Government "to inquire into and report on matters relating to corruption, criminal conduct and serious misconduct on or in relation to major construction projects in Victoria." The allegations that prompted the Royal Commission concerned corruption and criminal conduct by the CFMEU and construction companies and poor oversight by government agencies and, potentially, the Government. The Commission is in the first week of its first block of public hearings and, to be perfectly honest, it hasn't even begun to warm up.
The fact of the matter is that you have an idiosyncratic view of Australian politics but assume that many people agree with that view.
Our system of government has checks and balances, and a responsive electorate, that mean that we will never have to put up with the incompetence and megalomania that's made the USA a global laughing stock ... but a very dangerous laughing stock.
If anyone is a laughing stock with that statement....
You are that rusted on that you want us to believe our system prevents corrupt politicians simply as your party is the one with all the allegations of corruption! Funny that.
Yet despite having this rock solid system here we are at the start of a Royal commission costing tax payers money we don't have, representing Mr Andrews and Mrs Allan for all the corruption allegations ...
Give it up mate and just have the balls to admit your views are skewed like most of us are.
Which party is my party Shawny?
For the record, I have never been a member of any political party and have voted for Labor, Liberal, Australian Democrats, and independent candidates. Vote Compass says I’m right of centre.
I was talking to an RSL mate at our Remembrance Day commemoration today and he just happens to be our local One Nation candidate. He’s pretty switched on and I think that he would be a decent local member. I can’t vote for him because his party is based on racism and bigotry, has no policies, and is owned by Gina Rinehart.
Another mate is running as an independent candidate and she is far and away the most intelligent and well-educated in the field. She’d be a great MP but, realistically, has no chance. I could vote for her, knowing that my vote would go to my second preference.
I didn’t speak to the sitting State MP today - the Commonwealth MP told me that I looked “sharp”! - but she is very popular and will probably retain the seat.
The Liberal candidate seems to have accepted that outcome and is doing an excellent impression of the invisible man. The Greens candidate just makes up the numbers.
The thing is that I have worked with every Victorian State Government from Henry Bolte to Denis Napthine, and have briefed and advised Labor, Liberal and Nationals Ministers in the Bracks/Brumby and Baillieu/Napthine governments. Some were risk averse, some were “courageous” as Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, some acted on advice, others wanted the advice to fit their agenda, all were driven and believed in what they were doing, and there was only ever one hint of corruption; a planning minister ignored departmental advice and approved a development that was later overturned on appeal. This was all in the days before IBAC but the Auditor-General and Ombudsman still kept a very tight rein.
I’m sure that nobody really gives a fat rat’s clacker about your bizarre political beliefs, or mine for that matter, but don’t presume that you know anything about my politics, or how the State Government is run. Right wing conspiracy theories aren’t real, and neither are the left wing equivalents.
The simple answer is that there is a senile malignant narcissist with the nuclear codes in the White House. A fool who has disrupted world trade with his tariffs and tanked the global economy with his illegal war in Iran.
Our pollies, of all persuasions, are constrained by more effective constitution and electoral system and aren't really able to do much damage, particularly at an international level.
And you would have to be joking to suggest that any past or present Australian government, even the notorious Bjelke-Petersen government, comes anywhere near the nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, grifting and disregard for the rule of law displayed by POTUS #45 amd #47.
So what your saying is that theory is based on how the current party is viewed?
The fact of the matter is that you have an idiosyncratic view of Australian politics but assume that many people agree with that view.
Our system of government has checks and balances, and a responsive electorate, that mean that we will never have to put up with the incompetence and megalomania that's made the USA a global laughing stock ... but a very dangerous laughing stock.
Why is it there is 350 plus pages on this site relating to a leader of a country on the other side of the world that most say is unfit to serve and any alternative is an improvement over him yet here in our own backyard when faced with an equally corrupt government and one that in this case directly affects their own families have a different theory on replacing a government.
The old 'they are all the same or pick your poison' is used to try and cast doubts on the new incoming party instead of calling the current inept corrupt party for what they are and saying they deserve to be replaced.
It wouldn't be they are bias - Nah surely not
The simple answer is that there is a senile malignant narcissist with the nuclear codes in the White House. A fool who has disrupted world trade with his tariffs and tanked the global economy with his illegal war in Iran.
Our pollies, of all persuasions, are constrained by more effective constitution and electoral system and aren't really able to do much damage, particularly at an international level.
And you would have to be joking to suggest that any past or present Australian government, even the notorious Bjelke-Petersen government, comes anywhere near the nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, grifting and disregard for the rule of law displayed by POTUS #45 amd #47.
One of the problems is that governments of all persuasions and levels are faced with ever-increasing demands for the provision of services as well as the expectation that they will lower taxes or, at least, won't increase them. If society has to have appropriate infrastructure; housing, water, sewerage, health care, police, schools, courts, aged care, mental health care, disability services, environmental protection, sporting facilties, public transport, etc; someone has to pay.
I failed economics at university - one of several inappropriate choices - but I know enough to realise that the Reserve Bank's fixation with interest rate rises isn't the only way to combat inflation (a world-wide problem not helped by the disastrous wars in Ukraine and Iran). Our Governments could tackle inflation by raising taxes but to do so would be political suicide unless there was a bi-partisan approach ... and that's not going to happen.
Could they reduce spending by any chance?
Of course they could, but only by cutting health, education, police, and all of the other services that people expect and need.
