Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 15:04:24 GMT 10
May well happen a nTurnbull Armageddon, hope so then consider 2019 is the next fed election time, that's over 2 years...whose to know what could happen between now and then...??
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Nov 23, 2016 15:20:03 GMT 10
I think the liberals have become calmer over this issue because they now seem to have the numbers. Hinch and Xenophon have had an attack of the right whinge wobbles.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 23, 2016 16:18:53 GMT 10
"If you have sneers, prepare to shew them now ... " (apologies to the Bard) Once upon a time Labor under Hawke/Keating "owned" the economic narrative. As it went into Opposition under Beasley Labor walked away from the economy and behold there arose false prophets and philistines called the Howard/Costello Liberals who mendaciously claimed the economic benefits that flowed from Hawke/Keating as their achievement and Beasley Labor was cursed with political pusillanimity and forbore to counter the Howard/Costello lie. And lo there arose in the land Rudd Labor and great were its economic deeds and mighty were its achievements and because of Rudd Labor it came to pass that the people were spared the ravages of a global economic pestilence called the GFC, but alack because of the years of neglect of economic policy during the years in the wilderness Rudd Labor neglected to explain its achievements to the people who listened to the false Liberal prophets Abbott and Hockey and others of their kind such as Pyne and Morrison who spread alarm and dismay about measures to counteract climate change and boat people. So Rudd Labor and Gillard Labor fought among themselves and neglected to explain to the people how they were prospering under their rule. And behold both Rudd and Gillard were banished to the wilderness and there arose a new government led by the false prophets and economic snake oil merchants Abbott and Hockey, and Pyne and Morrison, yea and Dutton and Abetz, and great were the lies and huge was the mendacity. But there arose another prophet among the vanquished forces of Labor who reorganised the demoralised and told economic truths to the people. And lo, gradually the mendacity was unmasked, the falsehoods were exposed, and slowly Shorten Labor is regaining ownership of the economic narrative after 20 years of Liberal lies and falsehoods ... How Abbott and Turnbull destroyed Australia's wealthYesterday’s Credit Suisse wealth report shows a clear majority of OECD countries are getting richer. But Australia is bucking that trend.www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/23/australia-was-wealthier-under-labor/Yesterday’s annual wealth report from Credit Suisse bolsters the claim that Australia, in 2013, swapped one of the world’s best economic management teams for one of the worst. From 2010 to 2013, this rigorous survey of household and national wealth by the Zurich-based finance group tracked the impressive trajectory of Australia’s economy through the global financial crisis. Since then, it has tracked its decline. In 2013, Australia’s wealth was US$402,578 (A$544,500) per adult. That was the second highest in the world, behind tiny Switzerland on $512,562. (US dollars are used hereafter, as in the report.) Each year since 2013, Australia’s wealth per adult has steadily declined to just $375,573 in 2016. That is well behind both Iceland ($408,595) and Switzerland ($561,854). Australia’s median wealth in 2013 was an impressive $219,505, the highest in the world by a fair margin. Luxembourg was second on $182,768. Australia is now down to $162,815, which is third in the world behind Iceland and Switzerland and just ahead of Belgium. Median wealth reflects the fair distribution of wealth among the population better than the mean average. Credit Suisse’s analysts observed in 2013 regarding Australia: Interestingly, the composition of wealth is heavily skewed towards real assets, which amount on average to $294,100 and form 59% of gross household assets. This average level of real assets is the second highest in the world after Norway. In part, it reflects a sparsely populated country with a large endowment of land and natural resources, but it is also a manifestation of high urban real estate prices. Compared to the rest of the world, very few Australians have net worth below $10,000. One reason for this is relatively low credit card and student loan debt. The proportion of those with wealth above $100,000 is the highest of any country — eight times the world average.The latest report offers no comfort for Treasurer Scott Morrison and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who insist, in almost every public utterance, that “Australia is battling strong global economic headwinds”. This is not true and has not been true since the GFC wound down in 2013. There are 34 wealthy, developed countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). As shown here and elsewhere, the majority are advancing steadily on most indicators of economic health. Australia is the conspicuous laggard. Yesterday’s wealth report shows a clear majority of OECD countries are getting richer. In 2016, 21 countries increased their mean average over last year. Another two — Israel and the United Kingdom — dipped this year after rises the year before. Both are well ahead of where they were in 2013. Only nine of the 34 economies have experienced declining wealth per adult every year since 2013: Australia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Turkey. Morrison is keen to compare Australia with the big G7 economies — when it suits him. Now is not one of those moments. Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the USA all increased average wealth per adult in 2016. The UK, while well down this year due to currency depreciation following the Brexit vote, surged in the two previous years and is now substantially richer than in 2013. Only Italy in the G7 had its wealth decline in 2016, but only by 1.13%. Australia’s decline was 1.37%, clearly the worst of the G7 plus one. Intriguingly, only two developed economies have increased wealth per adult every year since 2013 — South Korea and the US. So this data confirms Australia’s struggles under its current hapless regime but also underscores the strong performance of the US economy under its impressive outgoing administration. Against this disaster Turnbull wants to trumpet his pathetic little piece of union regulation as a "triumph"? Yeah right. Electoral Armageddon stalks the Turnbull Government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2016 3:21:53 GMT 10
The miners took hold of the economy...boom and bust.
|
|
|
Post by Yassir Rebob on Nov 24, 2016 13:10:49 GMT 10
Yassir Shorten Labor is succeeding where Rudd Labor and Gillard Labor failed dismally. More and more they "own" the economy as an issue. And no I don't deny the achievements of Rudd Labor during the GFC. But they still lost the politics. Basically Beasley Labor walked away from the economy after the anti Keating landslide of 1996 and it's only now under Shorten that Labor is starting to reclaim the economic narrative. And isn't it funny that the more Shorten makes the economy and economic management the central issue, the higher their polling rises.
|
|
|
Post by Yassir Rebob on Nov 24, 2016 13:22:20 GMT 10
Shorto is not coming across as though he has vision for he future.... what works in his favour is neither does the coalition. Lets see, his proposed changes to the negative gearing will make housing far more affordable, especially for first home buyers as so called "investment properties" become far less viable. But, I guess first home buyers and younger Australians aren't really part of what vision constitutes. Likewise, his campaigning over 457's show that he appears to have genuine concern about Australians being meaningfully employed. Again, concern about your fellow Australians working conditions is not a worthy vision.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 24, 2016 13:31:50 GMT 10
Yassir Shorten Labor is succeeding where Rudd Labor and Gillard Labor failed dismally. More and more they "own" the economy as an issue. And no I don't deny the achievements of Rudd Labor during the GFC. But they still lost the politics. Basically Beasley Labor walked away from the economy after the anti Keating landslide of 1996 and it's only now under Shorten that Labor is starting to reclaim the economic narrative. And isn't it funny that the more Shorten makes the economy and economic management the central issue, the higher their polling rises. "It's the economy, stupid!" still works in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2016 20:38:53 GMT 10
Shorto has good policies the point is he not selling the message all that well....though in time that may change as the Turnbull policies will end badly, as a party controlled by lobbyist and economic advice from RW think tanks is a recipe for collapse and disharmony.
|
|
|
Post by geopol on Dec 20, 2016 16:23:47 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 9, 2017 9:36:47 GMT 10
No, and there are bigger fish to fry. I don't think what Sussan Ley did was in the Bronwyn Bishop category but having said that I agree it doesn't pass the pub test. You're correct in the sequence in which this plays out but that's how she would been advised to handle it. Problem with the guidelines on expenses is that they're so loose. And if you tightened up you'd create a whole new set of problems.
In politics they always get you on the little things. Beware of the little things! Remember Peter Slipper and Cabcharge?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 9, 2017 11:04:29 GMT 10
Have to say I feel a bit sorry for Sussan. Mind you why she has to spell her first name as "Sussan" rather than as "Susan" escapes me but I digress ... I would have preferred that it be Peter Dutton
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 16:50:31 GMT 10
Its rich when the conservatives are calling pensioners welfare cheats....sack the woman.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 6:26:59 GMT 10
The dogs will keep barking for a while and the caravan will move on ... to a ministerial reshuffle. A couple of ministerial appointments issues are in urgent need of addressing by the Turnbull government. Two spring to mind and feel free to add any others you might think of:
1. Tony Abbott is a running sore for Malcolm Turnbull. Is this when Tony Abbott gets lucky and gets his bum off the backbench and back onto ministerial leather? The pressure has been on Malcolm Turnbull from the far right freakshow to end Abbott’s exile on the backbench. Is this how it happens?
2. Peter Dutton must badly want out of the Immigration portfolio which these days has to be the poisoned chalice of Australian politics. Here's a scenario to play around with: will Sinodinis be made permanent in Health? Will Peter Dutton be moved to an economic portfolio (Kelly O'Dwyer has been looking flakey)? And here's my favourite - will Tony Abbott replace Peter Dutton in the "stop the boats and send 'em to Rape Island" portfolio? Tony Abbott wants a ministry? Give him the poisoned chalice! All of the above is predicated on Sussan Ley being political dead meat, which I think she is. And that’s politics! You're a rooster one day, and a feather duster the next.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 12:29:13 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 13:44:33 GMT 10
Here's one for the Ponto's of this world who fancy themselves to be a socialist's bootlace - newsflash: they aren't! This year is the 100th anniversary of the only socialist revolution in history, whose sacrificial lamb, Trotsky, correctly predicted it would lead to a capitalist restoration. But the Labor Party has never been a socialist party no matter what Bronnie or Ponto say and, as for Sussan Ley, with friends like Bronnie who needs enemies! Bronnie rotten on socialism, defends using the N-word(no, not that N-word!) www.crikey.com.au/2017/01/10/razer-bronnie-rotten-on-socialism-defends-using-the-n-word/Bronwyn’s Thatcherite hubris, as seen on Sky yesterday, is a relic to behold. Poor, miserable Sussan Ley. The Health Minister has surely earned a Gold Coast holiday. As investigations into her real estate “scandal” proceed, she is obliged to hand her portfolio over to the care of Arthur Sinodinos. The best thing that can be publicly said about that recent ICAC graduate is probably “no findings of his wrongdoing at this time”. If Turnbull plans on returning Ley, in many accounts a politician who comports herself honestly and well, he could surely do better than fill her post with a name so closely associated with slippery self-interest. Things only got worse for Ley when she suffered proximity to another bad name: Bronwyn Bishop. Surely, the lady’s defence on the matter of travel rorts was about as useful to Ley as the defence of a mosquito by a rat. With friends like these, the political class has no want of enemies. Nobody facing investigation of the type wants help from the unrepentant Bishop, who continues to assert that her profligacy was “within the rules”, with no understanding that it was far beyond what the electorate knows to be the pale. Bronwyn’s Thatcherite hubris, as seen on Sky yesterday, is a relic to behold. When asked if such use of public monies — her own, in the unlikely case you’ve forgotten, was a four-grand chopper ride to a fundraising event easily accessible by rail — would pass the pub test, she answered, “it depends on which pub you are in”. Maybe she has a point. Bron is a Northern Beaches girl, and you can probably order scampi sashimi in the chic bistros of Mackellar. The rest of us wait for chicken parma night. This is no good for Ley, a person who has likely not erred so badly. It’s bloody good for a laugh though; Bishop really is such a marvellous antique. She is one of a very few in this era of economic hardship still making naked claims about having “earned” her privilege (even the US President-elect admits to bending the rules). After 40 years of wage stagnation, most Australians don’t permit this sort of talk past the pub test, the Facebook test or any other kind of trial. When the ALP’s Sam Dastyari said that he accepted money from a private company because he simply didn’t feel like paying his high travel bill, his career was almost done. Bronwyn’s political career is utterly done, but her refusal to see why it ended is not. She just doesn’t get it, and won’t shut up about it, still using the language of Thatcher, her idol, to justify the privileges of the well-to-do and all the marvellous advantages of the “free market”, that set of conditions imposed by the state, which, for example, allow a few people to buy an investment property or a nice flat on the Gold Coast and coerce a rapidly increasing number of us to rent. Nearly every other centrist speaker in the West now knows to keep their admiration for inequality — and the cheap capital offered by our “free market” leaders to property investors is a guarantee of inequality — a secret. The IMF, the cruel creditor of Greece, has denounced neoliberalism by name. Paul Krugman, one of the architects of Clinton’s aggressive era of financialisation, has remade himself as a kind Keynesian and opponent of the N-word. Krugman now travels the world lecturing on the evils of rent-seeking, having first made sure to introduce a range of rent-seeking policies to the world’s most influential economy. In short, every economist and politician knows not to say “Voldemort”. When Joe Hockey came close to uttering his true name in his DOA 2014 budget, the spell of supply-side thinking began to break. Shhh. You are not supposed to say it, Bronwyn. Notwithstanding my friend Mr Keane’s efforts to reclaim the name of Voldemort for the people, let’s just call it what it is: neoliberalism, a creditor-friendly deflationary reaction to the full-employment regime run in the West from, roughly, the depth of the Great Depression to the height of Phil Collins’ career, is the thing that most leaders now know not to talk about. You don’t outright say “austerity” and you don’t accuse a nation of people immiserated by the investor class of feeling “entitled”. The language you now use is not Thatcher’s, as Bronwyn did, but those Silicon Valley buzzwords that Turnbull prefers. We’re going to “innovate” our way out of rising poverty, insecure housing and precarious employment. We’re going to have a TED talk and find the power within ourselves to overcome creditor-friendly policies. We’re going to have an app. What we must not have, if neoliberal policies are to survive their challengers from the hard right and material left, is people like Bronwyn mouthing off like Gordon Gekko. The trick to propagating ideology is never to mention it, perhaps not even acknowledge it to yourself as ideology. And what you certainly don’t do is mention its greatest historic antagonist, socialism. But Bronwyn couldn’t stop rubbishing socialism on Sky, giving it, to my delight, a very good name. She said that socialism had ruined nations. She said that the ALP was full of socialists. She said that socialism was “always on the march”. None of these statements is true. For all the scientifically fixated terror that began to unfold in that nation 100 years ago this year, Russia was not “ruined” by socialism. There is not one socialist in the parliamentary ALP, a stack of quoits who justify their attachment to neoliberalism, cruel detention policies and unconscionable inertia on Aboriginal Australia by wearing rainbow ribbons in solidarity with gay teens, or whatever. There is, at the time of writing, about 50 socialists in the nation, and we’re all far too busy arguing about which International we liked best to ever march in a vanguard. What will provoke a meaningful dedication among the vast army of Millennials to the socialism Bishop despises is not Bronwyn herself, nor Ley, who, again, probably didn’t do anything terrible. Like, say, charter a chopper to go and hit up Liberal Party donors. The terrible thing that young people will revolt against is a 40-year-old regime that now allows a select few to buy a holiday flat on a whim while they themselves live in service to rent-seekers. Bronwyn is the prophet of the new synthesis! If radical changes to our economy are not made, those young socialists that we can already see being formed will be on the march. And I’ll be cheering them and the death of neoliberal enchantment on with cries of “Voldemort”.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 16:29:42 GMT 10
No, Hubris Man, this is not about your conflation of what politicians say constitutes some feel good version of "socialism" and what socialism actually is. Too many people have given their lives in the cause of reconstituting society along socialist lines to allow bourgeois capitalist reformists like Whitlam to get away with their revisionist bowdlerisation of "socialism". We'll never agree and I don't care. Whitlam was a bourgeois reformist politician whose commitment to what Lenin dismissed as "parliamentary cretinism" was total. Marx dismissed bourgeois parliaments as "committees for the management of the affairs of the bourgeoisie". Whitlam understood that. So do I. He was committed to that model. I voted for him. He was a progressive reformist and I admired that about him. But he was no socialist. None of them are. None of them ever have been. Neither are you. Neither is Ponto and, on the principle of "by their deeds shall ye know them", neither am I. And that’s what makes Bronnie's frothing-at-the-mouth about "socialists" such a hilarious lie. Hilarious, because as the Crikey article explains so well, she just so patently, so ridiculously and so absurdly doesn't get it. But it's a lie and a calumny just the same.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 17:58:15 GMT 10
Meanwhile, Tony Abbott was caught with snout well-and-truly in trough! Tony Abbott attended Santo Santoro’s party on trip charged to taxpayer- the Guardian I am just so loving this!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 10, 2017 20:13:59 GMT 10
No worries my dear chap! You're allowed to be wrong. Just don't get upset when I fail to agree with you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 20:29:40 GMT 10
Lord Pimbo of the neo liberal union labor party cannot be educated and sticks both feet into his gob hole..again.
Australian Labor Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the federal Labor Party. For state/territory Labor Party articles, see List of state branches of the Australian Labor Party.
"ALP (Australia)" redirects here. For other uses, see ALP.
The Australian Labor Party (ALP, also Labor, was Labour before 1912) is a political party in Australia. The party has been in opposition at federal level since the 2013 election. Bill Shorten has been the party's federal parliamentary leader since 13 October 2013. The party is a federal party with branches in each state and territory. Labor is in government in the states of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The party competes against the Liberal/National Coalition for political office at the federal and state (and sometimes local) levels.
Labor's constitution states: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields".[3] This "socialist objective" was introduced in 1921, but has since been qualified by two further objectives: "maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector" and "the right to own private property". Labor governments have not attempted the "democratic socialisation" of any industry since the 1940s, when the Chifley government failed to nationalise the private banks, and in fact have privatised several industries such as aviation and banking. Labor's current National Platform describes the party as "a modern social democratic party", "the party of opportunity and security for working people" and "a party of active government".[3]
********************************************
The entitled greed shown by politicians and the elite is showing us the greed of the globalisation free market liberal economy is failing society as the wealth is not fairly distributed then there will be anarchy and revolution, unless the elite cage the people in a underclass where people become slaves/products so the elite can maintain their wealth. Returning to Charles Dickens Oliver Twist days but with a modern twist, still lots of sewer rats but the two legged variety.
So those politicians espousing democratic socialism are the ones people should be voting for to restore social equality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 5:57:14 GMT 10
Things change over time and there has been a shift to the right in economic thinking where Labor (ALP) has moved to define itself as modern social democratic party, in Britain its called New Labour, the difference being New Labour has also tried to distance itself from trade unionism where the ALP are more inclusive with Unions, both agree private ownership is essential in a economy, with both parties its the right faction that wants to remove social democratic from their constitution which begs the question why call the parties Labor or Labour..??..and Pim can be described as a wet Liberal.
As politics has moved to the right and more capitalistic in thinking, the conservatives its just blatant greed is good and Labor well it ain't so bad, to be certain when Labor loses is social democratic philosophy guarantee there will more of the trickle down economics creating social negativity and a underclass trapped by police enforcer boundaries or rise in the streets with anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 11, 2017 9:22:24 GMT 10
What it SAYS it is, and what it IS, are not necessarily the same thing. Two words: Blackburn Amendment. It pulled the teeth of any so-called "socialist objective" that actually means anything and ensures that the ALP is, has always been, and will remain a reformist party of capitalism. Have a nice day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2017 12:11:24 GMT 10
The socialism that was the foundation of Labor is what made Labor great....take it all away and the party would be worth jack shit in the eyes of the people.
Pseudo Liberal Party.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 11, 2017 13:28:26 GMT 10
Five words: Australian Labor Party National Constitution. Yairs ... (dragging the word out to make it end in a rising inflection as if explaining patiently to a dullard) ... which incorporates the Blackburn Amendment thus rendering the so-called "Socialist Objective" a dead letter. Since confirmed in practice in the bank nationalisation case by the High Court. The ALP is, has always been and can only ever be a reformist trade union party competing for office in a capitalist parliament. Socialism seeks to replace capitalism, reformism seeks not the overthrow of capitalism but to make capitalism work better. The Australian Labor Party is a reformist party whose commitment to capitalism is absolute. It has my vote!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 11, 2017 14:37:12 GMT 10
Thanks for that! Having a nice day, are you? Nice to see you agreeing so enthusiastically and wholeheartedly with Bronnie! Carry on!!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 11, 2017 14:50:01 GMT 10
Meanwhile, Crikey stays on the case ... Pollie expenses are an easy fix, but don't hold your breathThe summer time expenses scandal could be a thing of the past if politicians wanted it to be.www.crikey.com.au/2017/01/11/pollie-expenses-easy-fix/We could quickly dispense with the summer ritual of travel expenses scandals if the government actually did what was recommended and overhauled the expenses system, but that would be too easy. The summer slowdown and the lack of news that comes with it gives journalists the time and resources to spend sometimes days at a time sifting through the hundreds of PDFs uploaded onto the Department of Finance’s website looking at the travel claims made by MPs over the past few years. One of the frequent comments made about the expenses scandal is that people wonder why it sometimes takes years — as in the case of Julie Bishop’s water polo trip, Sussan Ley’s Gold Coast apartment purchase, and Darren Chester’s investment property — for journalists to discover the detail. The difficulty is built into the system. When Malcolm Turnbull was communications minister, he made a big deal about uploading as many data sets as possible to data.gov.au for people to access and use the data as they wish. One big missing piece though is the expenses claimed by parliamentarians. That’s not by accident. There has been little motivation on either side of politics to make the data available in a format that would be useful to the general public, because then it would be much harder to get away with much of what MPs claim today. A minister or senator here or there might get raked over the coals when journalists dig something up, but the process of finding these things is laborious and time-intensive. But by not making the data available to the general public in an accessible format, politicians can keep avoiding scrutiny. For now. Manually trawling through a politicians claimed expenses and then seeing if that lines up with a trip to the AFL grand final, or an impulse buy of an investment property on a scanned PDF image isn’t easy. That’s if the politician has declared everything correctly in the first place. Department of Finance has the raw data in a machine-readable format, but when asked by Crikey yesterday whether such data was available, the department said the PDFs for individual politicians were the only ones available. There’s always FOI, but that adds at least another 30 days to the process, and would likely require additional requests for each politician for each six-month period of expenses. If the data were available in, say, a spreadsheet format, it would be much easier to work out exactly what was being charged and when, and who was making questionable expenses claims. David Tune, in his report to government on travel expenses almost a year ago — and still not acted upon by government — recommended that instead of twice-yearly reporting of expenses, it should move to monthly, and the data should be published on data.gov.au in a machine-readable format so it is actually usable. It’s not that hard to do. New Zealand MPs report their expenses quarterly in useful formats to the public (although they are not itemised as ours are), and public servants also publish their expenses. But there is little motivation to do so when there is so little at stake under the current system. One ministerial resignation here or there is nothing when most MPs can just — thanks to the Minchin protocol — just go ahead and repay the money with no big fuss. And no trip to the debt collectors and threats of jail time, like Centrelink recipients receive. The Department of Finance received funding for a scoping study in the 2015-2016 budget to look at a new system for managing parliamentary entitlements. We asked Finance about whether the study had been finalised but received no response. The department would not comment on whether it planned on making the data available to data.gov.au. Part of the reluctance seems to be a lack of clarity around the exact rules for claiming expenses (though the old “if in doubt, leave it out” should probably apply). Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer said yesterday the government would work to implement the 36 recommendations from the Tune review in the first half of this year. Without going into any specifics about what would be changed, O’Dwyer said that the system would be “streamlined” and the rule clarified.
|
|