If you're elected a member of parliament you have to abide by the following conditions.

--Your children have to attend the worst government school available to your constituents. No private schools and not just any government school. They have to go to the worst.

--Your take home pay from all sources may not exceed the median take home pay of your constituents after adjusting for age and family size. Your expense allowance may not exceed your take home pay and you have to account for every item.

--If you are appointed to the cabinet your take home pay and expenses may go up by no more than 50%.

--If you or any member of your immediate family requires hospitalisation they are taken to the worst public hospital available to your constituents.

--You may choose to live in either the part of your constituency that has the highest crime rate or the worst transport links.

--If you lose your seat you and your family have to live on the dole for six months.

--If your children are in tertiary education they have to attend the institution closest to your place of residence that offers the courses they are taking.

--Your parliamentary pension is equal to twice the basic old age pension.

Happy new year all.

Nice start stevenlmeyer, but here's some additionals:

If the polly is a true believer in global warming: 100% of all their energy needs must be sourced from a wind turbine on their front lawn. And their household sewage must not drained into the city system and pumped out to sea, but piped into a treatment facility in their own backyard.

SPQR

I certainly think MPs who purport to believe in global warming must be seen to be taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint.

Incidentally, since senators represent the state that is their "constituency" for the purposes of this exercise.

to make it fair the rules also should apply to abc leftie presenters as well as unionist who are into the public trough.

Dear Steven,

Another good thread.

However, the realities are very different:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/former-prime-ministers-costing-us-millions/story-e6frmd9-1225945641593#

The link points out that the offices of Australia's former
Prime Minister's are costing more than $50,000 a week
to run, on top of an annual pension bill exceeding $1 million.

John Howard's office is the most expensive with expenses
amounting to $850,000 a year over the last term of government,
an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found.
$450,000 office refit in 2008/09 to his swanky digs in
Sydney's MLC building, which already costs nearly $14,000 a
month to rent.

Each Prime Minister is entitled to at least 2 staff including
a senior private secretary and the annual wages bill of each
is nearly $300,000. They also have their home and mobile
phone bills paid for by taxpayers as well as unlimited
allowances for publication, a private self-drive car, and
air-fares for them and their spouse.

These are in addition to their pensions under a generous
former Parliamentary Supperannuation Scheme - which gives
them a pension indexed to current MP's salaries for life.

John Howard's office spent $100,000
on limos in 7 months and $2,143,147.34 - over a 30 month
total.

Ah, life is hard for our former PM's. No question about
that.

What tragic circumstances we have, and what accountability do we have. Pigs still feasting in the lap of luxury from the public trough.
I would not approve of Abbott being fed at all after politics, let alone what damage he would do.

Foxy says: <<John Howard's office spent $100,000 on limos in 7 months and $2,143,147.34 - over a 30 month total.>>

Yes. And we should not begrudge him a singe cent of it!

It is common business practice that if a company rep. saves the business megabucks s/he should receive a megabucks commission. Howard's --farsighted and astute Pacific Solution (even Rudd.2 belatedly recognized its value and sought to imitate it!)--put a stop to one of the biggest illegal immigration scams and saved the nation trillions of dollars in life-time welfare payments and additional security.

His $2,143,147.34 was well and truly deserved.

Politicians have one law for themselves and quite another for their luckless, long-suffering employees, the public servants.

For example, it is a case of "I'm all right Jack", where superannuation is concerned.

The value of politicians' superannuation is preserved by indexation against increases in average weekly earnings,

whereas (wait for it!),

the value of the public servants' superannuation is consonantly eroded by indexation against the CPI.

That is despite the recommendation of parliamentary committees that Defence force and and public servant retirees superannuation should be indexed fairly.

To give the Greens credit, they have committed to correct the inequity.

<Commonwealth superannuation pensions, civilian and defence, are indexed to the consumer price index. The aged pension is indexed to the highest of the CPI, male total average weekly earnings or the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index.

Under the Howard government, three Senate inquiries considered the indexation of superannuation pensions and recommended reviewing it to better reflect the true cost of living.
..

Mr Sheikh said successive governments had not rectified the problem of unfair indexing, with the result that many retired Commonwealth and Defence Force personnel were struggling financially.

''There are tens of thousands of retired public servants in our community who live on their superannuation pension, often supporting a spouse or partner as well,'' Mr Sheikh said.

''With Commonwealth superannuation pensions not rising as fast as the cost of living, many in our community are missing out.

''Three separate Senate inquiries over the last 12 months have found that, due to the failure to correct a technicality, retired Commonwealth employees miss out.

"Superannuation pensions are designed to take the pressure off our social security system while ensuring retirees can maintain a decent standard of living during their retirement.

"But many of the 300,000 retirees who are on Commonwealth superannuation pensions are struggling to make ends meet.

"The average Commonwealth superannuant is living off $27,000. Often, this $27,000 has to stretch to support two people.>

www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/greens-seek-fairer-super-deal-for-ps-pensioners-20130805-2rai7.html#ixzz2opNvEpaj

Dear SPQR,

The following link gives a more accurate perspective
of Mr Howard's "Pacific Solution," and its high cost to
Australians in more ways than one - despite what you
or the Murdoch media may like to tell people:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

cont'd ...

You may continue to think that Mr Howard
"deserves," his current life-style at the
taxpayer's expense because he's "earned it".
Earned it? For doing his job, and being paid
handsomely for it at the time?

Nobody deserves that sort
of a reward - for life after they leave their job -
especially when they are already benefiting
from a very generous pension. And stating that Mr
Howard "deserves" such generosity because he "earned it,"
what he earned he got compensated for with his generous
salary at the time of his employment - and he certainly
did not earn being compensated for doing his job for the
rest of his life. That's ridiculous.

BTW - do read the link that I cited and see just how much
the Pacific Solution did cost the taxpayers in more
ways than one. It wasn't peanuts!

many ideas
like the idea
in here
http://undergrounddocumentaries.com/constructing-public-opinion/

It would seem more productive to understand the task we give politicians.
Even to know this simple truth, no party no group can do every thing some want.
To do so all to often delivers more barbed comments as the action isolates more than it leaves happy.
We ask too much and understand too little of our politicians.
It like many Aussie throw away lines is without legs to stand on, the thought all politicians are always wrong.
We could start a thread, and fill it, with our nonsense statements that we use without thought.

Belly,

You have to admit it is a low act of politicians, specifically the Rudd government (doubtless on the advice of Julia Whatshername) to stiff their loyal employees, including retired defence personnel who served Australia in war zones.

However Rudd and Gillard retired taking their golden handshakes, with the protection against loss of value that they denied public servants.

Now if that isn't a mongrel act what is? Still, that is the educated middle class toffs of Fabian Socialists aka'Progressives' for you, always thinking of themselves, 'Me, me, me', and never the workers.

Now you are getting more of the same from the self-absorbed, greedy 'Progressives' of the calibre (got to be a more apt word) of Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek and their crew.

What does it take for union and Labor rank and file to wake up to them? Maybe a brick council dunny for fall on your heads?

Speaking of "...middle class educated toffs..." Onthebeach, what do you think of Abbott and Hockey's pre-election plan to pay the middle to upper class working parents up to $150,000 to stay home with their new babies?

And now there is talk of this promise actually becoming a broken promise (AKA...lie), as the Middle class- upper class Libs scramble to try and pay for their extravagent promise.

Dear Belly,

Peter Coleman wrote in the Preface to "The
Costello Memoirs,"

"Whatever they may say, most of them (politicians)
do not go into Parliament to bring about
particular reforms;
they go in because they find the life is irresistible.
They want to be in it all their lives..."

Therefore we have the seat-warmers, the hacks, the
careerists, and the adventurers. And you get those who
want to hang onto power, while perhaps not Mugabe-esque,
are unyielding - like John Howard, and he's not an
unusual case.

The Pain and frustration of dislodging
Prime Minister Hawke, or Premiers Askin and Bjelke-Petersen
are still fresh in many memories.
Tony Blair as Coleman reminds us -
was as unwilling to vacate 10 Downing Street as
Mr Howard was to vacate Kirribili House (although
Blair finally made way for his successor).

The USA set the world an example in constitutionally
limiting the number of years a president may remain in office
(but even Bill Clinton strove mightily to return to the
White House on the coat-tails of his wife).

We'll be able to look back on the current government's
record sometime in the future - and assess what sort of
legacy they left the country.

Will it be a
proud and prosperous country, or will it find itself in
the proverbial backwater - in the wilderness.
History will judge. All we can do is speculate - and
the first 100 days aren't looking good thus far!

Not to be..confused..with Double-talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

Doublespeak is language..that deliberately disguises,..distorts,..or reverses..the meaning of words...[often/in..linkage..with..suggestive word associations]..
..Doublespeak may/take the form..of euphemisms..(e.g.,..."downsizing" for layoffs,.."servicing"..for..revenue raising..

it is primarily meant..to make the/pain..sound more..reasonable.

It may also refer..to intentional ambiguity..in language..or to actual inversions..of meaning..for example,..naming a/state of war "peace-keeping")...In such cases,..doublespeak disguises..the nature of the truth.

Doublespeak..is most closely..associated with/political language

The techniques..of spin include:

*..Selectively presenting..facts/survey..and quotes
that support one's position..(cherry picking)
*..the..Non-denial..denial
*..Non-apology/apology
*..'Mistakes were..made'
*..Phrasing..in a way..that assumes..unproven truths,
conspiricy/theory..malice..or..simply..avoiding the question.
*.."Burying bad news":...announcing one popular thing at the same time..as several unpopular things,..knowing that..the media will focus..on the popular one...[in/its..15 seconds..of [public/exposure.
*..Misdirection/revisionism..perversion/moralization..ridicule objectification/subjectification..and diversion

businesses have used fake..or misleading customer..testimonials by editing/spinning..a customers clients/to reflect a much more satisfied experience..than was actually the case..

Another spin technique involves a delay in the release of bad news so it can be hidden in the shadow of more important or favorable news or events.

overused bureaucratic terms
and their politically-mutated definitions.
“Compassion”

A term used by free-spending govt
who want to give your hard-earned money to their mates.

“Radical”

A volatile, mud-slinging term that means absolutely nothing and is used to whip up the emotions of the ignorant electorate.
“Mean Spirited”

A generic term used by the left to define anybody to the right of them.

“Carbon Footprint”

Self-righteous lefties repeat this to sound important
“Fairness”

The belief that nobody should have more than anybody else, regardless of work ethic or skill sets.
“For the Children”

When you hear this term, hold on to your wallets
we all know what this means.

“Pro-family”

A sanctimonious..term meant to stir up low-information voters — who’s anti-family?

“Investment”

When politicians say “We need to make an investment,” they really mean, “I want to spend YOUR money on MY agenda.”

“Racist”[greenie]

An accusation used by liberals..when they’re losing a debate on any topic.
hollowcost denier..druggie/bikie/loner..

Suseonline, "Onthebeach, what do you think of Abbott and Hockey's pre-election plan to pay the middle to upper class working parents up to $150,000 to stay home with their new babies?"

You are a scream Suseonline:

first, that is completely irrelevant to what I said and ducks the issue raised; and

secondly, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I would be the last one to support employers paying for the decisions of parents.

It is the bull feminists who push maternity leave and demand continuation of the rate of pay as they won for women in the public service that you should be rudely accusing. Honestly, do you imagine that the Office of Womyn with Status or Emily's Listers would agree with you? -Although they might squirm for ways to blame Abbott for giving them what they demanded in the first place.

No lesser authority than Eva Cox, feminist and academic, said that feminists opposed Abbott's parental leave because of who was proposing it rather than for what it delivered to women. In that I suggest that you would be simply parroting the cynical, politically-driven view that Cox condemns. That is, you would cut off your nose to spite your face.

Now, back to my original point which your diversion ducked answering,

<You have to admit it is a low act of politicians, specifically the Rudd government (doubtless on the advice of Julia Whatshername) to stiff their loyal employees, including retired defence personnel who served Australia in war zones.

However Rudd and Gillard retired taking their golden handshakes, with the protection against loss of value that they denied public servants.>
onthebeach, Sunday, 29 December 2013 4:36:53 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6164&page=3
and
the linked article,
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/greens-seek-fairer-super-deal-for-ps-pensioners-20130805-2rai7.html#ixzz2opNvEpaj

I could post a thousand reforms for politicians.
And the same number of past wrongs.
Could highlight the increasing numbers who went in clean and came out dirty.
Then start on the other side, these truths came from mine!.
Power corrupts, but it blinds too, us those who continue to put some true grubs back in power, on both sides.
We should join the 21st century, say enough, it stops here.
Threads like this do nothing,we are ignored.
Maybe a day will come that we here in OLO can send our thoughts to Canberra,and the media.
Change.org is not a blog,not always right,but once a member[ we could do it here] you get an e mail and the chance to sign a petition.
Further information follows telling of publicity and results.
GY may not wish such a thing.
But it will come to this country one day, people power.
And then? some will be concerned as they get stuck in the heated spotlight of public opinion.

Belly,

If you want to use this site to promote another site why don't you get the OLO moderator's approval first for a special thread to do it?

I notice that the wolves in sheep's clothing, the political 'Progressives' who are active interfering behind the scenes in governments internationally are trying to manipulate that site you are promoting. What are they? Socialists? Marxists? Trotskyists? What exactly are they seeking as their final one world government 'solution'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/changeorg-corporate-gop-campaigns-internal-documents_n_1987985.html

For myself, like most Australians I am very suspicious of any overseas entrepreneurs attempting to dabble in our politics. What about Soros? Not something that Wikileaks would look at though. I am also concerned about mob rule, and probably more so where the vehicle to do that could be manipulated by secretive forces, and not ruling out the secret services of other governments.

i..already said..[as reported on alex jones..last week
that fully one quarter..of those in control..of govt /service/law/medisin..etc etc..are kiddy fiddlers[thats how you get to be a 'backdoor'..man[the power player..HAS THE DIRT ON..*YOU

[you do as your told ..they help you get at your perversions..you betray them..they expose your dirt]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6165&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6166#179054

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152#178808

its ok to sling off at Howard ...

but won't Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard accrues similar expenses ?

Foxy,

At least the coalition has only had one PM in the last decade, for 11 years of competent government, for 6 years of incompetence and dishonesty, we have 2 Labor PMs with their noses in the trough.

Out of curiosity does anyone here appreciate my original post was intended to be at least somewhat humorous?

Lighten up fellas and have a great new year.

Well, yes, Rudd and Julia Whatshername know how to live,

Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd demand bigger perks for former Prime Ministers
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/julia-gillard-and-kevin-rudd-demand-bigger-perks-for-former-prime-ministers/story-fni0cx12-1226766891140

They were parsimonious in the extreme where their employees the public servants were concerned though, refusing retired public servants the superannuation indexation recommended by several parliamentary committees, and enjoyed by themselves,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6164&page=3

OTB I have had enough of you!
GY will pull me in to line if I offend him,
He has before and will again are going to continue to troll me?
Can you understand nothing you say can change my view we have no reason to talk on any subject!
You are trolling me Sir

Shadow Minister,

You need to separate fact from fiction.

Inane slogans, and repeated lies, are beginning
to wear thin. But I don't blame you.
It's all you've got.

As you were.

Belly,

I refer to your post of 30 December 2013 3:07:53 PM.

This is a public site. While you might like your opinions to always prevail, other posters including me have the right of reply. It is called freedom of speech.

Hahah! The Belly is shown in no uncertain terms his side is a bunch of vipers and villains (Like the rest I might add) and gets his nickers in a knot :~) Anyone that thinks a Soros sponsored site is a good thing needs their head read and quickly before they pass on their disease to others!

"""
But it will come to this country one day, people power.
"""

And which people will be empowered, belly? The Socialists? The Conservatives? The Unionists? The Muslims? The Chinese? The Gun toting, knuckle dragging thugs? The Bikers? The Greens? The Statists? The Libertarians? The Totalitarians? The Feminists? Which ones, Belly?

And if it's not one of the ones you approve of, will you go running off to George Soros for another go at people power?

You see, I don't see OTB trolling you. I see OTB executing his own people power which is afforded to him by his right to an opinion!

Foxy,

Three words: Pot, Kettle, Black.

Repeated lies and inane slogans are all you've got.

Raw Mustard we are not mates.
Time and time again your sharp, slightly lost insults have bought rebuke.
I often, have had reason to remind you, you in fact are not *hot stuff*
I understand your wish to hurt me, and again ask have you yet reached your teen aged years?
Every one needs a mate.
I have found one for you OTB!
Have fun and as you grow up try to get your act together, maybe one day you will contribute something worth reading.
SM.
Well you understand your words, and in fact you know better you must not however continue on such slim evidence if any to say Foxy and I lie.
Bloke drop the iron clad armor tell me your true opinion has Tony Abbott,s less than good start.fall in the polls concerned you even a little bit?
Can you see any chance he just may not be your leader on next new years day?

SM,

Actually inane slogans and repeated lies
is something that you've got down to a
fine art. Most of us prefer genuine policies
but those are out of your realm of understanding.
Pot- kettle-black - is the best you can do!

But what can one expect from the mentality that
thinks:

1) Standing Tall for Australia means firing your
workers and moving the jobs to India.

2) Jesus loves me and shares my hatred of
homosexuals and Labor.

3) The best way to improve military morale is
to praise the troops in speeches while slashing
veterans' benefits.

4) Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are
junk science - but creationism should be taught in
schools.

And the list goes on.

Dear Belly,

A word of advice.

Don't get upset by the comments of the
barking chihuahuas. They'll bark at anything.
It's best to simply ignore and scroll past their
posts. They can't annoy you if you don't read
their comments. Don't honour them with replies
until we run out of intelligent and reasoned posters on this
forum (human beings). You can't argue with people who are
so narrow-minded that they can see through
keyholes with both eyes. Even single-celled
creatures have a right to exist - but they
aren't capable of evolving. Leave them to their
own devices - and to the kindred spirits who
share their "wisdom."

Foxy,

Actually inane slogans and repeated lies is something that you've got down to a fine art. You just open you mouth to put your foot in it, and have not the slightest grasp of a genuine policy.

My first comment was to pull you up for gross hypocrisy in complaining about Howard's entitlements while ignoring those of the more recent Krudd and Juliar.

My mentality and those of my ilk support jobs in Australia by making manufacturing businesses competitive with flexible working conditions, reduced red tape, and reduced power and construction costs. Exactly the opposite of Labor.

Most of us believe in climate change, but have the IQ to realise that unilateral action by australia does nothing for the environment and harms the economy.

Next you finger me as a homophobic christian fundamentalist, whereas I am an atheist that supports gay marriage, and my posts clearly show that. The reason that neither the coalition nor labor support gay marriage is because the majority of voters that oppose gay marriage are blue collar workers in marginal seats.

It would appear that you have no shame and that lying comes naturally to you.

As far as policy is concerned, while labor has great motives for its policies, every single implementation is a supreme stuff up, costing the tax payer $billions, harming the economy, and often killing people.

SM,

It seems not everyone agrees with
your take on things. No surprises there:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2012/8/27/interest-rates/abbotts-not-so-golden-years

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

http://www.onenation.com.au/hot-topics-voting/prime-minister-lurks-perks

cont'd ...

You don't have to justify your mentality to me.
The perception
that I have formed of you is based on the posts
that you write on this forum. However, if you want my
opinion to change - you can always improve.

Foxy that is good advice.
However I have an inquiring mind.
And look constantly for a reason for SMs diatribes and fixed Stoic in ability to see other than his fixed path.
In our writings for those who put thought in to them, you can read a persons thoughts to the same degree Body Language can be read.
SM has lost it , every time he launches that lie, one he knows is a lie, that we lie he shows he is defeated by our point.
Notice he will not answer my questions?

Dear Belly,

We've covered all of this ground with SM in the past.
He simply espouses the same old rhetoric - reprising
the old labels of bungle, debacle, and disaster.
The latest promotion and diversion is Mr Abbott's demand
for a full judicial inquiry into Kevin Rudd's alleged
"failed home insulation program."

Sad really!

Foxy,

I have no need to justify myself. You ,however, need to justify your need to continuously lie. Your claims of me being a fundamentalist homophobe can be described as nothing else but a lie, and claiming it is based on my posts is delusional.

Your posts are feeble and consist almost exclusively of slagging off anyone that holds a different opinion.

As for the inquiry into the failed insulation program that the coroner has already pinned on Rudd and Labor, the description of debacle is an understatement.

Belly,

You have an inquiring mind? Well you hide it well. I have yet to see any original thought in your posts.

SM,

Your strategy, and that of the Murdoch media,
and the Coalition it seeks to control, is
clear. Identify the Labor government's
outstanding triumphs - the achievements that
have served the community in extra-ordinarily
challenging times and depict them as disasters,
rorts, and catastrophes.

As Alan Austin told us -
this tactic proved to be successful as it was
malicious. And here we are again - the old
labels of bungle, debacle and disaster, are
raising their ugly heads. And you've got the
audacity to call me a liar and expect me to take
you seriously. And I see that you're still calling
our former PM by the name "Juliar." That rreally
shows your integrity. You not only damage your own
self-respect, but those of others. But I imagine that
we'll continue along this route this year. Everyone
else is a liar, you guys are the only ones telling the
truth. It's never your fault - others are always to
blame. And you talk about being shameless!
Tsk, Tsk!

At this stage SM I could be very rude to you.
YOU alone have seen many, my self included leave the site.
Named me a lie teller so very many times.
Bloke you fit the profile of a once Engineer boss I had, wounder if it is you Peter?
However some like you are so self confident they are unable to see in truth how often wrong they are.
I have the happiest memory's of my named ex boss.
And use them to shield me from your posts, *NOT ONE MAN WHO9 WORKED WITH HIM DID NOT DESPISE HIM*
However in real life you b probably see folk walk away from you while you are in mid sentence, so why would your opinion matter.
Yet in a way I admire the pure inability you own to *ever see wrong on your side or in your self*

Back to the thread.

Is there a better example of a well incentivised politician than ex-PM Julia Whatshername? -You know, the one who wore the 'power' jackets with the heavy stripes and colours, BIG citrus bug shoulder pads and had a 'concealed carry' of a full rack of Sheffield boning knives (Yikes, look out, Kevin).

Julia was paid more than US President Barack Obama. She travelled the world First Class in her own large luxury jet. Now she is living high on the hog, set for life and with luxury offices, fawning staff, limos and you guessed it, more first class air travel.

Does it get any better than that? Hmmmm, could do. Julia is casting around for a qango directorship or something. You go, Grrrl! Fully incentivised!

Dear Belly,

We don't need to ask how to incentivise
politicians - the current mob with their
noses in the troughs are making full use
of all that they can get hold of - including
their former PM. They take advantage
of everything they can. And the lists are long
and shaemless. From taxpayer funded air-travel for
their book promotions, to stealing of taxpayer
funded millions to fly to faraway weddings, to
setting up private library collections in their
own homes, to claiming for charity bike-rides and
other travel expenses, and the list goes on.

And all this while asking voters to tighten their belts,
and making cuts to essential services left right and center -
while increasing benefits to the wealthy.

Life wasn't meant to be easy - but obviously this does
not apply to the members of our current government.
They're obviously in politics for the right "incentives."

Foxy, Belly

I will only call someone a liar if that person deliberately states a falsehood.

Labor's "triumphs" were so successfully labelled as rorts or debacles was because independent third parties, such as the newspapers and the coroner, identified that while some positive outcomes were achieved that (a) they could easily have been achieved for a fraction of the cost to the tax payer (b) Many of the negative outcomes were predicted ahead of time, and no precautions were taken.

As for the joke that is Alan Austin, his huge ego compensates for his complete lack of qualifications in either journalism, or economics, and enables him to cherry pick information (often quoting himself as a source), and to draw breathtakingly dubious conclusions.

Belly,

I am sorry that you had such a terrible boss and that he left you so scarred that he left you unable to differentiate between one bad person and an entire profession.

Shadow Minister unlike another poster in this thread you have at least an average IQ and some wit in your posts.
I understand that barb and know you do not truly think I hate Engineers.
In fact I was telling you a solid truth.
That is you act just like my ex much despised, even by his peers ex Engineer.
In fact the NSW RTA has at least two such men in that roll.
And till death I remain proud that a true Engineer/state manager of our biggest civil constructor told me over coffee he had rejected one after he tried to get a job, *as he saw him as unfit to hold a traffic controllers sign.
Now SM your fixed mind can never see wrong on your side, that mind is lieing to you sir and your fixed veiw,s highlight you are of little worth in true debate, clinging to your straw man and defieing truth.

SM,

You've just confimed everything I stated in
my previous post. You've got the gall to call
Alan Austin a "joke," and question his qualifications.
Austin, a freelance journalist who's written for many
media outlets and has been published in most Australian
newspapers and online publications, including this forum.

Whose influential Uniting Church Report on prisons in
Victoria in the late 1980s led directly to the jailing
of prison officers for drug offences. Austin who's worked
as a journalist in Indonesia, China, and now France.
Who's special interests are the news media, religious
affairs, and economic and social issues which impact
the disadvantaged.

Yet I wonder how highly you hold the likes of people
like Piers Akerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Miranda Devine,
Andrew Bolt, et al and their opinions?

How on earth would you even recognise the truth,
when your News is Limited! ;-)

Foxy,

Just taking one of those journalists you ran down by insinuation Here, have a look to inform yourself,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Albrechtsen

Why in the hell would anyone, but especially another woman, dump on a talented, hard-working woman who has those skills and life experience, fought her way to the top in a highly competitive industry, and was on the board of the ABC for years?

You might not agree with her views, but that is no reason to sledge and belittle her.

BTW, what exactly does your Mr Austin have that beats the very talented Janet Albrechtsen?

Belly,

While no one should judge anyone on generalities, neither should one judge someone's personality based on the robust but single dimensioned robust discourse in this blog.

I genuinely hold you in regard, even though I feel you wear your heart too much on your sleeve, and commit to something based on belief rather than knowledge.

While I challenge your "balance" it is not a negative judgement, as to be so would require a detachment and dispassion in the subject that neither of us can claim, nor would want to.

Foxy,

I cannot find any bio of AA outside of the IA and New Matilda, neither of which carry any credibility. I cannot find any evidence of AA having any tertiary degree, nor could I find anything suggesting that his professional "journalism" extended beyond the religious.

His articles recently have had a focus on being an economic apologist for Labor, and his cut and paste / cherry picked offerings show logic and intellectual rigour so feeble that it would not pass muster at a first year university level.

SM,

I can fully understand your
regarding any news outlets
which are rational and principled, without being
biased to any social or political position as
lacking in "credibility."
It makes perfect sense and is in keeping with
your posting record on this forum.

You obviously want your News - Limited.

It makes perfect sense.

Foxy,

"rational and principled, without being biased to any social or political position" is not a description that can be applied in any way or form to the New Matilda or Independent Australia.

The articles in these magazines are strongly left wing, not subject to any editorial oversight or review, and as a result make tenuous claims with no support. Furthermore their articles are generally devoid of any new material and consist mostly of polemics from inconsequential authors with over inflated egos.

The journalists you mentioned before ie Piers Akerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Miranda Devine, and Andrew Bolt, while not favourites of mine are all far more qualified than the dross at the NM or IA. The reason the left whingers hate them so much is that they have the respect of the public.

SM,

Do you really believe what you're posting?

Piers Akerman has the respect of the public?
And he who never finished high school, and
was asked to leave his grammar school
because of a disagreement with the headmaster.

Janet Albrechtsen - who's got so many facts
wrong in her columns that it's not funny -
and when confronted by Media Watch did not reply.

And then of course Andrew Bolt - who wouldn't
know the truth if it fell on him.

And Miranda Devine - her "objectivity" shines so
brightly its blinding (not).

Ah well, to each his own!
You and your team of course are always right!
Everyone else is biased - but not you!
Afterall - you know what to think. You're told,
by reliable sources. Ours aren't credible.(sic).
We get it!

cont'd ...

Here's an interesting article by Alan Austin
on how the Murdoch press manipulates:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15412

1) Repetition in an authoritative tone has driven
home the "truth" to many.

2) They repeat impressive sounding propositions which
they don't bolster with evidence. They don't because
they can't. Day in, day out, week in, week out, year in,
year out. And the accolades keep coming.

3) They ignore global context.

4) They deny the global financial crisis impacted
Australia.

5) The sneaky rehtorical question which also avoids
actual fibs.

6) They make things up.

If you can't say something destructive about Labor,
don't say anything. Therefore you won't find any
research or mention into how Australia's global ranking lifted
during the Whitlam administration, fell under Fraser, rose
through the Hawke/Keating period, slipped badly during the
dismal Howard years and rocketed to the top with Rudd
and Gillard.

Of course this is not an opinion of a Murdoch journalist.

Foxy,

Janet has a doctorate in Law, Miranda has a degree in physics, Bolt has an Arts degree, and Piers has decades of high level journalism.

Alan has achieved almost nothing in his life, and his quality of "journalism" is laughable.

SM,

Andrew Bolt started an Arts degree - he didn't complete it.
Miranda Devine does not have a degree in Physics.
Piers Akerman consistently gets facts wrong in ways that
suits his political agenda and as for Janet Albrechtsen -
having a law degree does not qualify one's expertise
in journalism. Our current PM is also a lawyer - (and a
Rhodes Scholar to boot) so what?

Numerous studies have shown that there is little or no
relationship between educational achievement and job
performance or productivity. Degrees are poor predictors
of whether someone will become a good journalist,
politician, doctor, or teacher. The fact is that the
skills required to get a degree are not the same as the
skills needed to deal with running the country, or
being a good journalist, or deal with a medical emergency,
or dealing with an unruly high school class.

And the journalists that you mentioned consistently get
facts wrong in ways that suit their political agendas.
For example, in 2002 Victorian Magistrate Jelena Popovic
successfully pursued a libel claim in relation to Andrew
Bolt's article; the judgement cost Bolt's employers
almost $250,000 in damages to Popovic, as well as the
costs of the trial and an unsuccessful appeal to the
High Court.

These journalists tell people what they should be thinking
and hordes of followers lap it up. Like the Fox jocks,
they stick to just a few themes - "Stop immigration,"
"End Multiculturalism," "Honour the Churches," "No Stolen
Generation," "Frown on Divorce," "Crack down on welfare,"
and they hammer them over and over. Top of the list in their
Right-Wing songbook is the non-existence of climate change.

They understand that to succeed in today's media - you need
to create controversy and a division of opinion.

And they milk it for all it's worth.

cont'd ...

You of course are entitled to your opinion.
But not your facts!

Foxy, "Numerous studies have shown that there is little or no
relationship between educational achievement and job
performance or productivity"

Assertions without sources. What studies and conducted by whom? The peer reviews in professional journals please.

To the contrary, Australian professional qualifications are very reliable indicators.

The professional colleges of (say) engineers and medicine an the public are rightly concerned about some of the qualifications and training of graduates being imported from overseas.

Maybe some of the engineers reading this thread might have something to say about the multicultural affirmative action policies of federal and State public agencies that result in our own and very competent professional and a good example is engineers, being coaxed to sign off on sub-standard work done by imported professionals. Then there are the problems experienced by the Qld State health department with imports who claim registrations they don't have.

You need to cite those blogs you cut and paste from. You might also re-consider the advice given to you so often by other posters, to rely on authoritative news sources rather than fringe blogs and 'opinion' shows that are just entertainment for the easily led.

Blaming the media is a common pastime of the manipulative 'Progressives', aka the 'Fabian Socialists', the wolves in sheep's clothing (their logo) aka international socialists (Marxists) and others with a secondary agenda to serve.

So,

Janet has a doctorate in Law, Miranda has a degree in Mathematics, Bolt and Piers have a long history of serious journalism. Alan Austin has none of that. The reason he has never been sued for his falsehoods is mainly because no one cares about what he writes.

As far as qualifications, do you see a doctor with no qualifications? Abbott is a Rhodes scholar and beat the snot out of Labor.

The reason that the left whingers hysterically accuse these journalists of lying is because they have more credibility than the labor sycophants in IA and NM, and people listen to them.

Shadow Minister, "The reason that the left whingers hysterically accuse these journalists of lying is because they have more credibility than the labor sycophants in IA and NM, and people listen to them"

Free speech is under concerted attack in Australia and in the West generally. What Foxy and others have as their goal is media self-censorship. They have been successful in many cases, assisted by Labor ministers like Nicola Roxon, who framed laws to muzzle any who might disagree with her world view.

SM,

You view things one way, I another.
To me most of the Murdoch publications openly spruik
for conservative politics. Not just in the opinion
pieces but in their news pages as well.

Essential to free enterprise and democracy is access
to information free of distortion. That's not something
that's available from Murdoch publications.

I do not believe that our MSM should be controlled by a
selected few - so that they can push their own barrows.
And there's quite
a few people who agree with me - which is why independent
media sources are surviving becoming increasingly more popular
and doing very well.

Whether MSM can change or not - (as it sees fit) is
becoming less relevant - because the rest of
us have already moved on. - We get our information
from sources that do provide serious journalistic endeavour,
and give us an ennobled and thoughtfully significant
coverage of policy and ideas. Sources that don't deal
purely in slogans and cheap impressions. Sources that
aren't dependent on the division of opinion. Sources that
don't stick to just a few themes and hammer them over and
over. And journalists who are qualified to discuss
economic and social issues - dealing with facts not innuendo
and generalisations and labels.

But that's just my preference.
It's very different from yours,
obviously!

Foxy,

Those media outlets you label disparagingly as 'MSMs', using the Progressives' tactic of trying to get some negative stereotyping going as a way of poisoning the well against opponents rather than dealing with their arguments, are answerable to all manner of time-honoured ways, including to their investors.

If you really were concerned with 'independence', that is if you weren't solely about pushing your opinions and agenda onto others and they can go play shut-up, you would be rooting for freedom of speech.

But your enemy IS freedom of speech isn't it, and you spruik for laws that control and censor. Nicola Roxon would be another of your pin-up Grrls. Oh that's right, she is another who talks of Labor as a party for 'Progressive' politics. 'Progressive' as in Fabian Socialist aka International Socialism aka Marxism, and loss of the freedom of Australia and Australians.

No wonder the old union and Labor stalwarts are confused. Their Labor was put under new management years ago. It is Labor in name only, ought be 'Progressives' or 'Fabian Socialists', or more correctly 'International Socialists'. The Labor stalwarts thought they had a foot on those types years ago, but obviously not!

There would be many migrants who must shudder at the thought of the authoritarianism and creeping totalitarianism of the 'Left'. I used inverted commas for 'Left', because any self-respecting old lefties would abhor the Authoritarian Left and the fascism implicit in the ultimate goals of the 'Progressives'.

SM,

I want to take this opportunity to wish you
and your family a safe and prosperous New Year.
I look forward to more robust discussions with
you during 2014.

Enjoy this special time of the year with your
family.

Cheers.

Foxy,

I wish you and your family all the best for the new year too.

If your optics on politics are so far to the left that everyone in the mainstream media appears conservative and the NM and IA are "sources that do provide serious journalistic endeavor", you have my pity.

The mainstream media is just that: Mainstream. Newscorp is presently right of center and Fairfax is left of center, but both institutions provide news and commentary from all sides, with the openly conservative journalists you loathe providing only a small portion of the content along side openly left wing proponents such as Richardson and Bramson.

The MSM are also held to standards of journalist integrity that the fringe blogs don't.

SM,

I appreciate your comments and will
do a bit more thinking on the issues being
discussed. I feel that we
all have our biases and it is difficult at
times to be objective. However, I do appreciate the
fact that we are able to have our discussions with
respect and civility.

See you on another thread.

All The Best.