Federal Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce pulled
out of an appearance on the ABC's Q&A program after
the Prime Minister Tony Abbott ordered frontbenchers
boycott the show.

Mr Joyce's withdrawal from the program came hours
after he confirmed on the ABC's Insiders program
that he would be appearing, saying it would be
"interesting."

I for one was looking forward to his appearance to
talk about things that matter to the National Party
generally (he is their Deputy Leader), and to discuss the
Government's White Paper on Agriculture and the plans
the Government has for the future of agriculture in
this country. I was especially interested on what Mr
Joyce's views were on allowing foreign owners to buy
our agricultural land.

It seems that Mr Joyce was being denied an
opportunity to discuss important issues on a top-rating program.
A program where viewers get to ask questions of ministers.

Malcolm Turnbull is scheduled to appear next week.
Mr Turnbull has said in the past that he doesn't believe
in boycotting the show. We'll have to wait and see.

Interesting times ahead.

What are your views on this situation?

Hi Foxy, an interesting subject!
I believe Turnbull will go on the show.
Surely, as communication minister, it is appropriate?

What is Abbott afraid of?
He embarrassed Barnaby Joyce by spitting his dummy and saying that if the ABC boys won't agree with our policies, we won't play with them.

For goodness sakes, the show is a great platform for any Government to get their policies across to the masses.
Any PM who doesn't take advantage of that is a fool.

I think those of us who feel the ABC is biased should follow suit and boycott this thread.

"I think those of us who feel the ABC is biased should follow suit and boycott this thread."

There you go folks! - so much for open and candid discussion. CH reckons stunt-boy's latest stunt is a goer.

It could be watershed moment re the Liberal leadership.

Will Mal stand up to his nemesis, the remarkable Mr Abbott, and treat this with the contempt it deserves - or will he fold? Which democratic country has a Communications minister who is banned from communicating on one of the most widely watched forums in the country?

Mal has started his move on Tones and his ridiculous terror hysteria.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/07/malcolm-turnbull-we-must-not-amplify-threat-of-isis?CMP=soc_568

"Malcolm Turnbull: we must not amplify threat of Isis"

But the other interesting point is that Abbott had primed Ray Martin to "review" QandA....problem is that Martin criticised the boycott as "silly".

"Martin said on Tuesday that some of the "rants and raves" following former terror suspect and convicted criminal Zaky Mallah's appearance on the program had been "crazy"."

Now the RWNJ's in the Coalition are calling for him to step down from that role:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ray-martin-urged-to-step-down-from-qa-review-after-calling-boycott-silly-20150707-gi75x0.html

Clearly, Martin is just not partisan enough - which will never do!

Oh and Barnaby was said to be rather cross (aka "furious) being as he'd been quite keen to rabbit on about his white paper....

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/06/barnaby-joyce-said-to-be-furious-at-tony-abbotts-ban-on-his-qa-appearance

Dear Suse,

I also feel that this was a missed opportunity for
Mr Joyce.

One of the pre-requisites for democracy is that the
media not be censored - that citizens have the right
of free speech, and that public officials tell the
truth.

When attempts at silencing the media are made, when
information is concealed or people are lied to,
these actions are contrary to democratic values and
it damages public faith in our political institutions.
Under such circumstances voters are denied access to
information, the democratic process becomes a sham, and
people cannot use their rights to make choices in a
meaningful way.

We are not a totalitarian regime - yet.

Dear CH,

I am surprised - actually shocked that you have
nothing to say on this crucial subject.

What is the panic about, the ban is only for a short period.
Talk about knickers in a twist !
Is this the best you can do ?

Dear Bazz,

Just the fact that the ban came into play at all
if enough reason for concern.

Dear Poirot,

It will be interesting to see if our Communications
Minister, Malcolm Turnbull will appear on Q&A.

Malcolm Turnbull as Communications Minister,
one would think should be obligated to appear on Q&A
representing the Government and explain the Government's
policy on censoring the ABC.

I am sure the Electorate would like to know what the
Government is attempting to do and they would like
an explanation of the Government policy.

on the issue.

Foxy,

Just to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Abbott's "boycott" - here's what he and Hockey had to say about moves to boycott Alan Jones a few years back:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-hockey-refuse-radio-boycott-20121002-26xho.html

"OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott and shadow treasurer Joe Hockey have made it clear that when it comes to Alan Jones, the numbers say it all.

Mr Abbott, asked whether he would continue to go on the Jones program, declared: ''I am certainly not going to ignore an audience of half a million people in Sydney.''

Mr Hockey said it was ''the height of arrogance to say you're going to boycott some sort of radio show that has an audience of 5, 6, 700,000 Australians.'"

For goodness sakes Foxy, the ABC board is having an enquiry into the
incident and during that ministers are not to appear.
Quote;
Malcolm Turnbull as Communications Minister,
one would think should be obligated to appear on Q&A
representing the Government and explain the Government's
policy on censoring the ABC.

Why ?
What policy ? Last I heard there was no such policy and it appears the
government has no power to do so, outside laws that affect all media
and people, eg security matters.
I am sure the people can wait until after Ray Martins enquiry to find out.

Poirot, needs to take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

I could say, if I was game, that the ladies are becoming hysterical.

I am sure that if the boot was on the other foot there would be screams of self-serving bias at the team chosen by the ABC to review itself.

Here is one of the two, Ray Martin, in full flight,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ray-martin-urged-to-step-down-from-qa-review-after-calling-boycott-silly-20150707-gi75x0.html

Is that how an impartial reviewer acts and prior to even completing the review?

Astonishing that the (albeit lightweight) 'interviewers'(sic) made no attempt to call Ray Martin's bluff. Yet each one of them would be paid better than many medical specialists in public employment and a multiple of what a nurses earn, to take a couple of examples.

I don't know where Foxy gets the idea that Comrade Jones would have allowed Joyce to talk about what Foxy wanted to hear.

Joyce did not "withdraw". He was instructed to stay away by his boss, Tony Abbott, who has finally decided to exert some authority over some of his nincampoops. The next one to pull into line is Turnbull. However, the gesture of boycotting the ABC is pretty pathetic compared with the essential action of withdrawing all funding from the bigoted ABC. But, Abbott is not man enough for that.

Dear Poirot,

I remember all the fuss that was made about
Andrew Bolt and his right to "Freedom of Speech" - when
Bolt lost his court case because of factual errors
in his column. And then we have our Attorney-General,
Brandis telling people - "It's allright to be a bigot."

I can't understand what all this fuss is about with this
Abbott-led boycott. The ABC has admitted it made an error
of judgement with the Zaky Mallah incident. Surely the
Government should be able to move on from that.

There are several Reviews into the incident - more expense.
And for what? There have been so many inquiries into the
alleged "bias" of the ABC over the years. No inquiry has
found any evidence of this - a fortune has been spent.
The ABC is one of the most scrutinised organisations in this
country.

The latest over-reach on the behalf of the Government smacks
of pettiness and bias. It is not objective by any stretch of
the imagination.

Malcolm Turnbull and other pollies have made it quite clear
they will not be part of the Government boycott.
Mr Turnbull has stated -

"We need to take advantage of every platform that's
available. We're in the business of getting the message
of the Government across... So I'll continue to appear on
ABC programs, including Q&A, if I'm invited to be there!"

Dear Bazz,

Seems that you're the one getting upset over all this.
At least that shows you do have feelings on the issue.

BTW: - There are three reviews currently on the
ABC - The Government Review, ABC Review, and
Malcolm Turnbull's Review. The ABC is one of the most
scrutinised organisations in this country.
And talking about "bias," - there's been a review on
the ABC at least every 3 years by conservative governments.
None have found any evidence to the detriment of the ABC.

Abbott's stalanistic approach to his hatred of ABC.
If you don't like something shut it down, if you don,t like what it looks like throw a bag over it. The journalism of ABC far outway the shriveled brain of Abbott to comprehend.

otb,

"Poirot, needs to take a Bex and have a nice lie down.

I could say, if I was game, that the ladies are becoming hysterical."

That is worth at least three chuckles and a guffaw!

"Hyserical" is the most appropriate description to the Abbott "beat-up" of QandA.

"Hysterical" is also the most appropriate description of the Abbott "beat-up" of the IS threat to Australia.

I've lost count of the number of prominent people throughout the world who have voiced their disbelief at the Abbott govt's terror hysteria, pointing out that nowhere else in the West is this sort of tripe being pushed.

By all means, acknowledge the threat, but don't blow it into ridiculous proportions for political gain. Notably, Turnbull has pointed that out - shame that Shorten didn't.

Two items on the IPA wish list called for the demise of the ABC - Abbott is merely following orders and making himself look more of a prat (if that's possible) in the process.

Apologies, otb...should have directed that to Bazz : )

I think that many people are sick of the secrecy involved
in our current political scene.

Accountability and transparency should be part of
Government's job.

Ray Hunt posed an interesting question recently
to Q&A:

"Greg Sheridan rejected discussions of Abbott's tactics in
his university days of intimidation and drowning out
opposition as ridiculous. Are such discussions still
ridiculous if the behaviour continues. What are the
attacks on Gillian Triggs if not intimidation. What is the
defunding of lobby groups with opposing views if not
the drowning out of opposition? Ad Dr Phil says -
'The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour,"

Add to the threat of jail sentences for
doctors, nurses, social workers and other "entrusted persons"
who dare to speak out about the conditions in detention centres.

Greg Sheridan did also state that Mr Abbott's boycott of the
Q&A program was an over-reach reaction. And, this from a
conservative journalist writing for The Australian.

Fox,

Off you go into the wide blue.

BTT

What about this?

<If the boot was on the other foot there would be screams of self-serving bias at the team chosen by the ABC to review itself.

Here is one of the two, Ray Martin, in full flight,

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ray-martin-urged-to-step-down-from-qa-review-after-calling-boycott-silly-20150707-gi75x0.html

Is that how an impartial reviewer acts and prior to even completing the review?>

If you don't like what you see turn it off. The ABC certainly knows how to draw a crowd.
Boycotting anything as our polititions should not happen, just another of Abbott's secrets for the moment. We are in a cloud of secrets and lies and all in the name of Australian politics, never before has this ever happened. Never before have we had such an entertaining leader.

otb,

Let's cut to the chase.

The ABC review is politically motivated.

Abbott's politically partisan spitting and hissing, backed up by all the radical right-wing nutbags in govt, may as well be advertised in neon.

The likes of Greg Sheridan and Ray Martin are merely articulating what most people think of Abbott's hysterical behaviour. Stunt after stunt after stunt abounds - the ABC review and subsequent boycott is but an extension of Tony's agenda - an agenda which contains little of substance and is propelled by his wanna-be despot ideas of flags and uniforms.

(Apparently Federal govt members have been allocated $10,000 for flags this financial year - http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/federal-member-not-flagging-on-symbols/2698944/ )

This really has gone far enough...don't you think?

I mean if Abbott and his more right-wing henchmen are the best the Coalition can stump up - we're in big trouble.

Off you go.....go and find us someone with substance and honour - a little statesmanship and honesty wouldn't go astray either.

Give us a conservative we can look up to. I'd be willing to give he/she a go.

otb,

I agree that a reviewer should at least be
perceived to be impartial and definitely
keep his personal opinions to himself.

However, as Greg Sheridan pointed out -
who of us doesn't make mistakes? And therefore
Mr Abbott as our Prime Minister is over-reaching
in his reactions to the ABC. As our leader and a
statesman - he should lead by example. The current
example is not a good one.

I, like Poirot, would also like a leader with
some fairness, leadership qualities, and statesmanship,
and with a vision for our future. Someone who would
indeed govern for all Australians.

Know of anyone?

Foxy, I think you will find that there are two inquiries.
The ABC inquiry, which Poirot pretends is a government inquiry and the ACMA inquiry,
which I imagine is the more important inquiry as they
enquire into breaches of the law, broadcasting regulations etc.
They have the power to prosecute and penalties can be very high as well as gaol sentences up to 10 years.

This whole thing is a deliberate Abbott beatup and I am surprised that you would take part in it.

when the regressives are upset you can be sure that Abbott is doing something right. Hopefully they will also save the tax payer wasted money by not attending the upcoming gw religion meetings. Numerous Labour ministers have refused to appear on the Bolt show. Something the regressives deliberately ignore. More abbottphobia.

Who is Bolt. Abbott doing something right, now that is really worth waiting for, do you really believe it will ever happen.
It would be a refreshing change for him to deal with 'Bills' already in front of him.
The ABc is well and truly up to date with what is apropiate and what is not to be aired, like all the legals they go through because they have items of interest to Australians, that someone does not like aired.;

Following his comments on Sunrise, Channel 7, Ray Martin should do the decent, ethical thing and disqualify himself from the review of the ABC.

Whether he intended it or not, Ray Martin's comments, extended as they were, will label him as contentious, an apologist for Q&A, rather than a scrupulously independent reviewer of Q&A. That allegation is already being made and it is his own words on public television that have given rise to the furore.

While I have only watched a few Q&A programs, the demographic of panel is generally one token conservative with 3 to 4 left whinge activists. The audience is similarly overwhelmingly left whinge, and the host TJ will nod in agreement with left whingers. The token conservative will sufficient to brand the show as balanced even though this is laughable.

However, I see boycotts as counter productive, and would prefer to see a requirement that the panelists more accurately reflect the Aus demographic.

My real preference would be to defund the ABC and sell all the stations that compete directly with private companies.

What befell Peter Hitchens on Q&A should never be the case. It was a vicious charade,

http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

Au contraire, runner - it's Abbott who is "upset"...the rest of us are shaking our heads at his latest antics - more of the same wild impetuous yodelling in an attempt to trash the ABC.

Blot is a right-wing mouthpiece - nothing more, nothing less.

(Yes, SM, as I said, privatising the ABC was one of the items on Abbott's bosses, the IPA's wishlist.)

And we must not forget the two characters who were featured on the panel on the night in question...

Steve Ciobo who once on Lateline claimed that given the opportunity, Labor MPs would be in a rush to “slit Julia Gillard’s throat”.

And Grahame Morris's famous comment about Prime Minister Julia Gillard that "they ought to be kicking her to death".

Not to mention, Abbott's well-crafted "heads should roll".

What class!

(talking of vicious charades)

otb

you have to give it to the regressives. They call it the festival of dangerous ideas which is usually an excuse for the like of Singer to push bestiality or some other perversion. Peter Hitchens nailed it and got the usual disdain from all those who oppose decency.

The stories are obviously there to be aired. You can't make something out of nothing. Without the ABC who would we rely on for factual accouting, the ABC is biased to whoever is in power at the time. you can't tear strips of the oposition unless they put themselves into making rediculous statements, as does Abbott. To me all those blatent before election lies were were underdone in the media.

I don't agree with the accusation that the Q&A
program is biased in its audience make-up.
They always give the audience make-up statistics
at the beginning of each program . At no time have
Labor voters outnumbered the Conservatives. It has
always been a very balanced mix - and I have been
watching the program for quite some time.

Also it should be noted that controversies have been
a part and parcel of the program. For example -
John Howard in 2010 solicited a video question from former
Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks. Howard handled the
question brilliantly.

Then in 2011 - a video question from WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange was directed to then Prime Minister
Julia Gillard.

None of them instructed their Ministers to boycott the program
or made a fuss such as the one Mr Abbott is currently doing.

As for Ray Martin's comments?

Mr Martin was chosen to conduct the audit of the ABC's
Q&A program because he is independent and the public perceive
him to be.

As one Liberal Senator commented - this doesn't mean that
he can't express an opinion. Mr Martin made it clear that his
final view will be shaped by an orderly audit of previous
programs. According to an article in The Age, Mr Martin's
comments related more to the boycott than the program itself.
(and everyone has an opinion on that).

The review is expected to take up to 3 months.

I think that Mr Martin is enough of a professional to realise
that his reputation is at stake here. Hopefully he will be
as objective as possible in this matter. I also believe that
he's not the only one conducting this particular review.

Fox, "They always give the audience make-up statistics at the beginning of each program"

What you fail to mention is that the preference is self reported. -The extent that the left will go to, eh?

Otherwise how can the obvious juvenile leftist leanings of the audience be explained during 'that' Q&A (linked to earlier) where Peter Hitchens was mobbed, negged and howled down by the panel and by the unruly, cat-calling, mob audience?

Totally and shamelessly one-sided, including the ABC's production team and host.

What about the loud audience cheering of Mallah? How can that be explained?

I don't know who or what Q&A audiences represent or reflect except juvenile leftists, more likely adolescent green left and Housos (probably the one and the same). Q&A audiences reflect Q&A audiences is about the best one can say.

Yes on the beach, there is little doubt the audience is stacked, it is
consistently leftish in attitude.
A few times could be a mistaken impression, but EVERY TIME !

No only the naive would believe that they take their bus to the RSL
clubs to pick up the audience.
Anyone know where their busses pick up the audience ?

//What you fail to mention is that the preference is self reported. -The extent that the left will go to, eh?//

So it's all just a big conspiracy then?

//What about the loud audience cheering of Mallah? How can that be explained?//

What about the deathly silence when he went too far and incited terrorism? Watch the clip; there are no claps for his childish statement about ISIS. How can that be explained?

Tony, the silence was because Mallah went a bridge too far.

I think that the applause was predominantly
for Mr Mallah's response to the Liberal Party MP's
tactless comment to Mr Mallah. To which Mr Mallah
replied that it was politicians like him that
made young Muslims join ISIS in the first place.
The audience were letting the MP know that his comments
were uncalled for. He could have used the opportunity
to actually answer the question that Mr Mallah had asked.

I did not watch Q&A the night that Peter Hitchens was
a guest. So I can't really comment on that evening.

Fox, "John Howard in 2010 solicited a video question from former Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks"

Howard didn't 'solicit' that question and you know it.

<Speaking at the Brisbane Writers Festival in 2011, former prime minister Paul Keating declared that he wouldn't be caught dead on the [Q&A] show.

Keating would never have allowed his ministers to go on the program at all. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, Keating said, "If I was the Prime Minister I would not let federal ministers go on that program. You just wash the government through mud every time you turn up."

As former ABC managing director Jonathan Shier said last week, the show is also plagued by "sensationalist stunts".

Granting Zaky Mallah a platform was merely the latest attempt at a style of "gotcha" journalism that is unbefitting of Australia's national broadcaster. Q&A's producers have a long track record of outsourcing provocative questions to audience members in an attempt to drum up controversy.

The same stunt was pulled in 2010, when the show hosted former prime minister John Howard and solicited a question from former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. And again in 2011, when a video question from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was shown to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

These may be legitimate questions that Australian politicians ought to answer. But they are presented in a manner designed to elicit controversy, rather than illuminate important issues. This may elicit applause from the live studio audience, it may create news headlines that increase ratings, but it does not create an environment of serious political discussion.

Q&A is a show that favours demagoguery and gotcha journalism. A hostile environment for any government interested in serious policy discussion. And Tony Abbott is right to declare a boycott.>
http://tinyurl.com/ogatalj

I recall a survey some years back where 60% of Coalition voters thought that the ABC was bias in favour of the Labor Party, but interestingly at the same time 60% of Labor voters thought it was bias the other way. Particularly during the Gillard years I thought the ABC was hard on her government, just as I think it is hard on the Abbott government today. If you are of the extreme right, like some on this forum, you will see the ABC as left bias, and also believe Ronald Reagan was a communists. The bias will always be there in their minds no matter what.

A report on the ABC coverage of the 2013 election. with both major parties receiving about 40% of the coverage.

http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ABC2013FedElectionReportChairECRC.pdf

There is definitely the dead hand of the leftist 'Progressives', more like Green Left at work, where Q&A is concerned.

The most recent Q&A provides examples, with the most obvious being the host's, panel's (including the nominal 'conservatives', but 'Progressive' to the core) and audience's rejection of the simple truths, facts, that dispel the most recent confected 'shock, horror' story directed against enemy Tony Abbott, which is the 'impromptu' but highly organised letter of complaint by some health workers.

Shadow immigration spokesman Marles, had the character that others lacked to dispel the complaints as unfounded (and vexatious), which seemed to miff the Q&A Host, who was looking to some easy faux indignation and the usual ritual burning of Abbott at the stake. It wasn't acceptable to the Q&A Host to live up to the 'fact finding' pose of the ABC and settle the issue. Instead and predictably the Host did the 'chase the interviewee up the road' thing, metaphorically speaking. Shabby and false. Shame ABC, shame.

This is Q&A when it is under scrutiny!

This forum is such an excellent example of
the problems of objectivity,

As I have stated in the past - we've seen
from the posts on various discussions that
people in different walks of life may
interpret the same phenomenon - whether it
is a TV program, a Prime Minister's policies,
a religious doctrine, or political parties -
in very different ways.

In other words, people tend to see the world
from a viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation
based on personal values and experience. We all
can adopt varying perspectives on the same problem
and can come to different and even contradictory
conclusions as a result.

If the world consisted simply of some self-evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same
way, there might be no disagreement among observers.
But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the
world is not determined by what exists "out there."

It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us
to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to
see.

Inevitably, then, we will all be guilty of some measure
of bias - the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret
facts according to one's own values.

That is why it is important that a public broadcaster
like the ABC remain independent and not be silenced by
any government, Prime-Minister, or Member of Parliament.

The reality is that this affair has less to do with Q and A and more to do with Joyce being stomped on by blithering Abbott in an effort to attack the independence of the ABC.

Barnaby must be getting used to being stomped on. Greggy Hunt gave the go ahead yesterday for the monster Shenhau coal mine on the Liverpool plains - top class prime agricultural land - some of the best in the world....just ripe for decimation, it seems

Vote National and get a coal mine dumped in yer vegie patch.

Although I suspect Barnaby's tears are of the crocodile variety, as he was quite keen in 2006 to mine the bejesus out of Antarctica.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Mine-Antarctica-says-Barnaby-Joyce/2006/05/01/1146335640427.html

One good thing to come of this travesty is the Tony Windsor is now contemplating a comeback.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-09/tony-windsor-considers-political-comeback-in-light-of-mine/6606022

Dear Poirot,

Ray Martin had a valid point when he remarked
that boycotting the ABC was "silly." As in immature,
and childish.
And Martin - added that Barnaby Joyce is a member of the
National Party not the Liberal Party. So he could
simply have ignored the Prime Minister's orders.

Some persons refuse to see the fact that the party in power gets the criticism, when required. The news items are there to get critisised about.
Abbott is a very different type of polition, unlike any other ever seen in Australia.
With his core response to go it alone on his agenda, of dumbing down critisism. and a what i say goes and should be put into law.
I always thought he was in the wrong political party. He is far to hard to the right to be a liberal, he's more like a Chairman Mao.

Fox,

You missed your calling and should have been a priest with your moralising sermons ending in non-sequitors.

It is always easy to know when you have run out of excuses and rationalisations, in this case for the redundant, tiresome, gossiping, whiney old hag that is Q&A.

Q&A promotes itself as "Democracy in action". What a laugh. Complete bollocks of course, it is top-down elitism and manipulated 'gotcha' moments to put the hated 'white'(sic) 'conservatives' in place.

It is the smug, educated middle class 'Progressive', 'we-always-know-what-is best-for-you' elitism that the public found so patronising and offensive from the scolding, self-centered, greedy, self-occupied feminists of the previous Millenium. The parallel is no surprise.

Time for the ABC to return to its roots and lose the plethora of over-paid personalities who forget that they are the servants paid for by taxpayers and that it is they themselves who are accountable.

The grass roots will be holding politicians responsible next election. It all adds up. The public is aware of the one lane bridges on Highway One that are taking decades to fix and the queues outside hospital EDs. Meanwhile, money taken from taxpayers is being squandered giving a podium to convicted felons to disrespect the elected representatives for sport and give oxygen to outlandish slurs against the Australian people.

$1.3billion p.a. of taxpayer money.

Actually the ABC costs each of us -
a mere - 14 cents a day. (Google it) So we really can't
complain about it being excessive. We get
value for money whichever way you slice it.

And, as David F., brilliantly pointed out some time ago -
there are two ways to argue.

One is presenting one's opinion as fact.
Which some people consistently do all the time.
And secondly - false labelling. Again
which some people consistently do all the time.

If one expects to be taken seriously in any
discussion - one should really provide some evidence
to substantiate one's claims. Otherwise they will simply
be treated as the usual ranting and raving of a narrow-minded
bigot.

But, I hear tell it's allright to be a bigot -
in certain quarters.
Though not on the ABC.

Propaganda is best served when people don't realise stories contain influencing ideas. The separation between the media and government using embarrassing entertaining easily understood stories, allows separation between governments and media beliefs to be reinforced.
If people could realise anecdotal stories persuade, what could be lies to become truths, than populations could be least likely to be tricked out of items of value, than if population understood how propaganda works.

"It is the smug, educated middle class 'Progressive', 'we-always-know-what-is best-for-you' elitism that the public found so patronising and offensive from the scolding, self-centered, greedy, self-occupied feminists of the previous Millenium. The parallel is no surprise."

Go for it, otb....

Are you holding up supporters of this deceptive, ramshackle, debacle-strewn govt as some kind of honourable alternative.

If this govt represents the polar opposite of progressives...what should we make of that?

Why shouldn't we scold when we're confronted by lying, cunning and shameless coterie of govt politicians who are trashing the values inherent in the Western tradition and have morphed from representing true conservatism into a radical neoliberal rabble who every day are making more of a mess.

(btw, As of July, govt debt has increased to $371 billion - up from $273 billion at the time of the last election....just sayin')

I think i see, if you get paid by govt; you have to be mindful of who you upset, The truth has nothing to do with it.
You can bet whatever the ABC puts to air is the choice public opinion.
Some people think liberal voters only have the opinions of the coalition. Most people make up their minds of what is going to air after they have seen and digested the story.
Abbott tells his party what way to vote, where is the opinion in that. They are robotic soles, aren't they.

Considering that only the far left whingers think that the ABC is unbiased, I think that pretty much settles it.

Considering that only the far right whingers think that the ABC is biased, I think that pretty much settles it.

Poirot,

From your view point 90% of people are far right wing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It may surprise you to learn that most people
are neither far Left or far Right - but somewhere
in the middle, depending on the issues. And even
in the most extreme cases - people can surprise
us, as history has shown. Very few people have their
views set in concrete - and can change their minds
depending on the circumstances.

But then that is something you should know.

I found this on the web - and I think it sums
things up rather well:

"The problem for the advocates of "greater balance"
is that you can only stop the ABC being "objectively"
on thing by making it "determinedly" something else,
and to do this would undermine the National Broadcaster's
independence and integrity. Imagine an ABC that told its
journalists not only what kind of stories to pursue but
also what kind of assumptions and values to engage when they
caught up to them."

We already have that in our commercial media.

Step it up, SM.

According to you "90%" of Australians support anything you happen to support...you're great at inventing such figures.

But what's this?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/voters-in-blueribbon-liberal-seats-strongly-support-abc-20150705-gi5eaq.html

"Voters living in electorates held by some of the Abbott government's most prominent ministers support the ABC so strongly they would vote to change the constitution to protect it from political interference, new polling shows.

Voters in these Liberal seats are pretty clear whose side they're on: the ABC's

The polling shows a majority of voters in the seats held by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Education Minister Christopher Pyne would support including the functions of the ABC in the constitution to ensure its independence from government."

So it seems that poor old SM, being of definite rabid right-wing leaning and neoliberal bent is actually in the minority amongst solid traditional Liberal voters.

SM, there is no point in arguing with a computer.
It just complies with the program algorithms.
It does not have any arguments, it just regurgitates a storage of
phrases. It did a remarkable switch around after the election.
It looks like the Labour Party must expected to lose and had it all
programmed up, you know swap opposition for government etc etc.

Very clever stuff, must have some good programmers there somewhere, or
perhaps Bill negotiated an Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft or IBM.
Got some already paid programmers to work for them.

Nahh, not IBM, the NSA would have been all over it.

Poirot, What Shadow is failing to tell you is he is also chief researcher and founding father of the 'Stuff Em' Up Research Company' of Nambuck New South Wales, which just happens to be the geopolitical and geographical center of the universe, as well as the ancestral home of the famous 'Nambuck Dagwood Dog".
From Shadows research it is not only true that 90% of Nambuckens (people from Nambuck, population 3) believe the ABC is bias against Phony Tony, and it will be proved absolutely true once Nambuckens finally do get the dreaded idiot box in their lounge rooms! In the same survey 110% of Nambuckens also believe Shadows research is as phony as Tony!

It must be Boycotting season, Barney boycotted Tony! Yep Barnaby Joyce failed to turn up to Abbotts meet and greet in Barnaby's electorate of New England as Abbott extolled the virtues of the economically and environmentally disastrous Chines Shenhua Watermark coal mine on the Liverpool Plains in the heart of Barney's seat. Joyce is appearing to back the local farmers and townspeople who vehemently oppose the giant open cut Chinese coal mine in their backyard. Barney boycotts Tony!

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/giant-shenhua-watermark-coal-mine-wins-federal-approval-from-environment-minister-greg-hunt-20150708-gi7j65.html

Why, yes indeedy, Paul....never a truer word was spoken.

Poor old Barnaby who is both incompetent and inconsequential in cabinet has been yodelling for the rooftops that "the world has gone mad".

But he's not gonna resign coz someone hinted that he may be Deputy PM material one day.

(Although, I reckon he's got buckley's chance of being able to walk down the main streets of his electorate without attracting several rotten tomatoes, let alone being re-elected)

Note that the announcement to dump a monster coal mine in prime agricultural land was made on the very day Shorten was to appear at TURC - coincidence of course, even if Greggy's document was actually signed on the 4th - the 8th was deemed to be in alignment with Venus and Jupiter who are hanging out together in the night sky of late.

Nambuckens are avid astrologists.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barnaby-joyce-either-incompetent-or-lacks-influence-in-cabinet-over-coal-mine-approval-labor-20150709-gi8ka0

Hi Poirot,

I can just imagine a government cabinet meeting and the verbal exchange;

Barney; "Tone, I'm mad!"
Tony; "We know that already Barn."
Barney; "No, I'm mad about you."
Tony; "No way Barn, we're not voting for gay marriage."
Barney; " No, I'm talk'n about the coal."
Tony; "Of course its cold, its Canberra in winter time Barn. Don't you know anything?"
Barney; "Nah, Tone the coal, the black stuff,,, in my backyard!"
Tone; "Don't worry about it Barn, we'll get the Chows to dig it up for ya!,,,Joe, how;s the budge go'n?"
Hockey; "disastrous Tone, disastrous."
Tony; "Next item!

Abbott playing into the hands of the Chinese again. With Coal they can-not sell all over the place, wisdom says open another coal mine for luck, and with a long long expiry date, with foreign rulers. That sounds spot on from the present regime.

The ABc has more favorable audience than the liberal talking budgies like to think.
Nothing better than good investigative Journalism.

Paul,

We shouldn't be too hard on Barnaby...after all, he is the minister in charge of shooing Yorkshire Terriers out of the country - and berating pirates.

Not everyone can do that with such aplomb...it takes special kind of blustering and blood pressure to pull it off - a kind of decadence, if you will, to make international headlines on such a topic.

Here's Dave Pope with his latest masterpiece, titled "Tits on a Bull(dozer)" ....referring to the usefulness of Nationals MP's in cahoots with the neoliberal regime of Abbott & Co.

http://twitter.com/davpope/status/619274176780603392

The following link taken from Media Watch,
Feb. 23, 2015 - and is still relevant today and
worth a read:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4185606.htm

We should applaud the fact that we do have a national
broadcaster that is independent from government.
There is little choice in the views being presented on our
commercial media. They are narrow (and strident)
and tend to run along
predictable lines.

I shall repeat what was said earlier -

Imagine an ABC that told its journalists not only what kind
of stories to pursue but also what kind of assumptions and
values to engage when they caught up to them.

It is only fair and telling that the ABC might compare itself with Richard Carlton's superficial, 'gotcha' tabloid journalism.

However that confirms the criticisms being made of the ABC.

It is alright for political partisans such as yourself, Fox, who sit in rapt attention at the superficial, 'Progressive' conservative-baiting that pretends to be an 'exercise in democracy' on the ABC's Q&A and other 'drag 'em down' media outlets. You might get your jollies and justification for living in a self-imposed, simplistic rut of leftist or the highway to 'prove' your superior morality (to whom and for what?).

However many people aren't anything like that and expect REAL interviews and REAL opportunities from the Auntie taxpayers fund for guests to expound their outlook on life and interpretation of what is going on about them.

To be blunt, you seek the entertainment of the Roman Colosseum, which is as you are freely admitting (and supporting) is Q&A to a tee.

Others seek a range of views to compare and contrast with their own and to assist them to make sense of what is going on about them.

Is Q&A like Richard Carlton's 'interviews'(sic)? Yes, but it shouldn't be. It is NOT what taxpayers are paying for and the sly 'Progressive' hidden agenda that isn't much concealed these days IS unwelcome too.

There are elements in the ABC that are bringing the ABC down. Time for new blood and an end to the protected workshop where the few 'celebrity journalists' take home mountains of cash and the creative people in other programming get SFA for their efforts.

Interesting that those who criticise the ABC
don't really have much to say in the way of criticism
on the values of any other Australian public commentators,
especially those working for News Corp.

These people only seem to single out those
on the ABC.

Take one - Mr Andrew Bolt (please).
Mr Bolt - not only has a newspaper column but also a
TV show - and his influence is widely felt.

Yet not a peep from any of our resident critics on
any of Mr Bolt's comments - especially on his vicious
anti-Muslim writings where Mr Bolt equates Islam with
jihadi terrorists. (This means equating 1.5 billion
people with terrorism).

What does that tell us about the values of some people?

Malcolm Turnbull once described Mr Bolt's views as
extreme and "quite unhinged."

Mr Turnbull in his description of Andrew Bolt said,

"Now Mr Bolt is fond of attacking what he regards as the
government's enemies in the media. Principal amongst whom
of course he numbers the ABC. I don't think you would see
anything as crazy as that on the ABC... I just have to
say to Mr Bolt, he proclaims loudly that he is a friend of
the government. Well with friends like Bolt, we don't need
any enemies."

Somewhere in this process, somebody should be questioning
media bias in general and not just attacking one group
whilst totally not reacting to the latest ravings of a
blatant and biased other.

"It is alright for political partisans such as yourself, Fox..."

Excuse me!...but surely there is really no point taking these debates to heart on OLO if Mr Political Partisan himself can make a comment like that in all seriousness.

What a joke!

Get a load of Commandant in Chief's latest cunning plan...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/qa-boycott-tony-abbott-prepares-to-back-down-on-frontbench-ban--with-a-catch-20150710-gi9n5v.html

Being the honourable gent he is, his interference in the independence of our public broadcaster (not a 'state' mouthpiece) is afoot once more.

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott will drop the directive for his frontbenchers to boycott the ABC's Q&A program if the ABC moves the program into its News and Current Affairs division."

Oh but...

"But the ABC is not expected to accede immediately to the request, meaning Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull would not be given clearance to appear on Monday's episode of Q&A."

Our L-Plate Despot is a doozy....it seems that he'll do anything to stop his nemesis, Malcolm "Everybody-Prefers-Him-To-Tones" Turnbull, from taking his seat on the panel.

"Fairfax Media understands the ABC will not rush to a decision on the issue as it would view this as a major breach of its independence from government. The issue is expected to be discussed at the August ABC board meeting."

Fox,

Doubtless you have been told many times before but the realities haven't got past your bias, so here it comes again.

Whatever Bolt and others do is irrelevant, they are subject to their shareholders (and advertisers!), UNLESS you are saying that the ABC must 'balance' by leaning left. That would be ridiculous.

The taxpayers and the wider Aussie community OWN the ABC, government has NO money of its own and it is the public's money, directly or indirectly taken, that funds the ABC to the tune of $1.3billion dollars a year and rising.

Taxpayers expect quality programs throughout the ABC. It is NOT acceptable to lose funding from worthwhile drama for example, simply to blow it on the juvenile, superficial, 'GOTGHA' pap - the 'shock, horror, humiliation and hysteria' entertainment for Housos, Bogans and Green-Left lunatics - being produced by those overpaid celebrity journalists and producers on Q&A and other ABC political stunt shows.

Frankly, I would very much prefer it if the large sums of PUBLIC money that are being poured daily into the over-paid political talking heads on the ABC were used instead to pay for outstanding, apparently unfunded, medical treatment for the many deserving elderly who are having trouble affording to put protein on their tables.

I understand that it is 'YOUR' ABC, but in that case I don't want to be paying for it. I would relish the chance to commit my tax money to the elderly instead.

Lol!

"Taxpayers expect quality programs throughout the ABC. It is NOT acceptable to lose funding from worthwhile drama for example, simply to blow it on the juvenile, superficial, 'GOTGHA' pap - the 'shock, horror, humiliation and hysteria' entertainment for Housos, Bogans and Green-Left lunatics - being produced by those overpaid celebrity journalists and producers on Q&A and other ABC political stunt shows."

Yep...what would we do without the ABC?

We'd have nothing but the reams of advertisement-laden bollocks dished up by commercial telly.

Philistine TV...and wouldn't the mob around here relish it!

This is the type of attention the Abbott govt directs to "the elerly", otb.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/budget-cut-to-hit-the-elderly/2342261/

" FEDERAL Government cuts to dementia carer supplement payments have left one Sunshine Coast organisation with a $280,000 black hole.

Sundale Ltd's CEO Glenn Bunney said the funding slash was a blow to the delivery of aged care.

"It's $280k gone. It's just disappeared in vapour," Mr Bunney said.

"It (Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement) was worth about $280,000 a year to us.

"About 10% of our resident population are affected."

With more than 500 residents and half-a-dozen facilities across the Coast, the huge financial blow would have an impact on the quality of care patients in the affected category could expect to receive."

If they defunded the ABC - they merely spend it all on flags...

Okay FOXY, you finally came up with something that makes me feel the need to break my boycott.

Andrew Bolt is anti-Labor, anti-immigration and anti-Islamic extremism; he doesn't pretend to be anything but. He is an employee of Newscorp which gets funding from commercial advertising. If Bolt's sponsors ever feel he has over stepped the mark they can pull their adverts and disassociate from him. Bolt is the only blatantly anti-ABC journalist on television and therefore at this point in time offers the only balance to the ABC's strongly left leaning commentary.

The commentary on the ABC is appealing to you because it represents everything you basically agree with. But does the ABC ever present anything that you are so opposed to that it makes your blood boil? I doubt it... so where's the balance, the unbiasedness you say exists?

The ABC is a publically funded organisation with a obligation in its charter to present balanced informative information.

Let me put it to you this way... have you ever seen a documentary on the ABC, or even an interview with a scientist that presents the argument against manmade climate change? I can ask similar questions about the negative impact of Muslim immigration in Europe; or any of the other issues conservatives feel are not allowed to be openly discussed on the ABC.

Can you provide a list of programs from the ABC to dispel my believe these topics are not presented from a one-sided perspective on the ABC?

You say "Interesting that those who criticise the ABC don't really have much to say in the way of criticism on the values of any other Australian public commentators, especially those working for News Corp." The other channels (Bolt is not a whole channel, just one hour a week) generally do present news that attacks both sides of government and the discusses topical/controversial issues fairly evenly. Ever seen The Project? Do you think that's right wing?

FOXY you seem to have forgotten to provide a link to your Malcolm Turnbull quote about Andrew Bolt. Can you please provide the source.

Dear CH,

Actually, what I find appealing about the ABC is that it
informs, educates, and entertains.

It provides extraordinary programs from a wide
variety of subjects, TV Documentaries, news and
current affairs, dramas, comedy, children's programs,
science features, books, world heritage series,
mental health, AIDS issues, and the list goes on.

You can Google the lists for yourself and browse the
programs by title. They are too numerous to mention
here. The national broadcaster has covered elections,
interviews with politicians from various political
parties, federal budgets, and their analysis, and
again the list goes on.

The following link should explain to you what the
job of the national broadcaster is and the job that it
has done, and continue to do:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-26/scott-in-defence-of-the-abc/6575408

As for Malcolm Turnbull's quotes about Mr Bolt - they came
from an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on
June 2, 2014. You can Google it

CH,

"Let me put it to you this way... have you ever seen a documentary on the ABC, or even an interview with a scientist that presents the argument against manmade climate change?..."

There we have it....Syd the plumber, Burt the junk-science purveyor or Lord Monckton, the fella with the degree in Classical Architecture ought to be able to ply their climate ignorance on the ABC.

There is "no" debate on this subject - the science is never settled - but giving air time to people who are pushing the fossil fuel line for ideological reasons is the type of garbage that abounds in the Murdoch stable.

here you go....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding?CMP=soc_568

"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial."

How many loopy ideologues funded by Exxon and their minions have been interviewed over the years - as if they actually know what they're on about?

And you're "wrong" - for example, broadcast on the ABC was an entire documentary - "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/about-the-film.htm

Tony Jones hosted a discussion after it - Also simulcast on ABC 2 and ABC NewsRadio.

How biased is that!

Poirot,

While we often disagree, I never before thought that you were an outright liar.

Stating that 90% of Aus disagreed with you in one area (i.e. that 90% of Aus thinks that the Labor green relaxation of border control was a complete cock up) does not mean that I think that 90% of everyone agrees with me.

For the idiot that claims that it is good that the ABC is independent of the government. well wake up. So is everyone else.

The three main issues that the ABC focuses on are climate change, asylum seekers and gay marriage, all of which deeply reflect greens values to the exclusion of all others. Anyone that believes that the ABC is politically neutral is seriously deluding themselves.

Shadow Minister, it is your own opinion, not a fact, that the ABC is biased towards Labor, but many would beg to differ.
I can't remember reading or hearing much positive news about Shorten or his party anywhere, for quite some time.

In fact the ABC was just showing the extremely embarrassing and politically damaging Royal commission into Bill's dealings as a union leader yesterday....ad nauseum!

It's usual for the ABC and other TV and media outlets to focus on the Govt of the day isn't it? The opposition aren't the ones calling all the shots right now, so of course everyone discusses the Liberal Party members and policies.

You never seemed to mind when the same media pilloried Rudd and Julia, and their political views etc when they were PM's.....

Tch, tch, Shadow Minister,

You're not allowed to call people "liars" on this forum, nor "idiots" - Graham's aiming for parliamentary conduct n'all that.

You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister! (whodathunkit?)

And Suse has a good point:

"Shadow Minister, it is your own opinion, not a fact, that the ABC is biased towards Labor, but many would beg to differ.
I can't remember reading or hearing much positive news about Shorten or his party anywhere, for quite some time."

And Fairfax is currently putting the boot into Shorten as well.

'Yous' should all be grinning from ear to ear....

Suseonline, "pilloried Rudd and Julia"

You must have been watching a very different ABC to everyone else if you imagine that it didn't give her a huge free ride. So did everyone else.

NO female leader in Australia has ever received anything but the wholehearted support of the media and community. Even where obvious flaws were in evidence so much extra rope is given it was ridiculous. Consider the support and free runs given to Premier Anna Bligh in Queensland.

If they really were feminists and if feminists meant what they said, Julia, Anna and others would have called out the overwhelming, undeserved support as patronising.

Women politicians have to be decidedly 'accident-prone' to even start wearing a few mild criticisms. Even then and as proved by Julia Gillard, they are easily able to appear as a victim, even while beating someone else up and calling others by undeserved, foul epithets like 'mysognist'. Julia was easily able to flip, Persecutor->(claimed)Victim->Persecutor in a single sentence and her bite and lash were ferocious.

Just as a reminder that there are other women who are leaders in their fields who have come out from time to time to state the obvious, that the affirmative action, unquestioning support and gushing approval given to females generally, detracts from their own hard won accomplishments through years of dedication and effort. Many would agree with that.

Dear Shadow minister,

You said;
“The three main issues that the ABC focuses on are climate change, asylum seekers and gay marriage, all of which deeply reflect greens values to the exclusion of all others.”

Absolute bulldust.

These are not just 'Green' values but they are values held by a vast majority of Australians.

I attended a funeral for a recently departed father of a good mate today. It was held at a very fundamentalist Christian church that he had been a part of. I am on first name basis with quite a number of the congregation and I can tell you the antipathy toward Abbott is palpable. Many I spoke to are embarrassed by his stance on climate change, distressed by the lengths he has gone to on the asylum seeker issue, and only reluctantly with him on the gay marriage debate.

The ABC rightly holds and prosecutes the high moral ground on many of these issues, a space seemingly vacated by our political class. It is vitally important to the public discourse and for you to hold the views you do about it illustrates how little you value the things that make this country Australian rather than the US.

Shame.

SteeleRedux,

Some anecdote, perhaps the embarrassment was directed at you for raising those subjects with mourners at the funeral - of an unrelated person to boot, the father of a friend.

You might show where in the ABC's Charter it is being required as you assert, to hold and prosecutes the high moral ground on 'gay marriage', 'asylum seekers', 'climate change' and other such issues.

You are right to say that the ABC has kept such topics and its political take on them very much alive, ensuring no day goes by without a story or few. That is called 'making the news', hardly ethical one would have thought.

You say that the ABC is and should be political and take the place of the 'political class'. However, that is not what it is there for and unlike politicians, it cannot be held accountable in the Parliament as politicians are.

Get off the grass Onthebeach, you can't be serious, surely?
I have NEVER seen any PM so viciously verbally attacked than Julia Gillard.

I couldn't be bothered proving that fact by going back on many awful comments made about her gender, her hair, her clothes, her body, her lack of religion, her partner, her marital status, her lack of children, and her dead father, just to name a few.

And that was just on this forum....

SOL,
With all due respect, I believe the ABC is biased based on years of observation,
• On the radio and TV left whinge MPs etc. are asked for comment 2 to 3 times as often as conservative MPs
• The ABC is one of the first to publish stories that are damaging to the coalition often with little to no evidence, e.g. the torturing of people smugglers by burning their hands.
• The ABC is one of the last to publish stories that are damaging to labor or the greens, and generally only when there is hard and irrefutable evidence, e.g. the almost complete failure to print anything on Gillard’s involvement wrt AWU corruption scandal or the laggardly response to Thompson's credit card abuse. Notably brought up first by Fairfax. And there are plenty of other examples.

Poirot,

We are all entitled to our opinions and interpretations of the facts. Deliberate falsehoods are lies, and those posting deliberate falsehoods are liars.

For example:

"You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister! (whodathunkit?)"

Is false and you know it. Shame on you.

SR,

Please read carefully what I post before attacking me for what you erroneously thought I meant.

The ABC has a disproportionate focus on climate change, asylum seekers and gay marriage, and on those topics reflect almost exclusively the greens point of view.

While agree with you that the ABC's standpoint echos the values of the vast majority wrt gay marriage (incl mine) they don't wrt climate change and only a tiny fraction wrt illegal boats.

Steele - don't buy your story. It would be inappropriate to attend a funeral and then get into a political discussion with quite a number of the attendees. And conveniently they all share your opinion. Give us a break.

SM,

"Poirot,

We are all entitled to our opinions and interpretations of the facts. Deliberate falsehoods are lies, and those posting deliberate falsehoods are liars."

I'm merely stating something that Graham once told me - he's aiming for parliamentary standards on OLO.

Of course, If Bronnie Bishop was here, she would have tossed me out for a while under 94A - merely for bringing up a point of order (which, on occasions, she has been wont to do)

Do you deny that you keep insisting that 90% (your figure) of people think this way or that - and that they always seem to agree with your viewpoint?

Suseonline, "I have NEVER seen any PM so viciously verbally attacked than Julia Gillard"

Your memory is flawed.

Julia Gillard enjoyed a long honeymoon with the media, all of the media, because she is a woman and was Australia's first woman PM. She was further and enduringly bolstered by the sisterhood of Emily's Listers, feminist commentators, including gender studies academics, female bureaucrats - all of the horde who get their daily bread and careers from stereotyping women as eternal victims and fragile, who must always be given protection and a leg-up to survive.

ALL females in the public eye, politicians and leaders with the few exceptions hated by the jealous leftists, such as Gina Rinehart, gain the substantial benefit of the positive female stereotype, which quickly flips to sympathy for the female victim if criticised, so commentators have to be particularly careful.

That is talking about the mainstream media and excluding the women's sections, women being the worst critics of women (women's jealousy and competitiveness) and forever focusing on the personal.

Julia Gillard was given a huge amount of rope, which she used up and still more, with her lies, deceit, unreliability, egocentrism and bullying (eg of Rudd) eventually challenging the positive stereotype of women itself.

I guess that women have to thank her for that. For showing so conclusively and so often that careerist women politicians are just as flawed as the selfish, ambitious little squirts of men, for example, Shorten.

Poirot,

A wise person on hitting the bottom turns around, but if you want to keep digging I will entertain your delusion for a while. Firstly as far as the rules of the forum, I would suggest that you review specifically what I posted.

Next if you want to support your assertion that: "You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that." I would suggest that you get digging through my nearly 4500 posts over nearly a decade to find my frequent similar assertions over a variety of topics. Good Luck.

Given that I am generally careful in checking my facts, I don't make assertions unless I have reasonable grounds for doing so.

I prefer to keep discussions clean, but will call out porkies when I see them.

SM,

Thanks for the invitation...my references were to your recent postings.

Just a quick trawl produces these two:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6886&page=0#211001

"Poirot,

I am happy to amongst the 90% of Australians that believe that the Labor/Greens policies that lead to the deaths of 1200-2000 people was a complete cock up, and that the Greens that still advocate this murderous policy are depraved."

&

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6886&page=0#210500

"This might be rewarded with a few sniggers from others from the looney left, but 90% of Aussies know perfectly well what was meant and that Abbott has succeeded spectacularly, and think that those making the claim are pedantic idiots."

And this - which I resume you posted for a reason?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6920&page=0#211050

"From your view point 90% of people are far right wing."

What could the reason be I wonder?

Could it be that the 90% of the people SM assumes I think are right wing - are in SM's opinion the majority who hold opposing views to Poirot - and therefore agree entirely with people like SM?

(Why bother to post it if it wasn't meant to support your argument?)

If you don't wish fellow posters to highlight your confected assertions - then don't repeatedly conjure up percentages out of thin air to support your stance.

OTB, rubbish!
There is no more worse 'little squirt' than little Abbott, although I agree that is an apt description of good 'ol Bill.

My most vivid memory is of the holy Abbott proudly standing in front of a banner (held up by men I believe) saying "Bob Brown's B##ch".
Charming, but typical of all the hysteria of a woman running the country at the time.

Abbott has thrown hundreds of those porkies around, some people can find explanations for each and every one of them.
A wise person knows when to hold their tongue also.

Abbott today threw a bride at the ABC, he will lift the parliamentary ban on ministers attending Q&A if they shift the program to the news channel. Sounds like he got some facts from a wise man of law.

Persons should always be careful of checking their facts, especially when it involves so many people it would be easy to make a fool of yourself.

Poirot,

Epic failure. Three recent posts all on the same topic.

SM,

You took issue with me because I wrote this type of thing:

"You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister!..."

You then followed it up with:

"Is false and you know it. Shame on you."

When it turns out it isn't "false" at all - all of a sudden you claim:

"Epic failure. Three recent posts all on the same topic."

(Actually, one is from this thread - and two are from the paying people smugglers thread - so I assume that meets your hastily conceived criterion for "a variety of topics?)

In any case, I didn't mention anything about multiple topics - I addressed your habit of picking a percentage out of the air to support your argument.

I produced the goods (see post above) - but it's fascinating to watch you attempt to move the goal posts.

@doog, Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:29:18 AM

That is not right.

It was the Chairman of the ABC who wrote to the PM suggesting a move of Q&A to the News division from the Television division where it is now.

It is hoped that the relocation will improve Q&A.

Given that it was only polite for the PM to reply, what should he have said? His response was polite and cooperative. Perhaps tabloid hacks are scrounging to make something out of what was a fairly innocuous reply.

@Suseonline, Saturday, 11 July 2015 11:23:20 AM

That is some Kangaroo Court you run to hold a man responsible for a banner held up behind him. He is one of those despised 'white' men, so as a rad fembot of the previous Millenium you would want to be wearing his balls as earrings as well?

Rumour has that he once glanced at his watch while a 'Wonderful Womyn' was berating him (and all and sundry). What part of his anatomy should be removed for that?

To give Julia Gillard her due, she (inadvertently) hammered the nails into the coffin of feminism with her gender (and Class) wars that were totally rejected by the electorate.

Gillard had had a dream run, courtesy of a public that is always over-kind to women, but she blew it. She didn't have the goods and more importantly, her selfishness and ambition always got in the way.

Dear Suse,

There's nothing wrong with your memory concerning
our former female Prime Minister. Any well-informed
person would agree with you:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a-fair-go-for-prime-minister-Julia-Gillard,5196

"Never in our country's history has a national leader faced
so many demands and attacks on so many multiple fronts."

"On top of the usual irrelevancies that women in positions
of prominence have to endure - like her dress sense, her hair
styles, her shoes and so on - she also faced a barrage of
conservative disapproval over her childlessness, her atheism and
her marital status... To this day she is the butt of snide
remarks and innuendo about the cost of her new home, her
domestic situation, and her lack of religious convictions..."

"Yet sadly, seldom in the media is this perpetual pressure
and harassment given the critical attention it deserves."

One of the options at hand does not make a done deal. I say it stays where it is. In any case all televisions have channel dials. So you will have to wait a couple of months to find out.

Q&A may take a bit of shifting given it's popularity. It's up to the ABC board to make any decisions on programming. No doubt there will be several voter choices involved. We can't have pressure from pollatition effecting any outcomes, that would be seen as stifling freedom of press. So for Abbott to tie MP's lifting of boycott to shifting channels is quite suspect. So why not continue the boycotting, it's Abbott's decision. Then again he hasn't been known for his decision making.

Foxy, quite right, but you know well enough that the actual truth is too much for some of the delicate posters we have to deal with : )

OTB, "That is some Kangaroo Court you run to hold a man responsible for a banner held up behind him. He is one of those despised 'white' men, so as a rad fembot of the previous Millenium you would want to be wearing his balls as earrings as well?"

Sure, maybe good Ol' Tones has really bad eyesight ?
And no, I prefer to hang larger adornments from my ears than those you mention.....

P,

Not a chance. The first two examples were from the same thread, saying exactly the same thing. The third was repeat after your porkie.

Not even close to "You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister!"

Susie and Foxy,

You are always going to cop it on here from the woman hating white supremacists OTB.

To tell a female poster that she "would want to be wearing his (Tony Abbott's) balls as earrings". Is personally insulting to the female poster, and disgusting behavior which should draw censure from the forum moderator, but considering past experience this particular fellow seems to live a charmed life on the forum.

doog, AIUI it's proposed to shift it to a different production unit, not a different channel.

I get it, Abbott is trying to find a loophole so he can save face. i would stall the enquiry until xmas and beyond, it's not necessary to have Abbott's bandits on the show., they can defend themselves by other means.

doog,

You are mixed up, the ABC has already admitted fault.

Read this,

"The ABC board has moved against Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy, issuing him a formal warning under the misconduct provisions of the ABC’s industrial agreement for having Zaky Mallah on the live program."

and this,

http://about.abc.net.au/statements/abc-board-statement/

There is also the ABC's own review to be conducted but it has been compromised by foolish comments by Ray Martin.

The ABC Board and the PM are cooperating to ensure that the Q&A programs can continue, with the necessary guidance and management. That is the main task.

In The Age, this Saturday, July 11th, 2015 -
the comments both from political
commentators and readers is quite revealing.
And also quite depressing.
One cartoon shows Mr Abbott telling the ABC -
"If you do as I say, I'll give you back your independence."

The simple fact remains that Mr Abbott has said that
"heads should roll" at the broadcaster for allowing
former terror suspect Zaky Mallah to ask a question live on air
and Mr Abbott called Q&A a "left lynch mob." (nice).

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Friday complied
with Mr Abbott's boycott by withdrawing from Monday's
Q&A. Mr Turnbull who had previously stressed the ABC's
editorial independence from government will instead appear on the
ABC's 7.30 program.

I agree with one reader who pointed out
that Mr Abbott opposed the boycott of a
radio show whose host called for the killing
of the former PM but now demands that his ministers
boycott a TV show because of the selection of a misguided
young man.

By dictating his wishes to an independent body with its
charter - Mr Abbott is displaying
the behaviour of a PM who equates the Prime Ministership
to a totalitarian dictator of some sort.

Mr Turnbull got it right when he stated:

"I have no right, no power, nor should I have, to direct
the editorial content of the ABC. The responsibility for
ensuring that the ABC's news and information services are
balanced and objective and impartial and accurate is in
section eight of the act, and that responsibility lies
with the board of directors."

The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he would be
happy to life a ban on his frontbenchers appearing on Q&A
IF the ABC transferred the program from its television department
to news and current affairs.

Whichever you twist this - the linking of the move to the
lifting of the ban, and to suggest that it happen before the
ABC Board meets on August 6th amounts to over-reach.
The certain rejection of the ultimatum clearly means the ban
will stay in force until the meeting.

The ABc has already admitted fault you say. So where is the problem then do you think. If the ABC had a problem, it is now fixed.
You don't kind of think Abbott has a problem. The only way Abbott can lawfully change the ABC programming is by legislation.

So what does he really want, bearing in mind that he had it in for the ABC 2+ years ago. We need to be clear without any bribery. Not that i see as boycotting being bribery. Who cares if they do not want to be a part of discussion or not. The audience will make their own conclusions.

Foxy,

It looks like Abbott has got what he wanted. Tony Jones will now be supervised by the news dept who have a modicum of integrity and should prevent TJ's more FW maneuvers.

I also wonder why the left whingers on this site think that freedom of speech should extend to promoters of ISIS, but not to climate sceptics?

SM,

"Not a chance. The first two examples were from the same thread, saying exactly the same thing...."

So?

You are saying what I said you were saying.

You intimated that I was telling fibbers - as in:

"While we often disagree, I never before thought that you were an outright liar.'

".....The third was repeat after your porkie."

nice try, SM...

You posted this:

"From your view point 90% of people are far right wing."

In response to my post:

"Considering that only the far right whingers think that the ABC is biased, I think that pretty much settles it."

Which was a play on your post directly before it:

"Considering that only the far left whingers think that the ABC is unbiased, I think that pretty much settles it."

So it wasn't in response to any "porkie" - it was you deploying your fairytale "90%" show stopper....once again

Poirot,

Again an epic fail. Once again a repeat of the same topic from the same thread just after you claimed that everyone that thought Labor and the greens cocked up border control were rednecks.

Still a far cry from your claims.

SM,

Here's what you complained about:

"You're the fellow who keeps on telling me that 90% of the people think this - and 90% of the people think that....and by chance they all seem to hold exactly the same views as Shadow Minister! (whodathunkit?)"

You added...

"Is false and you know it. Shame on you."

I have demonstrated by reposting your posts that it was not "false".

Now you're trying to squirm out of it by saying that the two posts (although posted at different times and in different ways) don't count.

And you're further trying to muddy the waters by waffling about " ....Labor and the greens cocked up border control were rednecks."

Just for the record, I couldn't give a toss about your stupid and vacuous 90% posts, but you intimated I lied - and even after having your posts rubbed in your face, you're still dancing around in a giddy whirl.

Poirot,

You stuffed up, you claimed that those believing in tough border controls were rednecks. Based on recent polls I noted that made the arrogant and pompous claim that nearly 90% of Australians were rednecks.

Every other post was making exactly the same claim.

=> 1 claim repeated of one shared view not views.

So to rub your nose in it again. So if you believe that you tooty fruity fringe dwellers are the only non rednecks in Aus, you are seriously delusional.

For me this discussion has run
its course and I would like to Thank all those who
contributed.

It will be interesting to see what Malcolm Turnbull
has to say when he's interviewed by Leigh Sales on the
7.30 Report, Monday evening.

It will also be interesting to see what changes (if any)
the ABC has for Q&A.

As a bemused Coalition source said ( given in the Saturday
Age, 11th July 2015):

"We can't legislate for gay marriage
and talk about national security at the same time, but we can
talk about a TV show for weeks. Why on earth are we prioritising
this?"

Interesting times ahead.

SM,

In response to your:

"From your view point 90% of people are far right wing."

....which was in reference to our exchange on whether ABC supporters being biased or not.(so an entirely different topic)

I said:

"According to you "90%" of Australians support anything you happen to support...you're great at inventing such figures."

You then replied:

"Poirot,

While we often disagree, I never before thought that you were an outright liar."

So I go and dig up your other posts:

"I am happy to amongst the 90% of Australians that believe that the Labor/Greens policies that lead to the deaths of 1200-2000 people was a complete cock up, and that the Greens that still advocate this murderous policy are depraved."

"This might be rewarded with a few sniggers from others from the looney left, but 90% of Aussies know perfectly well what was meant and that Abbott has succeeded spectacularly, and think that those making the claim are pedantic idiots."

Which appears to hold up my argument - even though you seem to think repeating the same argument in different wording somehow cancels my observation.

Now we have a new one...

"You stuffed up, you claimed that those believing in tough border controls were rednecks. Based on recent polls I noted that made the arrogant and pompous claim that nearly 90% of Australians were rednecks."

I don't suppose you could give me links to those polls which demonstrate the 90% support - which you should have included in the first place - and which would have demonstrated that you weren't pulling figures out of the air to support your argument.

Lol Poirot, I like your tenacity : )

Sorry SM, Poirot has a point here.

I am disgusted that the PM feels the need to dictate what or who should be on the ABC.
Dictatorship is a very unattractive quality.
See you all on another thread.

Cheers,
Suse.

Poirot / Shadow Minister, enough, let it go.

I wondering why Poirot, Foxy, Suseonline and Paul 1405 had nothing to say about this comment from Shadow Minister:
"I also wonder why the left whingers on this site think that freedom of speech should extend to promoters of ISIS, but not to climate sceptics?"

CH,

I'm not in the business of responding to every incendiary comment SM makes.

Perhaps SM and yourself would like to comment of the many times Mallah has been interviewed in the Murdoch media.

Why did we not hear the ferments of outrage from Abbott and his cronies when the Murdoch Press paid Mallah $500 for one of them?

Here's run-down of some of Mallah's interviews...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/06/24/whos-on-our-side-a-potted-history-of-zaky-mallahs-media-appearances/

"But a quick look through the archives shows the ABC is far from the only news outlet to turn to Mallah. After he served his time, he became a regular fixture for journalists seeking insight into Australia’s radical Islamists. If Aunty’s not on Australia’s side, neither are most of the country’s major media outlets.

The Australian, September 2012

The Sydney Morning Herald, July 2013

The Courier-Mail, November 2013

The Australian, December 2014

The Australian, January 2014

SBS, July 2014, Once Upon A Time In Punchbowl

Daily Mail, September 2014"

.......

Regarding climate "skeptics" - as pointed out, "skeptics" have had a go on the ABC - and the Murdoch press gives them blanket coverage.

Do you think it would also be a great idea to give serious coverage on the ABC to the likes of runner - who would regale us with his knowledge that the Theory of Evolution is a load of old cobblers?

Shadow Minister and ConservativeHippie,
"I also wonder why the left whingers on this site think that freedom of speech should extend to promoters of ISIS, but not to climate sceptics?"

There's a very simple answer to that:
THEY DON'T!

CH,
Where has any of those mentioned by you ever said people should be silenced for holding a different opinion/view than they do? The only ones in the business of wanting to silence those that do not agree with them, is the Abbott Government and its supporters.

The Abbott govt; will one day have to be accountable for it’s secrecy regarding the asylum seekers. The boats have stopped as we are told, but we are never sure. So if the boats have stopped why are the refugee camps still occupied. Six refugees sent to Cambodia at a cost of 40 million $.

It will take a judicial inquiry to find out why they still exist, and if they are still taking in refugees, we need to know the legals: involved in better handling the refugees so these camps can be closed down. It must be running into billions of $ but we are not allowed to know.

How can such expenditure be justified for a handful of refugees.
We are experiencing “ how not to run a govt; “ Abbott’s attack on the ABC, Secret dealings that we are not to know about, Unprecedented lies being told, Submarine deals made before an election taking place to secure a free trade deal with Japan, A coal mine in prime ag land, no doubt an Abbott deal to do with China free trade.
South Korea still waiting for their promised deal to come to fruition.

Paul1405, what am I supposed to think when I read a quote like the one below from Poirot in answer to my question?

"Let me put it to you this way... have you ever seen a documentary on the ABC, or even an interview with a scientist that presents the argument against manmade climate change?..." - CH

"There we have it....Syd the plumber, Burt the junk-science purveyor or Lord Monckton, the fella with the degree in Classical Architecture ought to be able to ply their climate ignorance on the ABC.

There is "no" debate on this subject - the science is never settled - but giving air time to people who are pushing the fossil fuel line for ideological reasons is the type of garbage that abounds in the Murdoch stable."

So Poirot is saying there is not one credible scientist with an alternative perspective on the reasons for climate change, that isn't in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry... they are all junk scientists that have no place on the ABC.

If that isn't trying to close down an open unbiased discussion then I cannot provide a better example. Its exactly people like her that some of think are running the ABC, and that's why we object.

The tone of Poirot's holier-than-thou tirade is not uncommon when she's faced with a sensible question... just shoot the messenger and hope the question goes away. Well, at least that's the way I feel reading her comments, especially when she gets worked up.

CH,

"So Poirot is saying there is not one credible scientist with an alternative perspective on the reasons for climate change, that isn't in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry... they are all junk scientists that have no place on the ABC."

Like this guy?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

Here was a "credible" scientist, employed as researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, who until recently was regularly wheeled out as a "skeptic" who deserved some respect.

But...um...

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal."

Now don't come back at me and say "I stipulated a "skeptic" scientist who "wasn't" funded by big oil"

Because until recently, Soon wasn't known to be funded by big oil.

How are we to know who among the "skeptic scientists" is or isn't funded by big oil?

The problem is, ConservativeHippie, that the handful of "skeptic" scientists who have any climate nous are thin on the ground - their arguments are usually speedily and comprehensively debunked by the majority of scientists.

Which may give you some clue as to why "reputable" networks and news organisations give them a wide berth - preferring people with some credibility.

"The tone of Poirot's holier-than-thou tirade is not uncommon when she's faced with a sensible question..."

Sensible question?

More like a little loaded something to goad with.

That's what it was...

And I'm not "worked up"....responding to some of the inane banter around here is all in a days work...nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

You wrote;

“Steele - don't buy your story. It would be inappropriate to attend a funeral and then get into a political discussion with quite a number of the attendees. And conveniently they all share your opinion. Give us a break.”

Whether you 'buy' my story or not doesn't concern to me in the slightest but it is an interesting phenomena you have pointed to. I have had the occasion to attend a couple of funerals/wakes recently (sadly I lost an uncle this weekend as well) and have been reflecting on why so little of the conversation was centred around the deceased.

It might have been that neither event was held within a mainstream church where the rules of grieving are perhaps more established. We must also acknowledged that funerals are occasions where (even in this social media age) many of those attending use the opportunity to catch up with people they may not have been in contact with for years, even decades.

But I think there is something else at play. Even among siblings when the conversation was steered toward the deceased it seemed to quickly move on. Perhaps it there is a sense of wanting to keep the grieving private, of not wanting to dwell on things that are painful in front of others. Or perhaps for my generation and younger brushes with mortality are disconcerting.

So yes to someone like yourself the airing of politics or other issues may be disrespectful at a funeral but that is how both of these went down.

Cont..

Cont..

But back to the main issue and we should include Shadow Minister at this point.

Whatever you think of them Christian fundamentalist churches are very comfortably with doomsday predictions, so the notion the world and humanity are facing an existential threat from the excesses of the human race is actually right from their playbook. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with one of Time's 100 most influential people from last year. Katherine Hayhoe is both a climate scientist and an evangalist Christian.
http://time.com/70881/katharine-hayhoe-2014-time-100/

Secondly their focus on the asylum seeker issue may be born primarily from looking to support Christians fleeing persecutions from the various religious or political regimes but if you think they are buying into Abbott's take on the issue you are sorely mistaken. Many of the churches in my area, including the one I attended for the funeral, are caring for and mentoring recently arrived refugees. The are also active in refugee camps on a private basis in a number of countries.

The issue of gay marriage is one area that they perhaps have a reasonable affinity with the stance of the PM, but given a large majority of other Australians who are impatient for this country to stand up and be counted on a reform that is obviously going to come there is little consolation for him.

Poirot,

The comment on second thread was just after the first thread, and was referring back to your redneck comment, and it was a comment on your beliefs.

You had no justification for your comment and it was deliberately false. I have not used the 90% in any context outside the issue of illegal boats.

If you want to look through the polling of the last few years knock yourself out. In 2008 when KRudd stuffed it, the polling from the ABC indicated a >80% support for strong border controls. in 2013 it was well into the high eighties.

SOL,

I think the PM made a valid point. Q&A relies on having the odd token conservative. Remove them and all you have is a dreary cluster of left whingers agreeing with each other.

As a left whinger, I would have thought withdrawing support to effect change was a standard tool of change in your bag.

SM,

I was prompted to make my comment because again I saw you using the 90% argument - on a different thread on a different subject.

We had just had an exchange over ABC bias...as in:

"Considering that only the far left whingers think that the ABC is unbiased, I think that pretty much settles it.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 9 July 2015 6:49:53 PM"

"Considering that only the far right whingers think that the ABC is biased, I think that pretty much settles it.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 9 July 2015 8:54:17 PM

Poirot,

From your view point 90% of people are far right wing.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 9 July 2015 9:47:38 PM"

In three consecutive posts.

And now you say you were referring to boats!

What's this?...

"If you want to look through the polling of the last few years knock yourself out. In 2008 when KRudd stuffed it, the polling from the ABC indicated a >80% support for strong border controls. in 2013 it was well into the high eighties."

Apart from the fact that in that paragraph there doesn't seem to a "90%" in sight....why are you harking back to 2008?

Here's what you said to me a few posts ago:

"You stuffed up, you claimed that those believing in tough border controls were rednecks. Based on recent polls I noted that made the arrogant and pompous claim that nearly 90% of Australians were rednecks. "

That's "...based on recent polls..."

So I thought well perhaps SM has a "recent" poll up his sleeve - and I'll ask him to link me to it.

Nup.....He's only got a bit of nebulous waffle concerning 2008 and 2013 - and nothing mentioning 90%.

(Also noting that you've conveniently altered it "nearly 90%" to back up your slowly dwindling case)

I mean you're the one who spouted outrage, took me to task and called me a liar - all over a throwaway line of mine referencing your 90%...which is why I've pursued this at all.

SM, give it up so we can all get on with the actual subject of the thread!

If you, from the hysterical right, want to call me a 'left whinger' because I don't like having any PM, from any party, trying to force a TV show to only allow who he wants to come on, and say what he wants them to say, then I will continue to whinge.....

What makes Q&A such a good program is not only the topics, but the interesting people on the panel, from all sides. Imagine a panel made up entirely of Tony Abbott glove puppets. Tonights panel is not all that interesting, but if it consisted of Phony Tony and 4 glove puppets, Piers Akerman, Warren Truss, Miranda Devine and David Flint all being moderated by Bronwyn Bishop, with the topic "Tony why are you such a great guy?" I along with 90% (the infamous 90% that is) of regular viewers will be tuned into reruns of 'I Love Lucy' on channel 17. The only viewer will be Shadow Minister taking notes of any derogatory comment by the lefty panelists against his dearly beloved Tony for referral to the Royal Commission into Tony Haters.

Quite right Paul.
I just read an interesting article re this very subject:

http://theconversation.com/six-reasons-abbotts-peace-deal-on-qanda-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-44551

It seems that whichever section of the ABC Tones wants to shift the Q&A program to has already been accused by his supporters of being 'leftie biased'.
Why? Because they don't tow the party line and say what Tones wants them to say.

I for one will be extremely disappointed if Q&A changes in any way to accomodate this dictator's demands. It is absurd, and quite paranoid on Abbott's part.

Leave the programming as is, Abbott's clowns won,t be missed. The only one worth talking to is Turnbull.
Abbott again wants to run the show under his terms, that is not what we are about. Just another part of the Abbott agenda, to dumb down the masses.

The ABC Board could hardly be called raving lefties, consisting of a strong business background and those closely associated with the establishment

There are some here who live in a vacuum or in complete denial of the evidence before them that the ABC has already taken steps to discipline the Q&A executive producer and conduct its own investigation, precisely because it, the ABC, is unhappy with what went down on Q&A.

To dispute the ABC's actions in reaction to the incident that so offended the public and called into question the ABC's independence and good intentions is to admit that the ABC's board in addition to its management, has deeply flawed judgement.

Have there been examples of 'poor editorial decisions' (to put it diplomatically) before? Yes and here is one of many,

Peter Hitchens v the ferals on Q&A: a masterclass in disdain
http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984

What annoys is that the ABC never contemplated public representatives on the review. So much for the Q&A 'exercise in democracy'. Absolute tosh.

Instead it appointed someone previously from the SBS and the lightweight, indiscreet Ray Martin.

< ABC EDITORIAL REVIEW PANEL ALREADY PREJUDICED

..
As befits its reality as a Conservative Free Zone, the ABC chose not to put one conservative on its Editorial Review Panel. As mentioned in MWD last week, the panel comprises one-time ABC journalist Shaun Brown and one-time ABC journalist Ray Martin. Mr Brown did not deliver political diversity when he served as managing director of SBS from 2006-2011. And Ray Martin, a self-declared admirer of the left-wing ideologue John Pilger, is a leftist who tends to criticise both the Coalition and Labor from the left.

..

It so happened that Ray Martin appeared on the Channel Seven Sunrise program on Wednesday. In relation to Tony Jones’ performance as Q&A presenter or moderator, Mr Martin made the following comment:

I suspect Tony Jones was just as tough on the Labor government as he is on the Coalition right now.

So, before the Editorial Review even commenced — and some 12 weeks before it is due to report — Ray Martin has already declared that Tony Jones has ensured fair treatment was achieved in relation to the panellists.>
http://tinyurl.com/p2ycvyp

Poirot,

Your throw away line was BS and I called you out. Grow a pair, admit the mistake and move on.

SOL,

Even the ABC has realised that it made a cock up. The problem is that they have no intention of doing anything about it, and continues to run a "current affairs" program that is Jerry Springer for left whingers.

The PM is not trying to dictate Q&A's content, but is perfectly entitled to remove cabinet ministers until there is an adult in charge to weed out Jerry Springer like circus tricks. Tony Jones can say and do whatever he wants, but without coalition ministers to lend legitimacy.

Paul,

You don't even see the irony in your post. Q&A is a left whinge program, run by left whingers, with a left whinge host, mostly left whinge panelists, almost exclusively left whinge audiences, mostly left whinge topics, and almost universally ignored by anyone that didn't vote greens or labor.

I suppose the perfect greens program would be a group of Milne, SHY, and Karel Solom talking about the evils of industry, climate change, gay marriage and how inconsiderate the women and children were to drown themselves and giving people smuggling a bad name.

Suse says: "I for one will be extremely disappointed if Q&A changes in any way to accommodate this dictator's demands. It is absurd, and quite paranoid on Abbott's part."

Dictator's demands.... who's the one that's looking genuinely paranoid?

Suse you and a few others are loosing all perspective, possibly even your grasp on reality. This may be a PM that you don't like, and he may be trying to flex his authority, but we are a long, long, long way away from living under a totalitarian dictatorship. Keep it real.

I don,t see the coalition ministers lending Legitimacy as SM says. The ABC is quite capable of legitimacy with out that mob of untruth telling would be politicians.
Abbott has found himself again going against public opinion for his own skin. Legislation is the only legal way to force the ABC Programming.

Abbott has made a habit of captains calls, which go against his own party i can't understand how they continue to put up with him, it makes them look like ammeters in a corporate world.

Abbott best do one of his many backflips before he gets in a bind he can't get out of.

I thought that I had finished with this discussion
but I've just come across the following web-site
that I think re-caps things quite well:

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/hey-lefties-the-gig-is-up-the-abc-is-biases,7926

The author points out that the "Abbott/Murdoch Coalition
has made a huge mess of the past weeks. Since Zacky Mallah's
appearance on Q&A they have relentlessly pursued the line of
bias by the ABC. Subsequently the ABC has launched a
review into the program and all media outlets have devoted
countless columns space to the subject."

We're told that the "ABC has long been in the firing lines of
the conservative commentariat. The stagnant views of the
religious right and near limitless extent of bogan sentiment
have the loudest voices and most of the print and TV space."

A suggestion is made that perhaps "the media's coverage in
general is a reflection of the true Australian society", and
we're told that if that's the case "we should all be terrified
or ashamed."

The author states - "Let's ignore for a moment that the ABC
has repeatedly been cleared of bias ..."

"Veteran journalist Ray Martin has been attacked by the Coalition
for his comments following his commission to lead the latest
review."

"On breakfast TV last week - Mr Martin said what most of us
were thinking - a seemingly self-evident statement,"

"It's clearly a political issue at the moment in times of terror."

Of course Mr Martin was "pilloried by the ABC haters within the
Coalition and there were suggestions he should stand down,
once again citing bias."

"The astute observer has probably noted something of a trend
going on here."

"Mr Abbott's intention seems to be to create a divided country
full of fear and suspicion - such that the population becomes
completely reactionary and follows blindly for the purpose of
getting "protection."

Now that is getting real.

Abbott's interference in wind farms and the way the Clean Energy future is doing business is another attack on corporate departments.
He is reverting back to the lie telling days when he was elected by default. His only reason for his attack is it's looks.

What do we really have here, a dictatorial liberal, conservative govt: Abbott says in the interests of low power prices. Lets open another coal mine, that is what we need, say's Abbott, not so sure what the rest of his govt; says.

SM,

"Your throw away line was BS and I called you out. Grow a pair, admit the mistake and move on."

Lol!

After having been dragged through the mud backwards and hoisted by his breeches on a tree branch, SM, in the manner of the Black Knight, tells me to "grow a pair".

I wonder how many here would consider the following exchange to be about border protection?:

Poirot: "Considering that only the far right whingers think that the ABC is biased, I think that pretty much settles it."

Shadow Minister: "From your view point 90% of people are far right wing."

Everything you espoused in defence of your hissy fit turned out to be nebulous or non-existent.

However, out of deference to the posters here who have had to sit through our pedantic exchange, I'll consider this my last comment on the subject.

Hippie, there is nothing 'loose' about my perspective or reality.

The reality is that our supposedly mature PM spat the dummy big time about who Q&A let on their show and had an immature spat with his minister. Both were juvenile and of no consequence as far as I am concerned.

I don't care if Abbott doesn't let his mates come out to play with others at Q&A at all actually. I am just disgusted that he feels he can tell some TV executives and producers what to do! Did you read my link I gave above?
It should ring alarm bells for all people who believe in democracy.

Foxy, you are right to be alarmed, and we are far from alone in this matter.
The only Minister willing to stand up for common sense in this matter is Turnbull, but Tony is to scared to let him come out to play....

P,

Again an epic fail. My comment on your opinion has no bearing on your earlier falsehood. I will accept your grudging agreement to stop trying to wiggle out of it.

SOL,

I also read your link, and the one thing it deliberately avoids is that the proposal to put Q&A came from the ABC management as a way of preventing another stuff up. Notably the ABC news department don't want it as they classify it as entertainment not even a serious current affairs program.

What do you feel about labor's boycott of Bolt?

SM,

For someone who sashays around here as if he knows a thing or two - it's always rewarding to rediscover just how vacuous you are.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Blot is right-wing mouthpiece - end of story.

P,

Such unparliamentary language.

Bolt is the conservative version of Tony Jones.

SM, Bolt isn't even in the same ballpark as Tony Jones.

Bolt presents his own ideas and opinions, which are so far right, it's a wonder he doesn't fall over! Tony Jones presents a show displaying other people's questions and answers, and there always is at least one minister or political spokesperson from opposing political parties on Q&A, so he isn't as far left as you imagine.

Bolt is known for his nasty comments, whereas Tony Jones is usually polite to a fault.
So I can only assume you don't like him because he and the audience members ask the 'wrong' questions?

I think it best you don't watch it if you get so easily upset.
And don't rant about the ABC being a TV channel we all pay for with our taxes, and thus should only say what you want it to say, because we all pay taxes for something or other we don't agree with.....

One of Tones problems is he made the opposition leader the minister for the ABC. Turnbull's political philosophy seems to be total opposed to that of Tones, its too liberal. If Tone could replace the opposition leader with a man in his own mold, Joseph Goebbels name springs to mind, problem solved. Monday nights on the ABC could then be given over to real TV, like non stop 24/7, speeches from Fearless Leader. I know 90% (there's that infamous 90% again) will tune out, but Shadow Minister will be glued to his telly, taking down every word verbatim!

None of this changes the simple facts that was quickly and voluntarily admitted by the ABC that Q&A's executive production seriously erred in giving a podium to the offender.

Further, the Board has implemented a review because it has been publicly embarrassed by the Q&A team.

Although there are concerns that the review could have been more obviously independent and seen to be so.

Also, isn't it high times that the taxpaying public was allowed some direct consultation, a voice, in how the ABC is run? Once again, the taxpayer pays, but is excluded from having an effective voice. A nit like the Labor Party, where members are welcome to do the hard yakka, but the entrenched factions always have the final say over policy and nominations.

There are some superb practical models available to ensure that the public has an effective say in the administration of public agencies, OTHER than the usual political reaction by the agency or politicians when forced into considering the public, which is nominating their own preferred (wo)men for paid 'representation'. One of the universities could easily set up direct consultation and regular public reporting with a small research grant and a PhD candidate.

BTW, why can't Q&A be presented in other centres in rotation and have other hosts?

Is Australia to be represented overwhelmingly by the opinion of metropolitan urban types, exclusive to one city? -The feckless Hipsters of Ultimo and other inner-city suburbs of Sydney.

Rotation to other centres
That would also help to resist the culture of the 'celebrity personality' that has grown in the ABC, where the interviewer herself/himself who is a major part of the 'news'. In the background the Executive Producer and his/her production team, whose opinions rule apparently, but they are never put up front themselves for any scrutiny.

An exercise in 'Gotcha' theatre with the easily-led colosseum mob of inner Sydney Hipsters and rent seekers, but hardly an 'exercise in democracy'.

Of course, Abbott's interference with the independence of the ABC has nothing whatsoever to do with his penchant for many flags and uniforms....one of the delights of his PMship is waiting with baited breath to see which kind of uniform and which kind of military brass he is going to appear with at his next photo op.

I hear he has customs all decked out in brass buttons these days as well.

So, CH, yes he's only a learner - but he's certainly passed grade 1 at Fascism special ed.

But, poor old Barnaby has way more challenging problems than Tones banning him from QandA - apart from having a whopping great coal mine dumped in his electorate (which should bode well for his re-election in that seat:)...Indonesia has just cut Australia's live cattle imports by 4/5 - that's down from 250,000 to 50,000.

I suppose they thought we were too decadent...or something.

A spokesman said it had nothing to do with Australia turning asylum seekers around and giving a regular "up yours" to Indonesia (or something along those lines :)

Apparently Barnaby is "disappointed".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-14/government-disappointed-as-indonesia-slashes-live-cattle-imports/6617430

Suse, pardon my typo, I'm sure I'm not the first or last. Oops, looky there, Poirot just misspelled Bolt. (Or will she claim that was intentional?)

But back to the essence of my comment to you. You called Abbott a dictator as have several others from your team. I simply pointed out that we are not living under a dictatorship / authoritarian regime like you guys keep saying. Abbott is no more of a dictator or liar than the first female PM.

Instead of admitting your over exaggeration you changed the topic and carried on with your one-eyed attack.

Its impossible to have a two-way discussion under conditions where one person just keeps spouting variations on the same theme without any intention of considering the other person's perspective, no matter how irritating it might be. If you can't admit the current Government is not the Dictatorship you claim (fear), and that you have over stated your argument, then in my view you are being impossibly stubborn.

I'm sorry I ever got involved in this discussion, the writing was on the wall from the minute the thread was posted - this was a set up for Cheer Leaders for the ABC to have rant and they are doing a great job of it.

" Oops, looky there, Poirot just misspelled Bolt. (Or will she claim that was intentional?)"

It was definitely intentional....(I've "mispelled" it twice, if you'd care to check:)

Tell me, CH, have we ever had a PM who's openly displayed fascist leanings?

We have now.

SOL,

I generally don't watch either Bolt or Tony Drones as undiluted left or right politics bores me. As TJ is a public servant he is not supposed to pronounce biased opinions, but he just gets a 10 yr old to record his viewpoint and play it on his show (as subtle as a train wreck). As far as asking questions, it is essentially that TJ avoids many of the right questions such as:

What is conflict of interest?

Extortion and the CFMEU

Etc, but gay marriage etc are far more important!!

Paul,

Perhaps we could have the greens shadow ministers on. Such as SHY the minister for drowning asylum seekers and Karel Solom the green minister for children!

Poirot,

The most fascist PM award has to go to Juliar (National socialist) who with comrade Conjob tried to censor in one stroke the internet, the newspapers and radio / TV

Abbott wanting to turn the clean energy future into an Abbott slush fund. He wants to run the show bypassing all but himself.

The Abbott wing of the coalition liberal conservative party is in reversion, now wanting to set up a double dissolution election. Now we were promised a DD 2 years ago, so what happened to that.

The 80 million expense account for Abbott's royal commission into the non defense of workers rights. He thinks that will be enough to win him another 2 years as PM.

He has again upset the Indonesians, they are only taking a handful of cattle now.
A coal mine in prime farmland, A Clean energy future fund, An Abbott friendly ABC, An 80 million $ royal commission which Albet's got 17 million of for assisting the Commissioner. Tax payer money being spent on our behalf which we are not allowed to know about. It's all there.

Au contraire, SM...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/journalists-face-jail-for-exposing-security-agency-bungles/5776504

"Journalists face 10 years' jail for exposing security agency bungles"

(Yes , I know it was passed with Labor's support)

Loverly stuff....

Tell me, CH, have we ever had a PM who's openly displayed fascist leanings?

'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies the founding father of The Liberal Party. Following a two week visit to Nazi Germany in 1938 Bob said Adolf Hitler was a patriot, and was highly impressed by the Fuhrer and said so publicly. Might have changed his mind a short time later when Hitler invaded Poland.

Poirot, I hope that answers your question for you, Tone's only following in a long tradition of Liberal leaders. Howard liked his all white South African rugby as well.

Hippie, do you not see you are writing about yourself and your own 'stubborn' views as well?
We all have our opinions, and that is all they are.....opinions.

I wouldn't get too worked up over others not agreeing with you, it will only be bad for your health : )

Poirot,

You always get idiots like Dinner Tally who like to take laws to the ridiculous extreme to make headlines.

For example, if you are sitting in the driver's seat of your car in your garage with the engine off and you answer a call on your mobile, you can be prosecuted for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a vehicle. Is this ever going to happen, absolutely not. And neither is simple reporting of Security services blunders.

The closest we have to a fascist is Lee Rhiannon, whose adoration of Stalin is as close as you can get to a dictatorial socialist.

Dear SM,

Could you please supply some evidence to substantiate
your claims about Senator Lee Rhiannon

Foxy,

If you wish to challenge me, you are free to do your own research. I am not silly enough my time dredging up information that is freely available to you.

Lee Rhiannon's long affiliation and sympathies the communist party are of public record, as is her earlier rejection of the tens of millions killed by Stalin in his purges.

Dear SM,

I have done my research.

It seems that you have not.

Frankly I am surprised at your grossly unfair claims.

If you have had done your research you would be well
aware that "holding someone accountable for the crimes
of Stalin because they did not in their youth publicly
recant the ideology inherited from their family upbringing
is like holding ex-catholics responsible for child abuse crimes
inside the church. Or accusing MP Eric Abetz of being a fascist
simply because his great uncle was a senior Nazi figure in
World War II and a war criminal.

We cannot choose our family. JUst as Eric Abetz has distanced
himself from his family's Nazi past - so Lee Rhiannon has also
denounced the abhorrent crimes of Stalin.

The following website gives her full background:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-27/the-character-assassination-of-lee-rhiannon/167382

It is worth a read.

That's a useful post Foxy. It did leave me wondering if Lee Rhiannon might still be a communist through. Some suspect there are a few communists influencing the Green Party's direction.

"Rhiannon makes no secret of her family’s political history. She condemns the appalling crimes of Stalin while remaining proud of her political family for their work for peace and the rights of their fellow citizens."

I think even Putin would probably denounce Stalin's atrocities, rather than be seen to support them.

Fox,

Would it be this Wendy Bacon and was she ever linked with the Greens? If so, in what roles?

http://www.takver.com/history/sydney/indexsl.htm

Are there any alternative views of Lee Rhiannon's interests and activism?

-Because Rhiannon is a figure who has generated considerable controversy and precious little of it positive or flattering, over the years. (Previous) Greens Leader Bob Brown had a lot of difficulties with Rhiannon's politics,

http://tinyurl.com/4h6bw5h

You would want balance wouldn't you, being someone who would sledge a PM for allegedly thinking about hitting a wall way back in his student days?

Dear CH,

I can only go on the evidence that I have found
regarding Senator Lee Rhiannon.

As for Putin?
History will judge him - and his actions
in the Ukraine are a major concern. Whenever
Russia cannot manage its economy - it steals
from its neighbours by "liberating" them.
This has been going on for centuries.

V.I. Lenin made it
clear that, in his political philosophy, law has
but one primary goal: "A law is a political
measure, it is politics."

No Soviet authority or
communist leader has ever abandoned this concept.
It has been applied in the territories "liberated"
by the Bolsheviks during the October revolution, in
the Captive Nations occupied by the Red Army during
World War II, and in the lands won by military force
or "wars of liberation" in Asia, Africa, the Far East,
and the Caribbean.

Once the Russians get a foothold in Eastern Ukraine -
they will expand. No wonder the Baltic States are currently
very nervous. And the same threat applies to all the
former Communist-occupied regions. In addition, Finland
isn't safe either - being on the border. And we're only
talking about Western Russia - Eastern Russia is another
story.

otb,

If you want to know more about Professor
Wendy Bacon - you can Google her biography
for yourself. All I know is that she was
awarded the Walkley Award (for journalism)
in 1984 for her study on police corruption in
NSW.

As for my "sledging" Mr Abbott for his university
days behaviour. That is wrong. He did that all
by himself.

I was merely reporting facts as given by
David Marr - in his publication, "Political Animal:
The Making of Tony Abbott," and those complaints
against Mr Abbott were also covered in the media at
the time - and were well known amongst students on campus.

Barbara Ramjan was the lady that Mr Abbott came up to
within an inch of her nose and punched the wall on either
side of her head, after she beat him hands down for the
Presidency of the Students Representative Council. Mr
Abbott went into the university election and lost - to
a woman. It was his own behaviour that "sledged" him.

In any case if you want any more information - and you
don't like the facts currently being presented -
all I can politely
suggest is that you find appropriate sources that appeal
to your sense of "balance." There are plenty of those
listed on the web. Andrew Bolt comes to mind.

cont'd ...

otb,

I forgot to remind you - your request for
"alternative" views on any given subject
can't really be taken seriously because you
are someone who consistently presents only
one narrow point of view on any given issue. You
never present any "alternative"
views on anything. You only present views that
agree with yours. So you can't ask others to do
what you're not capable of doing yourself.

However, if you genuinely want
a "balance," on this forum - it is up to you
to also set the example.

It will be interesting to see if you are capable of
putting your money where your mouth is.

Foxy

Wendy Bacon that wrote the "green wash" article in the left whinge ABC blog clearly left a lot out.

From the Australian, none of which LR denies:

"When the CPA split with the Soviet Union in the wake of its brutal 1968 crushing of the Prague Spring and moves by its leader, Alexander Dubcek, towards "socialism with a human face", Rhiannon and her parents stayed loyal to Moscow. They later joined the breakaway, pro-Soviet and Soviet-funded Socialist Party of Australia when it was formed at the end of 1971.

"She became a senior office-bearer of the youth wing, serving on the central committee's youth subcommittee; attended Australia-Soviet Friendship Society meetings; and developed close relations with Soviet, Czechoslovak and East German communist youth groups," Aarons recounted in an article last year. "In 1977, Rhiannon led an SPA delegation to Moscow at the invitation of Leonid Brezhnev's neo-Stalinist regime."

Rhiannon edited the pro-Soviet and Soviet-supported monthly magazine Survey, founded by her father, from his retirement in 1988 until it ceased publication, staying at the helm even after the fall of the Berlin Wall. She sought to downplay her involvement with the publication after it was detailed in The Weekend Australian last year, telling the Ten Network she merely "assisted with it to some extent", even though issues of Survey clearly identify her as its editor and she signed the notice in the final issue announcing it would close.

But Rhiannon has refused to recant her support for the Soviet Union during a period marked by intervention in Poland to suppress the independent Solidarity trade union, heightened persecution of Soviet Jews and gross abuses of psychiatry as a tool of political repression."

This was no simple association by a naive young LR, she was in it up to her neck.

Foxy,

I think it's pretty clear what went on on that occasion.

What is clear is that Abbott at university was a dangerous activist thug - "offensive and obnoxious".

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/17/1089694611874.html

"....he was repeatedly accused in the university paper of being a right-wing thug and bully who used sexist and racist tactics to intimidate his opponents."

"Tony used to stand outside the women's room with his right-wing mates and loudly tell sexist and homophobic jokes," he said."

He's hardly changed at all....

Dear Poirot,

According to David Marr - Mr Abbott's loss for
the presidency of the SRC was a major disappointment,
one of the first defeats of his life that really
mattered, one he would apparently remember for a long
time. And the SRC offices saw wild scenes of bad-boy behaviour,
flashing, mooning, jeering and abuse.

Yet his supporters seem to have selective memories concerning
this man's past behaviour - and they continue to drag up the
past behaviour of the families of their political opponents through the media, and also the behaviour
of what their political
opponents may or may not have done decades ago - in their youth.

Dear SM,

The following website is worth a read:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/09/13/lee-rhiannons-enemies-know-how-troll

It puts things into perspective.

Yep Abbottphobia from the sisterhood ignoring rape claims from 16 year old girls, proven union corruption, caught out lying about stabbing Kevin (sorry Julia). That punch in the air was so serious. And Foxy can't help quoting Marr whose hatred of Abbott has always been clear to see. Nothing like remaining ignorant.

Foxy,

Don't mind runner's run-by....he just dropped in to say that Marr has "hatred" for Abbott - and we've got Abbottototototophobia!

Btw, Indonesia just cancelled this quarter's citrus imports from Oz.

"Department of Agriculture confirms Indonesia has shut its borders to Australian citrus"

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/agribusiness/horticulture/department-of-agriculture-confirms-indonesia-has-shut-its-borders-to-australian-citrus/story-fnker6g8-1227443090820

"INDONESIA has shut its borders to Australian citrus in growers’ peak production and export quarter.

The Department of Agriculture today confirmed Indonesia had not issued import permits to any country for citrus – except lemons – for the July-September quarter.

And other horticultural markets – including onions and carrots – may also be affected, as Indonesia continues its stride toward self-sufficiency.

It comes after Indonesia yesterday drastically reduced its cattle import permits to Australia, to just 50,000 this quarter – prompting Opposition spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon to urge Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to “jump on a plane” to Jakarta to address the trading partners’ relationship."

It seems that we're not the only ones with Abbottototototophobia.

Poirot,

You quote a polemic from a known left whinge journalist that contains solely 2nd or third hand recollections by left whinge student activists. My recollection of student politics in those days is that student run university papers were far left whinge and frugal with the truth and the politics very dirty. I note that of the various crimes that TA was accused of there appeared to be a complete absence of any witnesses.

The only item that had any token of reality is the left whinge dirty trick of trumped up charge of sexual assault where TA proved conclusively that the plaintiff was lying.

SM,

You are so right!

All those people in that article were obviously deluded.

A bloke like our Tones is suited splendidly for high office - he possesses such depth of character that's it's difficult to believe he was such a blatant and offensive thug at uni.....

Now back to reality.

I've read myriad reminiscences of Abbott's thuggery from many different sources, SM.

They fit perfectly with the dishonest, deceptive, sloganeering dunderhead we've been saddled with for PM.

That you defend such a character speaks volumes : )

Poirot,

They are not deluded, they simply have no substance to what they say. You have a left whinge journalist asking left whinge ex activist students to recall what they read 3 decades previously in a far left whinge rag.

That is a whole new level of pathetic.

Yes, SM, I'm sure he was as meek and mild as the day he was born.

Bless his cotton socks....

Having destroyed Krudd and Juliar, and now Shorten, I would never call TA meek and mild. However, with the left whingers whipping themselves into a frenzy over a wink, one can be sure that everything that appears in Left whinge blogs is either incorrect or conflated beyond imagination.

Shadow, do you know if Pig Iron Bob Menzies, Hitler admirer and Liberal Party founder, ever met Eric's uncle Otto Nazi when he visited Nazi Germany in 1938.
I don't know why you are so down on Lee, she speaks highly of you.

Dear SM,

Actually you're quite wrong.

David Marr interviewed a great many people for
the Quarterly Essay - which by the way presents
significant contributions to the general debate. Each
issue contains a single essay written at a length of
about 25,000 words. It aims to present the widest
range of political, intellectual and cultural opinion.

Marr's essay on "Political Animal: The making of Tony
Abbott," includes many interviews from Mr Abbott's
university days - including the records of the SRC, the
Liberal Club, and witnesses like Barbara Ramjan,
amongst others. He also interviewed Mr Abbott himself.

Perhaps you should actually read the essay - so that you
know what you're talking about (for a nice change).

Paul,

Could you be more pathetic. Considering that in 1938 Germany's economy had completely turned around, and the evil side of Hitler was not yet apparent, it was difficult not to give the Nazi some grudging respect (Like Crusty Milne gives to ISIS). However, I doubt that Menzies maintained that respect.

LR However, had benefit of hindsight with the knowledge of the tens of millions murdered by the communists, yet still admired their murderous system.

Foxy,

I look forward to the day when you can quote something other than a left whinge journalist. I tried to find essay to which you alluded, only to find that I have to pay for it. Reviewing his other works, it would appear that his speciality is left whinge polemics which I am not of a mind to pay for.

As for his essay, the pivotal point appears to be the "revelation" by a vociferous opponent of TA punching a wall next to her after an SRC meeting in a crowded Student facility which was seen by no one.

If you can point me to a free copy I will read it. However, until then I don't consider that your left whinge articles carry any weight.

Shadow, In 1938 the evil side of Hitler was well documented and apparent to all who wanted to know, but not to the likes of Liberal Party founder Menzies, who got his nick name of 'Pig Iron Bob' for allowing sales of iron to imperialist Japan, some say it was returned later in the form of bombs used to kill Australians. All well documented by history. Maybe you have another version of history, or you just don't want to know. How quickly Menzies got the flick when war broke out, the people knew exactly what he stood for.

"Paul,

Could you be more pathetic. Considering that in 1938 Germany's economy had completely turned around, and the evil side of Hitler was not yet apparent..."

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

1938 was integral year for Hitler's ambitions.

"Since most of the border defenses laid in the territory seceded as a consequence of the Munich Agreement, remaining part of Czechoslovakia was entirely open to further invasion, despite having relatively large stockpiles of modern weaponry. In a speech delivered in Reichstag, Hitler stressed out also the military importance of occupation, noting that by occupying Czechoslovakia, Germany gained 2.175 field canons, 469 tanks, 500 anti-aircraft artillery pieces, 43.000 machine guns, 1.090.000 military rifles, 114.000 pistols, about a billion rounds of ammunition and three millions of anti-aircraft grenades. This amount of weaponry would be sufficient to arm about half of the then Wehrmacht. Czechoslovak weaponry later played major part in the German conquest of Poland and France, the countries that pressured the country's surrender to Germany in 1938."

(Psst, Paul...it's all right. Shadow Minister is taking modern European history next semester)

Hi Poirot,

"Considering that in 1938 Germany's economy had completely turned around, and the evil side of Hitler was not yet apparent..." obviously a statement by a person who must be an historical illiterate!

Menzies visit to Nazi Germany took place in August 1938, within 3 months, November 1938 the Nazi's had organised a riot (pogrom), known as Kristallnacht (the “Night of Broken Glass”). This attack against German and Austrian Jews included the physical destruction of synagogues and Jewish-owned stores, the arrest of Jewish men, the vandalisation of homes, and the murder of individuals. The Nazi's had been persecuting Jews and others, including summery executions, since they had come to power in 1933, the infamous Nuremberg Laws were well established by the time of Menzies visit. Menzies as Attorney-General was spokesman on external matters, but failed to condemn the actions of Nazi Germany in the Australian Parliament, in fact he was just the opposite, Liberal in his praise of Hitler the patriot, and probably though of him as a down right nice bloke! The only ones speaking ill of Hitler in those days were the "lefties", and I'm sure if there had been a Q&A program on ABC radio (no TV then) Menzies as PM would have band his ministers from talking, sine the ABC was bias with lefties bagging fascism.

Paul,

My first mistake was to take at face value. Menzies was at no time an admirer of Hitler. Lee Rhiannon was a strong advocate of Moscow even after their many atrocities were known.

To quote:

"IT is said distraction is the last refuge of the desperate.

In Mike Kelly’s case this is more than apt. In an attempt to explain away Labor’s abstention on the UN vote for Palestinian state observer status and Bob Carr’s aggressive campaign to distance Australia from Israel, Kelly has opened a new front in the history wars (“Labor’s abstention explained” AJN 18/01).

His portrayal of Sir Robert Menzies as a Nazi sympathiser and appeaser “not concerned for the fate of the Jews of Germany” is a despicable slur. Kelly’s claims are not only patently false but intellectually dishonest.

Menzies understood the true nature of the Nazi threat, referring in his memoirs Afternoon Light, to the “sinister figure of Hitler”. When it came to attributing responsibility for the war, Menzies made clear “the guilt was that of Germany alone”.

Following a four-day visit to Germany in July 1938 (not the “several weeks” Kelly claims) Menzies, in fact, was shocked by the Nazis’ destruction of the liberal and democratic features of Germany, and by the apparent willingness of the German people to accept this. He wrote about the “somewhat queer atmosphere of Germany”, and told Dr Schacht, the president of the Reichsbank, that “the real danger of the regime was that the suppression of criticism would ultimately destroy Germany”.

Far from unrealistically believing peace could be preserved, on his return he expressed his deep concern at the parochialism of the Australian states in resisting Commonwealth plans to prepare for war. He told the Constitutional Club of Sydney in October that:

“Few people of the Commonwealth fully realised that the European crisis might involve hostilities in Australian waters – that war might be something that would come to Australia, and not merely something that was happening 12,000 miles away” (SMH, 25/10/1938)."

Dear SM,

You can walk into any library and read the
Quarterly Essay - "Political Animal: the making of
Tony Abbott," by David Marr, without having to pay for
it.

Marr's essay is extremely interesting and Mr Abbott
approved of its publication, giving generously of his
time to Marr. It is not just a one-dimensional
portrait of Mr Abbott and you are very ignorant to
suggest that it is. You are pre-judging something
you haven't even read.
Talking about bias!

You brush the "Quarterly Essay," aside, as being just a left-wing
rag.

That shows a very closed mind.

This particular essay has contributors like -
Laura Tingle, Mark McKenna,
Andrew Leigh, Michael Keating, Greg Jericho, John Burnheim,
Percy Allan and John Wanna.

Laura Tingle is political editor of the Australian Financial
Review. Mark McKenna is an associate professor of history
at the University of Sydney. Andrew Leigh is the federal
member for Fraser and a former professor of economics at
the ANU. Michael Keating has been the head of the Australian
Public Service and of various senior departments, including
Prime Minister and Cabinet under Howard governments and currently
consults on economic policy. Greg Jericho is the author of
"Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics."
John Burnheim is an associate professor of philosophy at the
University of Sydney. Percy Allen is a public policy, finance
and management adviser and a former secretary of the NSW Treasury.

I am beginning to see that it really is pointless debating with
you.
I had made the assumption that you were different from the
"many lame-ducks" we get on this forum.
Obviously I was wrong.

Foxy,

I never doubted that you are a lame duck tilting far to the left. Having never seen you provide a link that does not come from a left whinge publication or far left blog I generally have low expectations from your choices.

I will try to read this quarterly essay, but given that of the contributors you list I don't see a single one that is right of center even a jot, and plenty that are well left of center, I don't hold my breath.

Dear SM,

My confidence in your intelligence has really
sagged.

I shan't waste any more time on a plucked pigeon
who poops all over the place.

Foxy,

I have never had any confidence in your intelligence. As someone that eschews the centrist mainstream media for the fringe blogs, you are hardly the one to argue for balance.

Dear SM,

I accept that your narrow, rigid, and
stereotypical views do not mesh well with
any media that presents alternative views
to the mainstream.

Therefore no more needs to be said.

Foxy

I accept that your narrow, rigid, and stereotypical views can't handle any media that presents alternative views to the monotonic left whinge fringe blogs written by amateur hacks that present no new information only continually rehash the same predictable opinion pieces again and again.

The MSM as you call it contains opinions from various angles of politics all by highly qualified and experienced people in vast contrast the puerile New Matilda and Independent Australia which are both graveyards for journalistic careers.

Foxy thanks for those insightful posts.

Shadow, I'm sure given the events of 1939-45 by 1945 Menzies would have been working overtime revising his previously stated opinions of Hitler. Menzies memoirs 'Afternoon Light' was not published until 1967, almost 30 years after the events of 1938, and what it contained was nothing but Menzies revising history to protect his ass.

I haven't noted Abbott taking any kind of stand on George Christensen vowing to attend a Reclaim Australia rally.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-16/christensen-to-speak-at-mackay-reclaim-australia-rally/6625188

Coz freedom of speech n'all that - and George has assured us that there won't be any Nazis there.

(I reckon if you have to make that sort of announcement, then perhaps you should rethink your attendance.)

So, as it stands - we have a PM who bans his ministers from appearing on a public television forum - and has nothing to say about them attending overtly racist and divisive rallies.

Dear SM,

You are in no position to judge something you do not
read. Or for that matter - people who have impeccable credentials
and are subject specialists in their fields and are employed by
our highest institutes of learning.

However, as stated earlier. It is pointless talking to
you. And I am not interested in a mud-slinging contest.
Lets leave it at that.

Paul,

Having been caught out perpetuating porkies again, and instead of backing off you are claiming that RM revised his history. Unfortunately for you, his deep unease with the Nazis is contained in a handwritten letter dated just after his trip to Berlin.

All of this is to deflect from Lee Rhiannon's ardent support of tyranny.

Foxy,

As I said I will try and read the essay. My experience is that if something is written by someone with a particular political leaning, and all contributors (such as Andrew Leigh from the labor party) are from the same background, the outcome is predictably biased irrespective of the level of education. If you listen to those that have worked with Abbott for years such as the volunteer fire fighters or life savers, none of those character attributes with which you are trying to paint him are in evidence at all.

I see SM is at his scintillating best today.

His main thrust of argument (as usual) is that "you're telling porkies".

"...If you listen to those that have worked with Abbott for years such as the volunteer fire fighters or life savers, none of those character attributes with which you are trying to paint him are in evidence at all."

Which isn't surprising - as we all know that Abbott is at his majestic best when he's in "thug" mode - a condition quite unlikely to arise when he's out to prove his altruistic credentials.

Shadow,
What "hand written letter" could it be another fabrication to protect 'Pig Iron' Bob! Like a lot of conservatives Menzies simply got it wrong about Hitler. Just like the way Johnny Howard supported the all white South African rugby tour of Australia in the 1970's, given the racial slur Howard got from that, I am sure it's been erased from the 'Howard History' by you conservatives. I on the other hand have a long memory of the events of the times and a young politician John Howard's part in those events.

Paul,

Now you are sounding like a whacko conspiracy theorist. It was a handwritten letter to his sister.

It still does not deflect from Lee Rhiannon's support of murderous despots.

Poirot,

Only those telling outright porkies will I accuse of telling porkies.

SM,

Still no comment on George Christensen being given the green light to address a racist rally, while simultaneously being banned from a high-rating program on the public broadcaster?

"Only those telling outright porkies will I accuse of telling porkies."

Profound...

(snort!)

Dear Shadow Minister,

You can choose to believe whatever you want.

However -

There is plenty of evidence available regarding
our PMs behaviour during his university days both
from actual witnesses (Helen Wilson and Barbara Ramjan
Malcolm Turnbull, and others) and university records on
campus.

And you can deny facts as much as you want but these people
have given accounts of what Mr Abbott was like then.
And in many ways still is now - as many more can testify
and as we've seen for ourselves during his time in
Opposition.

Poirot,

Firstly the ban on Q&A is for cabinet members, not backbenchers.

Secondly, unlike labor and the greens the libs welcome free speech. As long as GC's address is not racist then free speech tolerant people will have no problem.

Foxy,

There is plenty of hearsay, but no evidence that I have seen.

Excellent, SM.

First he says:

"Firstly the ban on Q&A is for cabinet members, not backbenchers."

('ban' - as in "you are not permitted to speak on QandA")

And then he says:

"... unlike labor and the greens the libs welcome free speech...."

They sure are whacky, those Libs!

Dear Shadow Minister,

Perhaps if you took your blinkers off
you might see better.

Poirot,

Considering that Labor and the greens tried to impose a government censorship board over every form of communication, a lib boycott of a current affairs program for letting a terrorist air his views to the world is a pale comparison.

Foxy,

Try taking your blindfold off.

"... a lib boycott of a current affairs program for letting a terrorist air his views to the world is a pale comparison."

Which begs the question, SM, as to why Abbott hasn't extended his ban to include the Australian and the Telegraph newspapers - as they've given Mallah far more coverage - and even paid him for the privilege.

Instead, Abbott relies on them to sell his propaganda to the nation.

Wingnut Christensen says too right he's going to the anti-Islam rally.

But if anyone shows him an anti-Islam sign and doesn't take it down when requested, he's gonna go home.

Lol! - you couldn't make this stuff up.

http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/nationals-mp-pledges-to-go-ahead-with-speech-to-reclaim-australia-rally-20150718-gifep3.html

Poirot, "Wingnut Christensen says too right he's going to the anti-Islam rally"

Why would you misrepresent the man's stated intent and concerns?

I don't care either way about the rally.

otb,

Because I call out BS when I see it.

We all know what this rally is about - it's staged by "radical" right-wingers to marginalise Muslims and to purposely cause division.

Most of the dingbats attending wouldn't make the distinction between "radical Islam" and "Islam" in general - as we've seen many times on this forum.

As i stated elsewhere, if you have to assure people there won't be any Nazis or skinheads then you should probably reassess your attendance at such an event.

You of course remember the splendid types that attended the last rally - they were pasted all over MSM and social media...they are the type who are attracted to these bigot-fests.

Christensen can spin any line he wants - I don't have to buy it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You can still find Light with eyes closed.
However with blinkers you don't get the full
picture.

However, I will happily remove the blindfold that you claim I
have from my eyes if you remove the one you
have from your mind.

Poirot,

I think the reaction to the reclaim rallies is a typical example of the intolerance of the left whingers who believe they have the right to silence those with different opinions. At every single reclaim rally, there has been a crowd of left whingers break into the rally and break it up, and when separated by police try and drown out the rally, and throw objects at those participating so much so that the police need to use capsicum spray on the left whinge thugs.

I have no real idea about the concerns of those at the reclaim rally, and am pretty sure that none of the left whingers have either. As far as left whingers are concerned free speech is about left whingers being able to voice their opinions and no one else.

Certainly, SM...those radical right-wing "nationalist" anti-Islam peeps will no doubt be a feature on the streets for some time to come.

Makes you wonder why it's taken so long for them to stage rallies on a regular basis.

It's thrilling to see their sidekicks replete in swastikas and shaven heads roll up to give 'em a bit of oomph.

Tell me this - if this is about " anti-radical Islam' as opposed to "anti Islam" in general - why is it called "Reclaim Australia".

Have radical Islamists taken us over?

Where?

What are the percentages regarding radical Muslims in our society compared to ordinary practicing Muslims going about their business?

Because the whole premise that it's about "anti radical Islam" is BS - it's about demonising Islam in general.

(Yes noted pics of the copious pepper spraying - and the Vic copper "high-fiving" the shaven head fella on the other side.)

Poirot,

At last we see your true colours. One or two skinheads attend the rally and the left whingers classify everyone there as skinheads.

Then based on the few violent left whingers at the counter rally, I can classify the left whingers as violent sociopaths.

Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just the Left whinge FWs.

Shadow Minister says that freedom of speech is
for everyone. Really?

Even audience members of Q&A, or the Editors of the ABC, or doctors,
nurses, and social workers working
in detention centres, or MPs in the Liberal Party who are banned
from top TV programs and have to toe the party line instead?

"You tell 'em love!"

i stand corrected, SM....I totally missed the fluffy bunny nature of the majority of those supporting Reclaim Australia.

(Geez I wish OLO had a mechanism for pics:)

Here are the folk to whom you refer:

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2015/04/04/1227291/301962-7fd370da-da91-11e4-9e83-e6cb58d765cb.jpg

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/04/04/1227291/020596-760b1048-da6f-11e4-bde2-90f29debd666.jpg

http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5456683.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/MAIN-Reclaim-Australia.jpg

http://www.sbs.com.au/radio/sites/sbs.com.au.radio/files/styles/full/public/reclaimaustraliarallies-_15_4.jpg?itok=Y97nv8F_

Here's a good one...I didn't know that!

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/content/dam/images/g/i/f/j/0/o/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gifj18.png/1437269666833.jpg

These chappies are patriotic...

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2015/04/06/1227293/493921-d72032cc-da7a-11e4-90d8-bc21b5c83438.jpg

So pleased, SM, you appear to support these people so fulsomely. They appear to be either uneducated and fearful dolts or trouble-making desperadoes...just the sort of caper we want to see on our streets.

Welcome to Abbott's Australia!

Once again I want to Thank all of the contributors
to this discussion. For me it's now well and truly
run its course. I don't see anything constructive
developing here therefore I wish you all a good
evening and see you elsewhere on the forum.

Poirot,

I see that the first pic is of racist black people women and children. The next shots are of the same handful of idiots repeated. However, you left out the anti reclaim protesters "peacefully" attacking the police and having to be subdued.

I've made it clear that I don't support reclaim, but it is clear that you support the suppression of free speech using violence.

SM,,

We have to look no further than Abbott and his cronies tooting the "terror hysteria" horn - and here we have it - regular confrontations at racist rallies in our cities.

That's where we're at.

This didn't happen before.

It's happening now.

And if you can't see the kind of racist, divisive and dangerous outfit the Abbott govt is, there's nothing I can do for you.

Again, I've lost count of reports from people overseas looking down under and commenting what a bigoted and insular lot we've become.

It is, however, fascinating that you wholeheartedly approve of the way it's all unfolding - most revealing....

Poirot,

You so quickly blame Abbott that you never consider the possibility that the following islamic activities might have something to do with it:

The several planned but thwarted attacks by radicals on military bases and civilian targets,
The Indecent assaults by recent immigrants
The siege in Sydney.
The blossoming of burqas (incompatible with secular society) everywhere.

You may believe that their concerns are overblown, but screaming at them that they are racist while trying to assault them is not going to get them to see things differently.

What a load of old cobblers, SM.

We all know this govt's agenda - and so far it hasn't missed a beat.

(and all in the service of whipping up votes through fear and division)

"We all know Labor's agenda - and so far it hasn't missed a beat.

(and all in the service of whipping up votes through fear and division)"

There, I fixed it for you. Because Labor seems to be excelling at that and making the Greens envious.

Pretty hard-hitting stuff, otb : )

Poirot,

"We all know this govt's agenda" What a laugh. You mean that what you and a few greenie conspiracy theorists "know"

Anyone betting on your predictions for the libs would be bankrupt.

The greens are the only ones with their heads so far up their butts that they think that IS is less of a threat than a bunch of Islamophobic yahoos.

Yar, Shadow....

I think I've just about had a stomach full of this forum...full to the brim as it is with radical right-wing hysterics like yerself.

I think I'll go off for a bit and decontaminate meself.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The Islamophobics are a worry because even though
they are a "fringe minority," they are getting
media attention which is unfortunate.

As for your "heads up the butt" comment.
I could make a polite suggestion how you should dress
if you're going to act like a dick, but I won't.

I prefer to think that you're better than that.

Dear Poirot,

Take care.

Come back soon.

Shadow,

As a conservative isn't that your natural posture? Head up your butt imitating Tone. I must say he actually does it very well, where else could he pull those fool policies and statements from, if not out of his butt! Well known for talking through his ass, just look at this corker concerning the ABC, pure buttism!

Foxy,

If at the first Reclaim rally a few months ago, the hundred or so people had simply had their say and moved on, there would have been little to no publicity and that would have been the end of it. But what happened? a few hundred left whinge activists held a counter rally and tried violently to break up the Reclaim rally.

The result is that the Reclaim cause got front page articles in nearly every paper and off the back of this got sufficient support to hold rallies in nearly every major city, and yet again the same pinheads organise counter rallies to break up the Reclaim rallies, give them more free publicity than they could have hoped for.

If you want to change these people's minds, it would probably be more useful to listen to them and enter a dialogue rather than screaming at them and ignoring their concerns.

Poirot,

If the greens think ISIS is not a problem, but both labor and the coalition who have access to the intelligence do, it is most likely that the greens have got it wrong.

Paul,

The Greens are the primal butt dwellers, just ask Brown eye Bob.

So much has changed since Labor and their Greens sidekicks were turfed out of office in Canberra,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0MHRSFz6FM

Yet many of Labor's error-prone dross from that time remain - career politicians like Shorten, Wong et al.

What about the challenger for Willie 'Whatever She Says' Shorten and beavering away, gnawing at his wobbly pins? Drop-kick Tanya Plibersek! LOL

Dear Shadow Minister,

The media is not interested in peaceful demonstration.
That does not sell newspapers. That's why "theatre"
appeals. And the media laps it up.
That's the way the game is played.

otb,

Please keep giving us your well reasoned, intelligent,
arguments. You've got them down to a fine art.
You certainly are a superior debater.
Well done again!

Foxy,

I think that's exactly the point I was trying to make. If Reclaim had been left to its own devices, it would have drawn no attention and died of disinterest. The noisy and often violent anti racist protest drew attention to Reclaim, and made them look calm and rational by comparison.

Fox,

Yes, some here have a very short memory, even while they are still channelling the Handbag Hit Squad.

Speaking of which, Julia Gillard is at it again trying to re-write history with her failed 'It was all misogyny' excuse.LOL

The Australian public thoroughly rejected her Gender and Class Wars and tipped the lot of them out of office.

You would think that Labor would be smart enough to replace the failed old Handbag Hit Squad along with L'il Willie Shorten aka 'Whatever She Says' and put them out to grass like Julia.

But no, the factions rule and the union bosses are sticking by Shorten so far...

Interesting times to come for Shorten and crew.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It is disturbing when our attitudes to those
who are different appears to be heightened by media
presentations that distort and aggravate incidents.

otb,

You tell 'em, love!

Fox, "You tell 'em, love!"

Thank You for all your endearments and kind words. But in future - why not keep things on a more professional level - which would be more appropriate for a public forum such as this one.

otb,

Gee whiz - you quoting me - and me
being - only a womyn. To quote your own words.
I'm so flattered. I'm quite overcome.

And -

You're such a role model, old chap.
I can't help but get excited every time
you post your words of wisdom.

However, why don't you set the appropriate
example - first.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander,
to quote your own words.

Stop hissing