"Conversations between the Queen, British prime ministers and governors-general should remain private, Buckingham Palace said, as letters released after a four-year court battle proved the monarch played no part in the controversial sacking of the Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam in 1975.

The letters, kept secret for 45 years, showed the contentious decision was taken alone by the governor-general Sir John Kerr, as the palace maintained the long-standing convention of such correspondence remaining private to safeguard relationships and the ability to govern."

Speculation over Kerr’s removal of Whitlam, who had failed to pass a budget and would not resign or call an election, has fuelled the republican movement in Australia for decades.

The trove of 211 letters, running to 1,200 pages with attachments, between Kerr and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, was finally released by the National Archive of Australia following legal action. It showed Kerr did not inform the Queen of his intentions.

In a letter to Charteris on 11 November 1975, the day of Whitlam’s sacking, Kerr wrote: “I decided to take the step I took without informing the palace in advance because under the constitution the responsibility is mine, and I was of the opinion it was better for Her Majesty not to know in advance.”

so, with the Queen not involved in the dismissal, is there any point in having a non-Australian as head of state?

At the same time, it could be argued that the system worked because Kerr was the Queen's representative.

I am not fussed either way.

Our system rarely has a crisis.

Chris,

The whole point of the Labor conspiracy scaremongering is precisely to point the finger at outside monarchist forces interfering in Australian government.

The reality that Labor now has to face is that Kerr dismissed the Whitless Labor government for its incompetence and arrogance and there was now outside interference.

yes,I agree.

That is what I argued in a university essay.

I was biased to the Whitlam govt before university, but once I researched issue I changed my mind.

The really hilarious part of the story is that, while the conspiracy theorists claimed Britain had inappropriately interfered in the process, it turns out Whitlam contacted the palace begging them to interfere on his behalf.

Whitlam always denied that he'd asked the palace to come to his aid, but, alas, that turns out to be just another of the myriad lies around the entire episode.

In the end, the process handed the final decision over to the people where it always ultimately resides, as it should be in a democracy. And the people spoke rather forcefully.

yes, ALP was crushed at next federal election

Get over it. Why the hell do we need this shite dragged up 45 years after the event, an event heartedly endorsed by electors, who gave Labor the bum's rush at the ensuing election. We don't need to be reminded of the stench left by Whitlam.

Firstly let me begin by re-stating my position as a staunch monarchist.
Yes it's true.
Now as for this sick maggot of a so called professor, trying so hard to find dirt on the monarchy, all she has done is exposed herself to be a nasty and biased, somewhat petulant prostitute who sold her soul and virtues to the highest bidder.
It was patently obvious she had failed in her capricious attempt at trying to find fodder for the republican movement.
It brought back flashes of when that other capricious maggot lost her attempt at becoming the first POTUS!
Listening to the ABC news this morning, I find the presenters trying to justify or make a case against the sacking of Whitlam, by saying he had no knowledge of what Kerr was about to do, when he clearly did.
Anyway, as I have said on many occasions here on OLO, Australia is part of the Queens inheritance, and as such she OWNS this land, fair and square, as was the rules and practice when it was first discovered/claimed and then colonised, in the name of Queen Victoria.
As much as the plebs of this country absolutely hate the idea of Royalty and being beholding to a higher authority, I'm sorry but this IS the way it IS, and the only reason you won't find the palace objecting to one of her countries wanting to become a republic, is because it's not a good look today to send your own army against your own people, even though that is and was the correct course of action.
If/when the pleb majority of this country decide to foolishly push for a republic, we will be lowering ourselves further into that pit of suppression and the loss of even more freedoms and rights.
Having a Monarch, gives us protections against not only external aggressors, but also internal ones, as the dismissal of Whitlam clearly demonstrates.
And as a last word.
The Queen is not as lax as the stupid plebs in this country, to allow ANY trace of Whitlams sacking lead back to her.

the regressives again caught out trying to rewrite history. They will still rearrange the 'truth' to fit their lying narrative. They get phd's in lies.

The BBC points out that there are many intriguing aspects
about the "Palace letters".

Firstly they point out the secrecy. And one historian's
quest for the letters to be made public. We're told that
the fact that it took a High Court decision for the letters
to be released, after a Federal Court had refused the
request.

Secondly, all this added to the suspicion around what the
Palace knew. The letters now answer the most pressing question
about the Monarch's involvement. We now know that her
representative made the decision.

The BBC tells us that although there is no bombshell
revelation it is nevertheless a remarkable insight into an
almost daily and detailed correspondence between the
Queen's representative - the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr,
the Queen, and her secretary, during a time of very high tension
in Australian politics.

According to the BBC this was not just between Whitlam and
Fraser but also between Prime MInister Whitlam and the
Governor-General - Sir John Kerr himself.

This is a glimpse into a tug of war of power. Which it indeed
was. The letters remind us that as the Queen's representative,
Sir John Kerr was considering his position and powers to
dissolve parliament and dismiss the Prime Minister - Gough
Whitlam while the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was
considering going to the Queen to call for the Governor-
General's, Sir John Kerr - removal.

When Gough Whitlam was sacked there was a great deal of anger
at what many people saw as the Palace representative Sir
John Kerr flexing his questionable powers over Australian
politics. Others saw it as his protecting his own position.

There were calls for the country to be a republic at the
time.

It is unclear whether the newly released documents will
revive those sentiments.

Hasbeen,
Why do you regard the conspiracy theory as Labor's?

__________________________________________________________________________

runner, you're describing your own actions pretty well. Do you have a PhD in lies?

I for one am glad the GG got rid of the Goaf after many of us lost employment due to his & his Ministers incompetence !
The 1.2 million/day to PNG he committed Australia to since 1975 could have created a lot more productive jobs here than they ever could in PNG ! And, to think that there are people who have the gall to call themselves Australian still speak of him as some kind of a hero is simply mindboggling !

'runner, you're describing your own actions pretty well. Do you have a PhD in lies?'

sorry Aiden the gw alarmist, the marxist, the regressives give each other the phd spots at uni. No room for anyone interested in facts and truth. Look at that pathetic attempt for years by the abc and female professor that has shown all she did was lie. Now she needs to change her story as all regressives do. Yeah keep the billion dollar a year budget for the abc to continue to pedal lies. ONe day we might hear an apology but don't hold your breath. To many like you Aiden who hate facts.

individual,
Wasn't the unemployment rate higher under Fraser?

___________________________________________________________________

runner,
Would I be correct in deducing nobody's explained to you how the PhD system actually works?

> Look at that pathetic attempt for years by the abc and female professor that has shown all she did was lie.
I haven't the foggiest idea who you're referring to! Can you be a bit more specific?

>To many like you Aiden who hate facts.
No, runner, I don't hate facts. What I hate is the habit of many here, including yourself, to base your judgement of whether or not something is a fact on whether it fits your prejudices.

Foxy,
May I once again point out your style of writing/posting/responding, is very patronising and insulting to ALL who read them on OLO.
Your last posting a clear example of what I am eluding to.
You spend the greater majority of the text repeating what is common knowledge, from EVERY news source, both nationally and quite a few Internationally.
Then as if by slight of hand, you end with one of YOUR personal views thinly disguised as part of the story.
Your inclusion and implied comments that Labor and Whitlam were angry at Kerr for "flexing" his muscles, then your snide and low brow attempt at implying that this will "revive those sentiments", "about the republic once more", tells us you are not an honest or righteous person to be predicating to us here, or anywhere else for that matter.
Remember I have been telling you about these indiscretions of yours.
Not a good look.
Oh, and here's one that the left will ALL choke on;
If you believe the documents and the conclusion we have been told, that's good.
That is exactly what was intended.
But here's the kicker;
If anyone thinks for one minute that the GG did this off his own back and was not following the Queens instructions, your all morons.
How many times do I have to remind you plebs, she OWNS Australia, yes OWNS.
When the plebs finally get their petulant pathetic hissy fit way and pull off the Republic crap, she won't stand in our way, because she knows she is getting rid of another ignorant, demanding, arrogant spoilt brat, and will be glad to be rid of it.
But you won't get it all your way because we will still remain in the Commonwealth.
HAH, the plebs lose again.

If the queen actually was responsible in any way for aiding in the dismissal of Whitlam, rather than considering her guilty, we should all get down on a knee & show our gratitude for any action in ridding us of this total ratbag, & his dysfunctional government.

Every hour it was in power it was doing immense and lasting damage to this country & it's people.

Wasn't the unemployment rate higher under Fraser?
Aidan,
Of course it was until his Govt sorted out the Whitlam mess & at his departure all was pretty good again. Also, I & my friends did not lose our jobs since the Fraser administration right up until retirement.
Which of course, gave us sufficient time to purchase our pension.
I hate to think how things would have turned out if Saviour Kerr had not acted in time.

Hassy,
On behalf of the Queen and the Royal family we thank you for being the only one to show her the respect that is due to her.
She is still the ruler of this country, even though she dare not let it be known, as the scum who want to run this country, and the plebs who refuse to recognise her authority and the concept of hereditary right of ownership, will go into a collective epileptic fit, and start committing suicide, if they actually accepted this premise.
So good for you.
And again, thank you.

ALTRAV,

Tell you what. When you change your foul language and
stop hurling insults at me then I will pay attention
and perhaps even read all of your posts. Now I simply
scroll past most of them.

Until then don't waste your time and effort addressing
me because coming from you, your comments are absurd.

BTW - my previous post came entirely from the BBC -
which I made quite clear in the beginning.
If you found it patronising - that's because
they used the Queen's English and not the sewer
language you're used to.

And telling you that is not being patronising - it's
simply stating facts. Something you're totally unfamiliar
with.

To ALL, but mainly to FOXY and about her last posting.

I have gone back and read my posting and I find nowhere have I used anywhere near the kind of language you accuse me of, against you.
Other than the words, patronising, insulting, snide, low-brow, the rest such as plebs and morons were references to everyone else and I mean, Australia, oh and of course some on OLO.
Your attempt at besmirching me is a further indictment of your particular sensitivities and somewhat childish view of the world.
I had already dealt with you, in the preceding early part of the text, so I'm sorry to disappoint you FOXY, the words I used in your context were chosen specifically because they best described the point being made.
Whether you agree with the comments is of no consequence as it is natural for you or anyone for that matter to reject anything which makes you/them uncomfortable, especially when it is true.
You still refuse to accept that whenever you post direct quotes or excerpts of media articles, that you are being patronising.
Do you think the OLO members are all dolts, and don't know what's going on, that they need you to repeat it as if to educate or communicate with a 3 year old?
No! I have spoken truly and justly and there is nothing I have written that is not TRUE!
As I have said many times before; If I have erred, then by all means correct me.
If I have upset any sensitivities, if what I say is not true, correct me, BUT, if what I say is true, too bad, I have done nothing wrong.
Look within and move on.

Foxy,

The BBC is as left leaning as their ABC and using similar tactics of selective omission.

What is not mention is that there is an expectation that if a government cannot function then it is the duty of the PM to either call a new election or resign and allow the GG a chance to cobble together a functioning coalition. It is the duty of the GG to take all reasonable steps to form a functioning government and if not (s)he has the duty and power to dissolve parliament and call a new election (a function mirrored in the UK by the Queen). The failure by Gough to either form a functioning government or call a new election left Kerr in an invidious position to dissolve parliament or to allow the chaos to continue. The rest is history.

The main reason Gough did not want to call a new election was simply that his fiscal incompetence had left the country in a dire financial situation and he knew he would lose heavily that he kept the country in a state of chaos with a hostile senate meant that when he was dismissed the voters were ready with bats.

The "great deal of anger" to which the BBC refers was only amongst the hard core labor supporters which proved to be a small minority. The conspiracy that Labor is running is that all was hunky dory before that rotten queen messed it up. The reality is that the GG authority is a safety valve that will probably be carried over in any new republic.

ALTRAV,

Using language like:

1) Sick maggot, capricious maggot
2) So called professor.
3) Petulant prostitute

about women you don't know and much, worse in your other
posts. Your record of posting on this forum speaks for
itself. Even being banned for what you write. Did you
learn anything from that? Of course not. It wasn't your fault
but that of the moderators - right? Of course.

And then having the nerve of going on to tell me
that MY style is patronising and insulting to ALL.
What a joke!

The mind boggles at how thick you are.

As I pointed out - when you change your style of posting
and lead by example - only then will you be able to lecture
and onyone on their posting style.
Until then I shall treat you as the grunter that you
are (a pig with attitude). Because that's all
you're capable of doing - GRUNTING!

The fact is a non elected person, a drunken anachronism from a bygone era dismissed an elected government on behalf of his boss, the old duck in England. Not democracy.

According to SM if its not in the Murdoch gutter press, its coming from the left wing subversives! The ABC the BBC, gee what a Trumpster this bloke is.

Indy, you lost your janitorial job in 72, been on the public payroll every since. I though you would be down at gods waiting room blowing this weeks 750 buck handout from us taxpayers. BTW, stop deluding yourself, you never paid for any pension, its welfare, something you refuse to admit.

Shadow Minister,

Of course you'd think the BBC is as "biased" as the
ABC. However, I chose the BBC - because it is a
reputable and highly respected broadcaster in the
UK and I thought that it would be interesting to
get a British perspective added to this discussion.
BTW - like the BBC the ABC is supported by 70 -
80% of Australians who find that their national
broadcaster is a most trusted news source.

ALTRAV,

I've just finished reading your most recent post to
David F., on his "Initiative for Peace", discussion.

You wrote the following to David who's of Russian Jewish
ancestry:

" ... elite Jews - in the guise of the illuminati -
they are dangerous and have been responsible for millions
of deaths throughout history - and they have the gall -
the disgusting arrogance to force laws that make it
illegal to suggest the holocaust didn't happen. Who the
hell do these freaks think they are?
I am saying it again WATCH OUT these bastards are mental
retards and they are the most dangerous race/cult on earth".

If I was the moderator I would have you banned from this
forum for life.

Shame on you!

Foxy, I thought you were not going to read my posts anymore.
As I have said, I have come to accept that you are a very sensitive person, and that you labour at accepting the truth.
All the things I say, I do with good counsel and clarity of mind and reason.
I am not in the habit of criticising someone without reason, and the intensity of the criticism is relative to the reason for the criticism in the first place.
So all that YOU object about my postings are only a reflection of the things you say or the message you attempt to deliver.
I tell you what, apart from the odd derogatory name, of which I think if we do a tally, we will find that you beat me hands down, and at least I have been consistent, unlike yourself who has continually found new words to abuse me and others with.
Foxy, I'm a man, as much as you may want to forget that or that you haven't been around any for some years, BUT, I unlike yourself and some others here, don't suddenly get all virtuous and upset and decide to try and take the upper hand, by hopelessly attempting to virtue shame me.
I'm sorry, I truly am, but REAL MEN are not affected by such things or people.
Now I suggest, for your sake and emotional stability, that you carry on with your decision to ignore me.
There's a good girl.

Foxy, AGAIN?
If you don't mind, read what you wrote again, and I'll humour you and say I'm a little thick.
If that be the case, could you please elaborate and explain where and what words I used that were incorrect or untrue?
Upon receiving irrefutable proof confirming your accusations, I will immediately and un-equivocally retract said phrases, words or whatever forthwith.
There are you happy now?
As a side, you do remember that I'm not phased by any attacks, either on my person or personality, right?
Good, I await your earliest reply.

his boss, the old duck in England.
Foxy,
Paul1405's quip above is within your level of acceptance ?

My mistake Indy, I'll correct that; The old sheila in England. Satisfied?

Paul, now I'm confused, after your last slur in calling the most respectable woman in the world a SHEILA?
And you have the audacity to praise maggots who have done nothing worthy of note and what little they have done was personal and self serving, as opposed to the Queen of England.
I can't say what needs to be said in condemnation of your extreme dis-respect of the ONLY woman in the world, worthy of note, having dedicated her life to her country and all her subjects, forfeiting ALL personal and private dreams and ambitions, like normal people.
By your slur on the Queen of England, you have just exposed yourself and your level of intellect and upbringing, as being someone of low class or caliber, usually described as a "commoner".
Have you no shame?
I did not expect you to stoop so low.

Foxy,

The fact that the BBC is left leaning is pretty common knowledge, but I am disappointed that that was all you took from it with your knee jerk defense of the ABC.

That GW had effectively lost the ability to govern left only one honourable option which was to resign or call a new election. John Kerr was left with no other option but to dismiss parliament.

Paul,

Clearly you don't have the IQ to understand or debate this issue. The reality is that the queen while titular head has not interfered one iota in Aus affairs. While I am not a monarchist, I am not one for rewriting the constitution for what is essentially trivia.

Shadow, I am a republican, however after seeing your man Trump in action I'm inclined to become a monarchist.

ALTRAV, if only we had animation on the Forum, I'd have a stick man laying on the ground laughing his head off, in tears, after your last post. Personally I have nothing against Lizzy Windsor in England, probably not a bad old stick (is that another insult?). I'd go so far as saying no one can do it quite like she does "I declare the 1968 Chelsea Flower Show open! May god keep her safe, and all who sail in her, and I dub thee sir knight!

Best I can do; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EoAHdwGBvU

John Kerr simply did a one-off draining of the swamp !

Paul,

I am agnostic with respect to the monarchy, but after seeing your mates Typhoid Dan and Trump in action, I might consider becoming a monarchist too

ALTRAV,
No matter how easy it s to respect her, Her Majesty is unequivocally not a bloke, therefore she's a sheila.

______________________________________________

Paul,
Despite the above, your reference to our head of state as "The old sheila in England" is objectionable in the same way as references to "the China virus" are objectionable. There are plenty of old sheilas in England.

___________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,
The fact that right whingers regard all media organisations that don't share their bias as left leaning is pretty common knowledge.

The Whitlam dismissal was before my time, but AIUI there was certainly a need for Kerr to call an election, but no need for him to appoint Fraser caretaker PM.

___________________________________________________________________________

individual,
'Twas a lake, not a swamp!

Aidan,

I get your point, even though I feel it is, if only, an inappropriate description of someone who has earned the right to be treated with the utmost respect and highest regard.
I see her as someone who was "forced" into a difficult and completely alien role, she was unprepared or raised for.
She was way too young and was caught off guard when her father died, who also was forced into the role as King, by the abdication of his irresponsible and hugely disappointing brother, to do a most stupid thing, to marry an American divorcee, of all things.
Just as a side, I am amused at the irony of many years later, the great grand nephew of the original king goes and does EXACTLY the same thing.
Anyway, the Queen has my full support and has done an exemplary job, as we all know the trials and tribulations she has had to face, bare and rectify when necessary.
Sacking Whitlam was just one of them.
I am continually thankful that we are under her tutelage.
Long live the Queen!

Aidan

"there was certainly a need for Kerr to call an election, but no need for him to appoint Fraser caretaker PM."

The problem was that the budget hadn't been passed at that point and it needed to be passed before the parliament could be dissolved. Otherwise the government would have spent the next month ie 11 November to whenever the new parliament could be assembled, without appropriated funds. That would in turn mean all pensions, public service salaries, government payments to contractors etc. All would have come to a grinding halt.

So how to pass the budget? Fraser wasn't going to allow it until the election was called. Kerr could have asked Fraser to pass it with the promise of an election but after the budget was passed the whole crisis would have been over and an election unnecessary. Whatismore, if Whitlam knew that such promises had been made to get the budget through, he would have moved to sack Kerr first.

Therefore the only solution was to do what Kerr did.

Whitlam was a fool who thought the Kerr was a mere lackey who would do his, Whitlam's, bidding. He never saw it coming. Additionally, when it did happen he made a series of strategic errors which might yet have saved the situation for him.

Kerr was in a no-win situation. Passing the whole thing over to the people was the only sensible solution.

Aidan,

The fact that left whingers regard all media organisations that don't share their bias as fascist is pretty common knowledge.

However, it is also common knowledge that the majority of reporters are left whinge.

Finally, appointing Fraser as caretaker PM was largely due to Gough Witless refusing to deal with Kerr.

ALTRAV, you sound like that old anachronism from a bygone era, the sickening royal sycophant 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies who used the words of Thomas Ford to describe his lusty feeling for the young queenie "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die."

Paul,
It is but who I am.
Contrary to what some on OLO may think of me, I have always preferred women to men.
I love the the women I love, and hate the females I hate.
I am far more mentally and emotionally balanced than most people, which has kept me in good stead with women, both platonic and intimate.
So I may not be as besotted as good ole' Bob was with the queen, but being a man, with all my faculties, I cannot but not notice women in general around me.
Dare I say it; "it's only natural"!
What kind of MAN does not notice women, ANY women?

'Twas a lake, not a swamp!
Aidan,
You'd better look up the difference between a lake & a swamp !
Lakes don't contain grubs & slime !

"'Twas a lake, not a swamp!
Aidan,
You'd better look up the difference between a lake & a swamp !
Lakes don't contain grubs & slime !"

Only when a Green or two accidentally fall in.

For general information;

"Sheila (alternatively spelled Shelagh and Sheelagh) is a common feminine given name, derived from the Irish name Síle, which is believed to be a Gaelic form of the Latin name Caelia, the feminine form of the Roman clan name Caelius, meaning 'heavenly'.

It is also encountered as an alternative spelling of the unrelated Indian feminine name Sheela, which is of Sanskrit origin."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila#:~:text=Sheila%20(alternatively%20spelled%20Shelagh%20and,Caelius%2C%20meaning%20'heavenly'.

Comrade Ismiseski, welcome back, how was your pilgrimage to 'Lenin's Mausoleum' in Moscow. Of course I am referring to your parties new Bolshevism, ie giving preferences to the communist Labor Party in the recent Eden-Monaro by-election. Have the Shooters and Hooters embraced a new form of glasnost, Will I have to refer to your party as the Commo Shooters and Hooters from now on?

Paul,

I believe they also preferenced the Greens, they don't like the Coalition so any chance to put the boot in is taken.

Has Prince Randy Andy popped over to America yet to have a chat with prosecutors about his involvement in the Epstein matter. Me thinks not, claiming royal privilege of some sorts so it seems.

Individual,
There are usually plenty of grubs and slimy creatures in lakes as well.

____________________________________________________________________________

Shadow,
> The fact that left whingers regard all media organisations that don't share their bias as fascist...
That's not a fact, that's a delusion of the right whingers!

> However, it is also common knowledge that the majority of reporters are left whinge.
The majority of reporters have a strong interest in the truth. Right whingers perceive that as bias against them!

Now, AIUI the title of this thread is wrong; it's not Labor's conspiracy theory at all – they never endorsed it. And like all credible conspiracy theories, the point was that (based on the limited evidence they had)) many people, regardless of their political beliefs, regarded it as more likely than not to be true. The allegation that Labor used it for a political purpose appears to be YOUR conspiracy theory!
____________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
I doubly apologise: for addressing to you a question that I should have addressed to Shadow, and for having repeated that mistake despite previously declaring I'd be more careful in future.

Paul, you don't need royal privilege to not pop over to America.

Aidan,

That journalists are unbiased is a delusion of the left whingers:

https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/so-who-skews-news-bias-australian-media-revealed/1875830/

"Conducted between May 2012 and March this year, the University of the Sunshine Coast's representative survey of 605 journalists around Australia found that more than half (51.0%) describe themselves as holding left-of-centre political views, compared with only 12.9% who consider themselves right-of-centre."

https://theconversation.com/whose-views-skew-the-news-media-chiefs-ready-to-vote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

"However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition.

In contrast, 46.5% of 86 News Limited journalists who answered this question said they would vote for Labor, 26.7% for the Coalition, and only 19.8% for the Greens. As well as The Australian, the News stable includes some of the country’s best-selling tabloids such as the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail, Northern Territory News and the Adelaide Advertiser, and some suburban newspapers.

Among the 86 Fairfax Media journalists who responded, Labor was by far the most popular party at 54.7% support, followed by the Coalition and the Greens, both on 19.8%. The Fairfax journalists came from outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times, a range of regional and suburban newspapers, and metropolitan radio stations."

Aidan,

Albo and a slew of other Labor polies were out touting the conspiracy, as for the coalition, I have yet to see one support this delusion.

Shadow,
Holding left of centre political views is not evidence of bias. It may just mean that, having heard and considered a lot of evidence from many different viewpoints, they find the arguments of the left more persuasive.

Considering the absurd claims the Libs made before the last election (like Labor's support for electric cars meaning the end of the weekend) in some ways it's surprising that the proportion of journalists supporting the Libs was as high as it was.

Shadow said "Conducted between May 2012 and March this year" it took them 8 years to conduct a survey, things must move slowly at the USC, can't they write, was it all done with picture grams

Another survey found 100% of those forum posters who subscribe to Murdoch's No-News publications such as 'The Daily Telecrap' and the 'Racists Australian'are nincompoops.

Paul,

The more you post the more I believe you are brain damaged. Did it not occur to you when writing "it took them 8 years to conduct a survey" that maybe the article wasn't written yesterday but in 2013?

I suggest that it might be better that people suspect you are retarded rather than write gibberish and confirm it.

Aidan,

"Holding left of centre political views is not evidence of bias", but a vast majority of articles and opinion pieces that lean to the left is evidence. That the ABC for example actively avoids articles that shine a bad light on Labor or the greens is a prime example.

Shadow,
Isn't that just the result of Labor and the Greens nothing in power? ISTR the ABC weren't that easy on the Gillard government (even though they didn't go nuts about it like some of the commercial media did).

Shadow, if you're not on here posting rubbish you find in you subscription to the 'Daily Telecrap', you are referring to some 8 year old survey as evidence. I knew that survey was old trash from yesteryear, but you had to regurgitate it.

Your postings continue to show your lack of knowledge and understanding of issues. The reason is most likely your blind obedience to everything Murdoch. When it comes to news, you should come out from under your rock, and smell the flowers. There is more to news than the 'Beat Up' Bolt column.

Paul,

After having cocked up so spectacularly the sensible thing would be to slink away especially as I have little regard for criticism from an illiterate retard especially when he is deliberately lying.

If the day comes when you have anything relevant to add to the conversation such as a relevant link or considered opinion instead of your typical psychotic rantings then I might regard you as more than the dregs of this forum.

Aidan,

What you won't find in anything from the ABC is any serious criticism of Juliar's illegal boat crisis such as the 8000 children in detention, or any mention of the nearly zero effect of Australia's contribution to climate change, or serious criticism of Juliar's school hall debacle, or reference to Juliar's carbon tax that she guaranteed she would never introduce etc.

Shadow,
Did you avoid watching the ABC during the entire Gillard era?

> the 8000 children in detention,
Probably discussed more on the ABC than anywhere else!

> or any mention of the nearly zero effect of Australia's contribution to climate change,
IIRC some people did make that point. But it was also pointed out that it's not as near zero as many people think it is, our inaction becomes an excuse for the inaction of others, and we shouldn't be a nation of leaners not lifters.

> or serious criticism of Juliar's school hall debacle,
Actually there was. Indeed ISTR I heard the criticism on Lateline before anywhere else.

But before we go any further, think about what serious criticism is. It's not synonymous with heavy criticism!

Serious criticism looks at what went wrong, why it went wrong, what should have been done differently and how to avoid a repeat of the problem in the future. And it doesn't just concentrate on the negatives, but also looks at what went right and how that can be repeated.

If you look at the serious criticism you'll see that the school halls scheme was excellent value in WA where the government closely scrutinised all the contracts. The results weren't too bad in SA, Queensland and Tasmania either. It was only in Victoria and NSW, where the government outsourced oversight to private contractors, where it was a debacle.

The obvious lesson is that we need capable government. Detailed scrutiny is needed. Public service cuts are a false economy if they compromise capability.

But the Murdoch Press, and indeed most of the people on this board, dislike that lesson because it doesn't fit their prejudices. So instead they pretended it was an unmitigated disaster everywhere; they ignored the serious criticism and used heavy criticism as a substitute.

>or reference to Juliar's carbon tax that she guaranteed she would never introduce etc.
Come off it, that was frequently discussed everywhere, including on the ABC!

The fact that Kerr was canvassing the idea of sacking Whitlam months before the supply matter even existed suggests some sort of conspiracy and letters if anything, reinforce that.

I remember those days very well and indications were that some of the Liberals were about to cross the floor because the threat of holding up Supply - and therefore the wages of Public Servants - would backfire.

The subsequent vote of no confidence in Fraser should also have automatically put an end to him as PM and allowed for the reinstatement of Whitlam.

"Plausible deniability" is one thing but the idea that Kerr could act unilaterally and independently of the Queen is also a worry for not only our system of Government but also for the monarchy itself. As well as Kerr's representative role as GG, the Queen is also obliged to take advice from the PM which she did not do.

Aidan,

The ABC's spin on children in detention was never that the illegal boats should be stopped, but that all the child illegal immigrants and their children should not be detained at all.

Similarly, the minute difference that Aus's contribution to climate change would make was not seriously considered by the ABC who posted endless doomsday predictions for Aus from climate change and directly linked it to Aus's climate change policies.

Similarly the "latelines" contribution to these debates was to allow a token conservative to make a statement and then the other " progressive" panelists would essentially denounce his opinions.

The ABC web page is similarly selective in the stories it covers.

The stated objectives of the school halls program was
1- to provide paid employment for those in the building industry affected by the GFC,
2- To provide needed infrastructure for schools.

However, the program took so long to get started that:
1 - By the time the construction started the building industry was already ramping up to full employment
2 - Most of the buildings provided were not primarily what the schools needed, were often incorrectly sized and cost 2x the going price in the free market.

Aidan,

The Audit Office was expected by the media to belt the Government over its Building the Education Revolution stimulus package measures. On the contrary, it said the program was working well.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/building-education-revolution-primary-schools-21st-century

The extended and systematic campaign run by the right-wing media to smear the education component of the Government’s stimulus package came a cropper — badly. The ANAO released its report on the primary schools component of the program and found… a successful and well-implemented program.

This was the program that The Australian had been attacking for twelve months as a scandalous waste of money. The conclusions of the ANAO’s performance review — when the auditors look at a program to see whether it has done what it was intended to do — fundamentally discredit a campaign that had formed a key part of News Ltd’s war on the then Government.

No performance review by the ANAO ever gives any program a complete tick. There’s always some suggestion of better administrative practice that the auditors propose, at the very least, even if the program has been effective in achieving its goals. In this case, the ANAO unusually makes no recommendations about what should have been done differently.

The ANAO thought DEEWR rode the states too hard on the issue of value for money. It also noted:

"It should be noted that local quotes are often found to be competitive with those obtained through the Managing Contractors’ tender processes. However, there have been instances where local quotes have been presented to the BER Program Office which at first glance appear far less costly than their estimates but which on further examination did not represent value for money....”

Which destroys the credibility of the bulk of media stories about the program, which focussed on claims local builders could provide a cheaper project than those selected by educational authorities.

Rache,

Thanks for providing a report where the government bureaucracy audits itself.

If you read the details the following is clear, is that the projects were late (18.6% started on time) they cost far more than planned and their relevance to the operations of the schools is not even discussed.

None of which contradicts my previous post.

Really?
"Most(?) of the buildings provided were not primarily what the schools needed, were often(?) incorrectly sized and cost 2x(?) the going price in the free market".

I don't think the report says this but the media certainly suggested it, based on the extrapolation of a small number of cases.
Likewise the scandalous cheques sent to dead people - which would never have been cashed - compared to the over-generous employment inhibiting handouts underway.

Yet despite this "calamity" we somehow managed to avoid a recession and widespread unemployment.

Let's see how Scummo's brilliant bathroom reno strategy saves us all, plus the notion of creating a better trained dole queue.