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.