The only issue is the indelible green-left bias of the ABC

Let me come back to this Zaki business one last time because it does worry me that either the government doesn’t get the point, or doesn’t want to. I don’t care that they gave Zaki air time. In fact, the more they let him talk, the more he demonstrates what a danger he and others like him are. That was not the problem. The problem was that he was brought onto Q&A by the ABC specifically to ambush a government minister. It was the ABC’s intent that is so vile, not the particular means they chose on this occasion. What the program demonstrated, far better than anything else in recent times, is that the ABC is out to harm the government because the ABC, contrary to its charter, is pursuing an agenda of its own. The entire organisation is now a billion dollar version of the Green-Left Review. That is the problem. That is what you must deal with.

My worry is that no one seems to get it. All the quotes that follow are from The Australian today. Each is one more example of missing the point. Here first is Julie Bishop:

The ABC’s action in allowing a former terror suspect to air his views runs counter to the government’s work in attempting to protect Australians from terrorism, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says.

This is from Christopher Pyne discussing Mark Scott:

“He’s trying to pretend the government is trying to close free speech at the ABC. This is typical of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; rather than ’fessing up to their mistake, which was to bring a convicted terrorist on to the audience of Q&A and give them a platform … (and) put at risk the people in the audience,” Mr Pyne told the Nine Network.

Then Peter Reith:

Peter Reith, a former Liberal cabinet minister, accused Mr Scott of reducing the ABC’s blunder to a question of audience security and not the “shocking and offensive” decision to give Mallah a platform.

“The ABC head was basically saying the real problem is that ‘we didn’t manage the security side of it’ as if, you know, if they’d got that right then having this guy on would be OK,” Mr Reith told Sky News.

Even Malcolm got into the act:

“This guy on social media not so long ago nominated two female journalists and said that they should be publicly raped,” Mr Turnbull said. “What if he had said that again in the Q&A live audience? Why would you ever put a person (like that) in a live audience? It’s incredible.”

The issue is neither terrorism nor free speech. The issue is the ABC. Nothing else. The issue is whether the government is going to take on the the fanatical leftist bias of the ABC, or is instead going to leave it alone until it conspires with the Greens and ALP to see it defeated at the polls. I would have thought that an instinct for self-preservation would have driven the government towards some such conclusion already.

I am in no doubt how difficult this task is. But I am also in no doubt that unless you identify the problem for what it is and then deal with the problem itself, you and we will never be rid of this deformed monstrosity of the far left. This is what you must do if you are to survive. You must set down a strategy for dealing with the indelible green-left political biases of the ABC and then do what you can to counter this malignant publicly-funded cancer in our social midst.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

182 Responses to The only issue is the indelible green-left bias of the ABC

  1. IF Mark Scott is not sacked along with several others, then the ABC will have won. There will be no shifting anyone afterward. For anything.

  2. Dave

    Abbott just needs to hold on through to the next election, shouldn’t be too difficult with Short-on at the helm of the opposition. Make no promises on retaining any kind of ABC funding into the next election cycle and then cut away.

    Another option would be to remove advertising restrictions and government funding simultaneously. If ABC supporters are so passionate about retaining it for the invaluable content provided, it shouldn’t be a problem. They just have to put up with ads – like the rest of us.

  3. Oh come on

    IF Mark Scott is not sacked

    He won’t be.

    then the ABC will have won.

    In that case, they will win.

    There will be no shifting anyone afterward. For anything.

    Nothing of any substance will change as a result of last Monday’s Q&A.

  4. A H

    I agree. The ABC has an agenda of its own which, as you say, is contrary to its charter. Meanwhile taxpayers are being compelled by force of law to finance this agenda. It is also a very puerile agenda, which achieves nothing but to foment political unrest for the sake of acreting the status of bulwark to the ABC against its nominated enemies. It is totally self-serving and totally degrading to everyone who is sucked into its mire. Judging by comments from Mark Scott and others of the ABC, the perpetuators of this infantile charade are not alive to the repugnance of the inherent hypocracy and illogicality of their justifications. It is plain that they will not spontaneously recognise and correct their actions of their own accord. An intervention is in order.

  5. notafan

    Yes the problem is the ABC, what about the anti-Pyne demo on qanda last year.
    Don’t tell me that wasn’t set up.
    Qanda invite their guests in.
    A lot seem to pose as private individuals then are exposed as muslim or other activists or employees of labor politicians.
    I’ve given up on ABC and SBS tickabox news.
    Every single show is used as a vehicle to have a dig at the LNP.

  6. cui bono

    Hey Mark, if it’s about free speech you better get Adrian Bayley on to tell us about his desire to, you know……….

  7. Kurt

    This is the ABC who calls Abbott a misogynst for looking at his watch but then gives an ISIS supporter, people who sell women and children as sex slaves, a platform.

    They hate Tony Abbott so much that they are willing to promote a man who holds some of the vilest views imaginable because he hates Abbott too?

    What the fcuk is wrong with the Left in Australia?

  8. Sydney Boy

    Sack Mark Scott. If Turnbull won’t, then sack Turnbull and his replacement can sack Mark Scott. Have some fucking balls.

  9. A Lurker

    Whilst Malcontent remains Communications Minister nothing will be done about the ABC.

    Malcontent needs to go and a head-kicker brought in who knows exactly what the ABC is, to mete out punishment.

    I nominate Senator Bernardi.

  10. Combine Dave

    . You must set down a strategy for dealing with the indelible green-left political biases of the ABC and then do what you can to counter this malignant publicly-funded cancer in our social midst.

    This is the worst kind of fantasy. That the ABC would be okay if only they are less biased or if only the views I prefer are given more airtime or are mandated.

    It’s the 21st century. The idea that Australia needs a state funded propaganda broadcaster, that the taxes and sweat of the brow of the few remaining productive Australians ought to fund the 3 figure salaries of public sector journalists is offensive.

    Close it down or privatise it by an employee share float where every existing employee is paid off in shares of this new ABC Private venture.

    This was the time to do it, while the public was outraged over the ABC giving material support to terrorists.

    The fact that senior LNP Ministers have come out bashing QnA but done nothing to end this monster draining our wealth and our children’s wealth is a failure on the part of the LNP.

  11. Combine Dave

    After Morrison has finished cleaning out the rich on part pensions, put him in charge of the Communications portfolio with a mandate to:

    * Downsize and privatise the ABC
    * Privatise SBS.
    * Repeal legislation preventing companies from competing with the NBN co.
    * Privatise the NBN.
    * Give tax concessions to telecom communications that build infrastructure in regional areas.

  12. Mooka

    Sack Scott and appoint either Sophie Mirabella or Wilson Tuckey as the new CEO..
    With a bit of luck they might all resign, problem solved.

  13. Ros

    Joe Hockey gets it. His comment yesterday about Scott’s speech and not a good luck the ABC having a public fight withe government or something similar.

    The political reality is that they don’t have the power, think of the senate, or the political capital to just close it down. But doing as other nations, including the EU, have done, set up review, make it an ongoing body with first aim modernize the delivery of public sector broadcasting. A good place to start cost, all other institutions have to adapt change radically change their model. Launch an inquiry into the role of public broadcasting in 21 century. Include in terms of reference is a dedicated organisation needed. Outsourcing to private, making more responsive to pluralist societies, other models considered, eg Germany independent regional bodies, Holland independent cultural and social bodies, NZ, private sector providers as well, plus they have to pay dividends to government. And though I am an ABC watcher, age of entitlement over, limited class getting a very expensive non responsive service, user pays as is still the case for many models.

    Just to get started on what could be included in terms of reference.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    What the program demonstrated, far better than anything else in recent times, is that the ABC is out to harm the government

    Incorrect. They are out to harm only the LNP government in order to depose them in favour of an ALP-Greens government.

    They would not have done this if Rudd had won the election.

  15. cynical1

    billion dollar version of the Green-Left Review

    Exactly. Any opposition is declared “Far right” because the ABC is balanced.

    The left never complains.

    Well, unless they feel the ABC is too far right.

  16. Blogstrop

    This was just the latest indicator of the ongoing cultural capture and embedded bias that we observe every day from the ABC. Unless it is dealt with forcefully, it will not stop. The consequences are starkly illustrated by the federal government fiasco that filled the years 2007 to 2013. Rest assured, the ABC will get them over the line again one day.

  17. ella

    It is important to understand that what we are witnessing is not bias. It is corruption. These ABC jounalists are corrupt. Name it well and the rest should flow from there.

  18. sabrina

    Steve – I do not think with ~17% rating, the ABC can do anything to sway a substantial part of the electorate to defeat the LNP. Zaki Mallah could not ambush the minister even of that was his or the ABC’s intent….except for few deranged individuals clapping for him.
    Only one Mallah was exposed on that night, there are thousands of Mallahs, born and bred here, in the community. How these were created, what can be done to change their mindset is what you should discuss.

    In future, write a thread on the behaviour in the financial sector – they and their cronies in the two major parties are fleecing the common people.

  19. Blogstrop

    In future, write a thread on the behaviour in the financial sector – they and their cronies in the two major parties are fleecing the common people.

    Don’t bother bleating about the big business nasties, so beloved of communist and socialist story telling. The services delivered in western democracies largely flow from efficient companies, and are part of the reason we see so many people illegally migrating. It isn’t just the welfare. If our Coles, Aldi and Woolworths were replaced by the old Soviet GUM stores, things would be different.

    The TURC is demonstrating how corrupt many of the unions are, and the way they fleece the common people. They’ll continue to manipulate companies by threatening disruption (as per Boral and Grocon) and continue to extract financial support from them until the system is reformed to the extent that (i) unions and union officials are subject to the same oversight as companies and company directors, and (ii) the IR laws are adjusted to take away the balance of power which enables them to act as standover merchants. Don’t forget that Julia rewrote the laws to deliver for them.

    The witnesses at TURC are doing their damnest to demonstrate contempt for the process, and are in effect saying that prosecutions will not succeed because I can’t remember, and everyone uses my phone, office, email, and so on.

    The ABC has shown little interest in this. You might ponder the reasons why, since according to Scott they are fiecrcely independent and always have what’s good for Australia close to their collective heart.

  20. Splatacrobat

    It only took Kerry Packer less than 15 minutes to phone in and tell his flunkies to pull the Doug Mulray animal show.

    Mark Scott should have pulled the show himself, had Mallah escorted from the premises, and sacked the producer.

  21. Paul

    I understand the point Kates is making and agree with him. However the Government however needs to be careful of the Politics. Note how the ABC are trying to spin this as an attack on their independence. Their criticism cannot be seen as retaliation for years of ABC campaigning against the Conservatives.

  22. Combine Dave

    The political reality is that they don’t have the power, think of the senate, or the political capital to just close it down. But doing as other nations, including the EU, have done, set up review, make it an ongoing body with first aim modernize the delivery of public sector broadcasting.

    Better than nothing.

    Although I suppose that the ABC winning the next election for the ALP (their gotchas on LNP leaders will be picked up and widely disseminated by the media people do watch) will be rewarded with extra funding extra staff and maybe an extra channel or two.

    I mean, aboriginal vote people get a channel why not a whole new ABC channel for environmentalism or the gay or Islamic communities?

    That’s a change of sorts and far more likely than the Lib’s voting to reduce the size of the state and divesting themselves of the ABC (and other assorted boondoggles).

  23. Big_Nambas

    Well I get it. I have posted many times here that the ABC is the Green/Left.

    I have written to LNP members since the last election, THEY don’t get it.

    Unfortunately I don’t think they will act now, no balls says it all.

  24. Gab

    Their al-ABC is untouchable and they know it.

  25. John

    ABC is beyond repair. ABC is infected by incurable disease. As ISIS, ABC is inhabited by dangerous radicals. It cannot be de-radicalized. De-radicalization does not work! As ISIS or any dangerous cult, ABC must be defeated. ABC must be immediately disbanded and sold!

    Government should declare this as “greatest challenge of our times”!

  26. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sabrina – Control of the MSM by the Left is worth 8-10% in elections in the US. I assure you the ABC knows that perfectly well.

    Fairfax group are legitimately able to choose whichever side of politics to back, since they are a commercial venture. Likewise News Corp. But the ABC is funded by taxpayers on all sides of politics, and their Charter requires them to be balanced for exactly this reason. They are in breach of their Charter. If they do not return to it, and they surely won’t given the self selected activism of most of the staff, then the whole organisation should be abolished or privatized so that taxpayers are not required to pay for the activism.

    You would not like being forced involuntarily to buy a simultaneous subscription to The Daily Telegraph, Herald-Sun and The Australian. Yet that is what the ABC effectively forces upon me. I want to have the choice not to pay for them.

  27. Denise

    Christopher Pyne thinks the LNP members should keep appearing on Q &A to prosecute the LNP case. What a joke. The few articulate ones are quickly silenced by Tony Jones before they can cut through to watchers. Others have less authority then medieval peasants in the stocks being pelted with rotten tomatoes by the feral crowd. Going on to that show just exposes the LNP’s lack of intestinal fortitude. It is also an infuriating reminder that impotent LNP no-hopers are drawing down huge taxpayer funded salaries.
    Any LNP ‘friends of the ABC’ like Bruce Scott and Malcolm Turnbull should not get a single vote. I have told Brian Loughnane and Tony Abbott’s offices that our local MP won’t get ours so long as he supports the ABC. No reply, but laudatory newsletters about the LNP stopped coming. That’s how seriously BL takes it.

  28. Spider

    The trouble is that the Gotchas on Q&A only ever go one way.

    Here’s my suggestion

    Next time Triggs is on Q&A have the family of the woman killed by the Indonesian man who smashed her to death with a bicycle and she recommended receive $300 000 compensation pop up in the audience and ask her a question.

    That should make for entertaining TV.

    Every week assorted fruits, “comedians”,musicians and actors of the correct political persusion are given free rein to kick a government minister or conservative with impunity.

    My objection is not that they are given a voice but that their views are rarely subjected to any serious scrutiny or contested by Snowcone. They can effectively say the most outrageous and egregious lies and not be picked up. This is a one sided contest, the producers know it and they want to keep it that way because while coalition members or conservatives are bing humiliated it makes good television.

    Look at the absolute farce of the Fred Nile SSM marriage Q&A event which portayed all people who oppose SSM as close minded religious bigots.

    No doubt Q&A un-chastened are currently working on next week’s gotcha.

  29. JohnA

    Dave #1721762, posted on June 27, 2015 at 1:56 am

    Another option would be to remove advertising restrictions and government funding simultaneously. If ABC supporters are so passionate about retaining it for the invaluable content provided, it shouldn’t be a problem. They just have to put up with ads – like the rest of us.

    It has already been corporatised, so there is a legal entity company, with a shareholding, which is the licence holder for the radio/TV spectrum.
    1. Sell the shares for $1 on the open market.
    2. Allow advertising and kill off the government funding within 1 month, at most 1 quarter
    3. Let it then comply with all the standard requirements of the Broadcasting Act/s and various media cross-ownership rules.
    4. Conduct a Pontius Pilate handwash in Federal Parliament.

  30. Up The Workers!

    I see on Bolt’s blog that Bull Shitten and the Australian LIARS Party have attacked Tony Abbott for “launching an attack on the independence of the A.B.C.”.

    The concept of the self-serving Bull Shitten ever ‘repudiating’ the A.L.P.B.C., is as unthinkable as the man ‘repudiating’ his own sphincter.

    Both form an integral part of him; both output basically the same content; he would be utterly lost without either of them, and both are thoroughly odious!

    If I were Bull Shitten, I’d be more concerned over the likely challengers for his job.

    The way the A.L.P.B.C.’s “good little maaate” Zaky Mallah toyed with the truth the other night on Q. & A. (Qaeda & Al), I’d say that he’s got his sights on the top job!

    Zaky’s pals have already gifted 5 seats to the A.L.P. in N.S.W. alone, which is why the A.L.P. and their in-house propaganda outlet, the A.L.P.B.C. are toadying to them so obsequiously.

  31. Ros

    One of the enjoyable moments of that qanda, (which I only got to watch because they repeated it, get my qanda from catallaxy, so disagree with Abbott on that) was Grahame Morris. He kept making little moaning noises, he stared at the Hegarty person as if he was gazing upon a gibbering lunatic, and unlike his usual behaviour when interrupted, he just sighed and gave in. I don’t think he will be back. Sorry I enjoyed your horror Grahame.

    Jennifer Oriel has made her position very clear, and she seems like a woman to watch. Chris Pyne is wrong, starve them, and their legitimacy is really blown if none other then the green left appear. They are looking more and more like some kind of Jerry Springer talk show, only qanda is a poor taste version. As usual I think they don’t get it. That so many are talking about the show isn’t a indication that Australians think it is a quality show, rather they are attracted to the ABC’s version of verbal world wrestling.

    Malcolm just couldn’t surrender the attention, in fact he would relish being the only one, supposedly, of his kind to front.

  32. Ros

    Dave’s advertising call is a good one. The ABC as it is is a luxury, an entitlement for the green left in particular, that we can no longer afford. Advertising is essentially a form of user pays. Another version of public broadcasting is the US one. They run ads plus they have annual large donation drives. The green left could cough up and we could see who was coughing up. Mind you it would have to be very transparent and have very strict governance rules, a novel thought for the ABC, as the danger of capture becoming complete would be high.

  33. Spider

    Imagine if two right of centre comedians (if such a thing exists) were given a 5 minute spot in Prime Time on the ABC for decades and effectively allowed free range to harangue their political enemies.

    And then imagine if their insightful “comedy” was repeated on a NEWS program next day followed by knowing winks and chuckles.

    No neither can I.

  34. Farmer Gez

    Libby Gore (ABC radio) just announced that the Victorian Premier’s wife would join her tomorrow for a chat. The ABC staff are part of the ALP/Green family through friendship, marriage, relationship, career or plain old political allegiance. There is no quick cure.

  35. Gary in Erko

    Hook up the ABC to wind turbines. No other energy source to be allowed for their operations, including transport.

  36. Leigh Lowe

    In future, write a thread on the behaviour in the financial sector – they and their cronies in the two major parties are fleecing the common people.

    Ah, yes.
    The latest ALPBC unicorn.
    The government wants independent board members on super funds (a reasonable position) and the talking points machine went into overdrive attacking private wealth management.
    Why?
    Because Union bruvvers would be tipped off super fund boards.

  37. Alex Davidson

    You must set down a strategy for dealing with the indelible green-left political biases of the ABC and then do what you can to counter this malignant publicly-funded cancer in our social midst.

    Call for a 10 minute roundup of Catallaxy Files every day during primetime, hosted by someone like Andrew Bolt…

  38. Leigh Lowe

    Libby Gore (ABC radio) just announced that the Victorian Premier’s wife would join her tomorrow for a chat. The ABC staff are part of the ALP/Green family through friendship, marriage, relationship, career or plain old political allegiance. There is no quick cure.

    The premise is entirely innocent apparently … some Heritage Victoria thing.
    But just watch it drift into gay marriage, the right of the ABC to be feral, renew-balls, finally reaching a crescendo of Abbott-Abbott-Abbott.

  39. Dianeh

    LNP politicians should boycott Q&A. No ifs ands or buts. It is a rare appearance on there that does not weaken the govt’s message on the topic of the day. Even the best performers in the govt cannot get out their message with the stacked deck and the constant interruptions.

    As far as the other news show go, they should still appear but the govt should invest in some media presentation training for its politicians, and it should be paid for by the party not the govt. it should include rehearsed responses to the constant interruptions and how to handle blatantly untrue assertions, how to handle biased questions etc and on how to use ridicule to gain control of the interview. Take the attack to the ABC and call out the bias then and there.

    Another point would be to set up an independent monitoring system for abc bias, not govt but private and widely publicise the result.

    I know I’m dreaming. First step is to acknowledge there is a problem, and as Steve said, they just don’t get what the real problem is.

  40. notafan

    Not Bolt. Unbearable to watch as he incessantly talks over his guests.
    An unknown, someone young but very smart and well read , just to prove that these presenter jobs are overrated and vastly overpaid.

  41. Louis Hissink

    But first one needs to do something about the ‘unfair dismissal’ regulations etc, otherwise it’s all hot air.

  42. Norman Church

    As another blogger said at one time, all this talk of the ABC being biased is nonsense. Before the last election, they consistently attacked the opposition and, since the election, they have evened things up by consistently attacking the government. What could be more balanced than that?

  43. candy

    Chris Pyne says they need to get their message out on Q&A.
    Twaddle. I think that’s his ego speaking because he wants to be seen on the ABC flagship show.

    Q&A format sets out to make Liberals look like right wing nutter “dinosaurs” and Twitter finds the merest phrase and off it goes around the media. That obese lady (Margoyle?) activist from England is asked about Tony Abbott and says he is a “tit” and that’s across the major media the next day. For Q&A, that’s a successful show then. No-one remembers anything else about that episode. Job done.

    It’s high time Coalition realised the government’s message will never get out via Q&A. The ABC hates conservatives.

  44. Splatacrobat

    Don’t stop at boycotting the ABC studios. They should refuse questions from ABC reporters at doorstops and all media events. If the mic has ABC on it they should be ushered out of the room with a stern warning “you pose a security risk”.
    Next the LNP branches should start protesting outside ABC shops. A BDS against the shops for a week or two should raise their level of conscience.
    Escalate with signs saying Fuck Mark Scott, Not in my name Tony Jones, ABC : Australian Bias Commissariat.

  45. Baldrick

    Oh come on
    #1721768, posted on June 27, 2015 at 2:39 am
    Nothing of any substance will change as a result of last Monday’s Q&A.

    +1
    (They might offer up some token sideways move for someone of little consequence)

  46. Crossie

    Sack Mark Scott. If Turnbull won’t, then sack Turnbull and his replacement can sack Mark Scott. Have some fucking balls.

    Sack the ABC Board as well then sack the public servant who appointed the board and then sack those who gave the public servant such power.

    It has come to this because representatives of the people have no input into how the ABC is run or governed.

  47. Ant

    “I would have thought that an instinct for self-preservation would have driven the government towards some such conclusion already.”

    This is why I have repeatedly said that (on the self-preservation instinct alone) the Abbott government should simply do to the ABC what the ALP would do to the ABC if it was as conservative as it is hard leftist.

    And they should make the case. It wouldn’t be that difficult. The ABC’s ratings are abysmal. Relatively few people watch it. It costs $1B+ each year. Its figureheads constantly speak Marxist nonsense, demand you the taxpayer go with less, yet live in the ritziest suburbs pulling down $100s of $1000s from you taxpayers and then turn and snort and snigger at “McMansions” and “flyover country”.

  48. Crossie

    Whilst Malcontent remains Communications Minister nothing will be done about the ABC.

    Malcontent needs to go and a head-kicker brought in who knows exactly what the ABC is, to mete out punishment.

    I nominate Senator Bernardi.

    I concur. I emailed half a dozen MPs and senators about this and the only ones who got back to me were Senators Bernardi and Fiona Nash.

  49. Roger

    I am in no doubt how difficult this task is.

    Oh, I don’t now, Steve.

    The government has the power, with due cause, to sack the board and start again. The government’s review will presumably make the case that due cause exists – they have a surfeit of evidence to sift through.

    Next step: the new board sacks Mark Scott for his manifest failure to manage the ABC according to its charter and replaces him with a fearless type who will (with the power to appoint his own team).

    Corrupt institutions can be reformed with the right leadership.

    Or, of course, they could just make Rabz the chairman of the new board!

  50. AP

    I wrote to Tony Abbott some time ago about the ALPBC, questioning why, in a time of pervasive digital technology, we still needed a publically funded broadcaster, when so many private-sector alternatives already provide a superior product.

    He replied in a long and courteous letter that he, as a former journalist, was committed to free speech (which is completely irrelevant to my point) and would do nothing about the ABC, ever.

    It is a lost-cause. Vote for another political party, people. Family first, Lib Dems, whoever.

  51. AP

    We either need an NBN for regional areas, or the ABC, not both.

    The NBN supplants the need for the ABC.

  52. incoherent rambler

    I nominate Senator Bernardi.

    He will be too busy with AG, finance, immigration and foreign affiars.

  53. incoherent rambler

    Rule 7- Never establish an enquiry unless you know the outcome in advance.

    One might ask Malevolence of Wentworth and OTT would the outcome will be.

  54. Crossie

    Sack Scott and appoint either Sophie Mirabella or Wilson Tuckey as the new CEO..
    With a bit of luck they might all resign, problem solved.

    We could only hope.

  55. Crossie

    We either need an NBN for regional areas, or the ABC, not both.

    The NBN supplants the need for the ABC.

    And then we can blame it on Kevin Rudd.

  56. Bad Samaritan

    OK, so the usual Cats are reading from their ALP/Greens/ABC supplied scripts and coming up with “One Term Tony will not touch us.” It may comfort your mates down at the Cafe Latteria but will it convince anyone else?

    Turnbull asks ““What if he had said that again in the Q&A live audience? Why would you ever put a person (like that) in a live audience? ” and ALP/Greens/ABC Cats are really expecting the average Aussie to not know the answer; not to supply the “why”? Hmmmm.

    Reith says ““The ABC head was basically saying the real problem is that ‘we didn’t manage the security side of it’ as if, you know, if they’d got that right then having this guy on would be OK,” Mr Reith told Sky News. Hmmmm. Reith doesn’t get what “the real problem” is? Really? I wonder what another real issue might be.

    ” rather than ’fessing up to their mistake, which was to bring a convicted terrorist on to the audience of Q&A and give them a platform … (and) put at risk the people in the audience,” Mr Pyne told the Nine Network.” So why won’t they ‘fess up? Hmmmm…like Turnbull…..Pyne wants us, the public to supply the answer;

    As anyone with the slightest ounce of nous would immediately realize, the implication in all these quotes is that there was some reason which over-rode the ABC’s responsibility to act decently. What might that be?

    Any of the One Term Tony crowd care to hazard a guess at what that over-riding reason might turn out to be? Anyone care to guess what answer might be given at an enquiry when Producers are pressed into explaining why it was oh so important to have Mallah on the show despite security and decency concerns?

    Sorry Lefty Cats but your geese are being slowly grilled by the master baker himself ‘ol OTT. Everything shows he knows exactly what he is doing. Why not just grow up and stop sooking about Billy Boy’s impending electoral annihilation eh?

    Just get ready for either stumping up to watch your mates’ Ultimo antics, or else go read the Fairfax papers for free at the local library. Pathetic.

    BTW. Most of these questions from the LNP Ministers are in the style of the Dorothy Dixers so often seen in Parliament. If it were question time, a backbencher would be asking the questions whilst the Ministers would be supplying the answer “Q+A’s desire to get an LNP panel member over-rides any concern they should have had for audience afety….the norms of decency….the vile mysoginy of this bloke Mallah” Hope this helps. Cheers.

  57. incoherent rambler

    Or first reform the Electoral Commission.

    The AEC could then force ABC News, Current affairs, Q&A etc to declare that they are broadcasting a political advertisement.

  58. H B Bear

    Kates has nailed the problem. Snowcone was left there like Wile E Coyote after his ACME criminal, loser Mohammedan blew up in his face like one of their poorly made IEDs on the road to Mosul.

    Of course, subsequently the backstage ALPBC institutional staff captured plotting of this failed undergraduate gotcha has progressively unwound. Peter McEvoy, a 20 year inmate of the Ultimo staff co-op, was exposed.

    Like most defective organisations the ALPBC is full of people who never leave – largely because they have so few skills that make them attractive to any media organisation that is required to be responsive to audience and advertiser demands. Instead you have an organisation populated by aging, institutionalised, clapped-out characters like Fran “I’m and activist” Kelly, Ol’ Leathery a leftover museum piece from the 80s, Red Kezza – all of whom are interbred with each other and their ALP brethren. Increasingly the ALPBC is populated by pensioned-off JJJ has beens who are redeployed when they are too much of a joke to put to air on a “youth” radio station.

    It should also be apparent that the staff captured ALPBC is incapable of reform. Unless the Liberals are prepared to go nuclear on the bloated morass it it simply going to be more of the same.

  59. wozzup

    Oh they get that this is about attacking and am bushing the government. We all get it. But I am inclined to think they have chosen to attack for the other reason as it’s likely to be a harder argument to counter. (Who can support ABC promoting a wannabe terrorist?) I am in two minds. Part of me regrets the weakness this demonstrates. But on the other hand if it works and takes the battle to this disgusting, hopeless organisation and gives the gov’t the means to force change then perhaps it’s no bad thing. My fear now is that having completed a review ABC will ignore it and the whole thing will peter out in that shit hole known as the Senate. Perhaps the only thing the government can do then is to pull a few hundred million of its funds to underline it’s displeasure at this important social institution becoming a leftists plaything.

  60. incoherent rambler

    Good to see representatives of the party machines reading the cat.

    “Welcome to Q&A – this advertisement for the ALP/Greens is written and authorized by Mark Scott for the non-conservatives in parliament house Canberra.”

    Imagining that OTT has a long term plan is fanciful. Section 18C and the associated betrayal, sadly, puts either the AWU or the CFMEU in power after the next election.

  61. Rabz

    I don’t care that they gave Zaki air time.

    Are you joking? This is the number one problem, as I’ve been maintaining for days. Scott’s ($742,847) preposterous self serving drivel merely confirmed it.

    The ALPBC has no place “giving a platform”, courtesy of my taxes, to stupid violent inbreds like Mallah.

    End of story.

  62. john constantine

    Their abc dominates regional areas, because it is free of cost, free of advertising and has the best transmitters.

    Their abc has cut the throat of any competing business that has to fund itself, and used taxpayer funding to endlessly ram socialism down the throat of rural electorates.

    Between their welfare industry importing a welfare herd of vote people into the electorate of Indi, their welfare workers making damn sure the postal votes were filled out ‘the right way’ and their abc running non-stop lies about the evil of the sitting tory member, and the saintedness of the ‘conservative independant outside/stalinist on the inside’ one electorate was fundementally transformed forever.

    In close elections, their abc can swing millions of dollars of advertising value behind socialist candidates in targeted electorates, and the fuckers do just that.

  63. john constantine

    Seriously, the simple fact that their abc has better reception than normal media accounts for a lot of their ratings in rural areas, you listen to socialism only because it is all you can hear without crackles.

    Pity that howards ‘broadband for the bush’ was killed off by the ruddfilth, or digital radio an affordable internet would have already taken vital points off their abc out where the trains don’t run.

    Their abc country hour stopped reporting grain prices to country folk at harvest time because:

    “you can get that off the internet anyway”

    They just wanted to take minutes of airtime away from facts and skills subjects and back into their comfort zone of chatting to each other about how they feel about socialism.

  64. Muddy

    How the conservative side of politics has not learnt anything from the Pauline Hanson phenomenon is beyond me. It is only a matter of time before another protest party pops up, and I’m guessing that a percentage of those who go that way out of sheer frustration will be those normally tempted to vote conservative. Sure, the new party will sizzle out after a while, but in the meantime, the only ones empowered will be the Reds and their feral gang-bangers the Year Zeros, simply because the conservative opposition will be weakened by the loss of votes from those they have neglected and marginalised.
    If some local wanker comes up and drools that he (or she in this area as well) wants to punch me in the face, I don’t offer to buy him a beer and sit down to talk about things. Why can T.A, not freaking understand this?

  65. sabrina

    Bruce – I fully agree with “I want to have the choice not to pay for them“. Hope that happens one day. My point was different – there are cronies on either side of major politics with one thing in common – fleecing common people on pure personal greed. If you know who were behind the City Pacific, you will know.
    I agree with everything you wrote.

  66. I mean, aboriginal vote people get a channel why not a whole new ABC channel for environmentalism or the gay or Islamic communities?

    I understand, Blogstrop, that the Islamic community have asked that they get their own TV Channel so they can watch without being contaminated by Kuffirs. 🙂 *
    * This may or may not be true – I remember it from last night when I was dreaming of Pork chops…

  67. Crossie

    As someone has already pointed out, there is something LNP can do right now to demonstrate their anger at the ABC and show their voters that they mean business. Blanket boycott of all ABC programmes, even ignoring their journalists at media conferences, no exceptions. Any MP or senator who breaks ranks to be relieved of their portfolio or other privileges.

    The ABC has declared this war, make them own it.

    This would be a fairly easy nod to the LNP’s supporters.

  68. blogstrop

    Not me, Winston. Combine Dave at 7:16.

  69. south

    The Libs would probably care more if anyone actually watched or listened to the ABC. But they know it’s a niche market, consumed only by those who see the world through ABC lens. I say let them have their little playground, it’s almost taxpayers’ money well-spent to keep the Left in their little ABC sandbox where they can’t bother or influence anyone else.

  70. Art Vandelay

    The Liberals had nine years to do something about the ABC when Howard was PM. They did nothing.

    They’re not going to do anything of substance now either.

  71. Oh come on

    This would be a fairly easy nod to the LNP’s supporters.

    When, pray tell, has the LNP given a fat rat’s about them?

  72. Mark from Melbourne

    The calculation the Libs appear to continue to make is that the amount of pain that would be unleashed by any serious attempt at reform of the ABC would be so vast as to cost them an election.

    Yes, the bleating would be monumental I know, but if done just after an election, would they be able to “maintain the rage” for a full term? I somehow doubt it, to be honest. So if Tony just shuts up next time around instead of making panicked promises not to touch the bunch of useless tax-eating grubs, they could, on re-election, announce the breakup (or whatever option they preferred) of the whole shambles to be completed in, say 18 months.

    Should be eminently doable I’d have thought.

    Of course, the above assumes they have a Senate that is workable. And given the greens have 6 up next time, and Shorten is on the nose, that is not as far-fetched as some might think.

    OK, maybe I’m dreaming!

    Back in the Real World, the Board need to be told that Scott is unacceptable. If they refuse to terminate him, their resignations must be demanded. As an interim measure, either a new, smaller Board should be appointed (and if the panel which appoints the Board doesn’t do what it is told, rinse and repeat above), or even simply make the new CEO and new Deputy a two-person Board until new members can be approved. Worked well enough for Gough and Lance after all…

    The new CEO needs not to be some political head-kicker, but a seasoned media executive, given an explicitly free hand and with a large budget for redundancies and new hires. He or she needs to be given firm riding instructions and then left to get on with it.

    You would think that any half-competent operator would likely proceed along these lines :

    Step One would almost certainly be a review of Charter obligations. Presumably followed by an immediate reform of non-complying areas. “Just being fair” is a pretty easy sell…

    Step Two might be a 10% pay cut across the board for any staff member on 6 figures. They would scream, but somehow I doubt that would garner much sympathy.

    Step Three might be the immediate banning of all contracts with the “production companies” of existing staff members and those who have been off the layroll for less than 3 years. They would scream blue bloody murder… but again, this would be hard to portray as other than “probity and transparency”.

    Let them scream about the things that matter to them, but not to the rest of us. That will acclimatise the general public to their bleating. Sort of a reverse boy who cried wolf, if you will.

    It is possible to reform the ABC. As someone said earlier on, when confronted with an out of control lantana, the first step is to seize the shears.

  73. Rob MW

    I think it is more than fair to say that their ABC has long ago left behind the quite novel notion that it is just a news and community service broadcaster and is now a genuine political participant.

    It’s well past time to see if this fucking political participant can stand on its own two feet by selling the whole shithouse. There is no broken promise in selling the frequencies given that only the buyer could make cuts to funding and not the Government.

  74. Jeremy Steyr

    The LNP just doesn’t understand how to fight a cultural war. They want to win elections next year and care very little about anything else.

  75. Telluwhat

    Simply said..If the LNP have balls , the ABC would not have behaved the way they did !Let’s see who are the heads will roll like you said,Tony !

  76. jupes

    Sack the ABC Board as well then sack the public servant who appointed the board …

    This.

    Big Al Jones suggested this. It is something Cabinet can actually do. I think Scott is on the board so he goes too, if not the new board should sack his arse as their first action. The new board should be selected by the cabinet and told their job is to enforce the ABC charter.

    The new CEO / Executive Editor should not be on the new board. Nor should the staff member. Why the hell does the current board have an ABC journalist as a member? Does he perform the role of ideological commisar or what?

  77. Boambee John

    I saw on a US blog this morning (sorry, can’t remember which one, perhaps Instapundit) an expression of concern that the current arrogance of our self selected “aristocracy of intellectuals” with its “born to rule” attitude (my paraphrase) will soon produce a reaction.

    The concern was not, however, with the prospect of conservatives rioting in the streets (again, my paraphrase), but that “the centre will not hold”, and society will again dissolve into tribes.

    Thr Green-left might wish to consider whether there might be some thing worse than Hanson returning, namely a break up that removes their tax cows from their control. Perhaps they might ponder the adage “in all things, moderation”.

  78. iamok

    I’ll say it again. If the ABC survives in any publicly funded form when Labor get their hands back in the cookie jar it’s over man.

    It must be split up and sold off so it cannot be rebooted. No way no how.

    This will not be easy as the retards are already out in force with another hashtag 15 minutes of attention campaign. It will be relentless.

  79. Boambee John

    Muddy @ 10:31:

    Pauline Hanson won a landslide, without party support, in a formerly safe ALP seat. It was not only conservatives (in a party sense) but also the rump of working class people who supported her. They were the ones who felt betrayed by the PC enforced by modern Labor (as different to labour).

  80. blogstrop

    it’s almost taxpayers’ money well-spent to keep the Left in their little ABC sandbox where they can’t bother or influence anyone else.

    I have to tell you you’re dreamin’. The left is not just at the ABC, it’s right across the arts-media spectrum, but the ABC is the one that should be above reproach – and it is anything but – has been that way for a very long time.

  81. Ros

    Chinese state media have blasted Hong Kong’s pro-democracy opposition lawmakers for being “destroyers” of democratic development a day after they shot down Beijing’s election blueprint for the British former colony.

    The Chinese Communist Party’s flagship newspaper published an editorial Friday deploring the vote and accusing the pro-democracy camp of being “selfish” for rejecting the government’s election proposals.

    The paper said “the actions of the opposition camp show they are the upsetters and destroyers of Hong Kong’s democratic development process.”

    The Hong Kong government proposed allowing voters in the Asian financial hub to choose the city’s leader for the first time in 2017 so long as candidates were vetted by a Beijing-friendly panel of elites.

    Pro-democracy leaders slammed the proposal as “fake democracy.” It failed win enough votes for legislative approval.”

    These democrats are marvellous, just keep fighting. So if Australians can just stick at it.

    Surely the ABC isn’t more powerful than the Communist government of China, and it is definitely nowhere near as smart.

  82. Michaelc58

    It is not just Left bias at the ANC. It is active subversion of an elected government. They don’t ‘hold accountable’. They don’t report news. They hold the Abbot government to be evil and they create news by conspire events against it, verbal or invent statements and deny fair voice to the Goverment to frustrate its mandate and defeat it. Furthermore, the enemy of their Abbott enemy is their friend, so people smugglers, terrorists, greenies and anyone against Australia while Abbot is PM, is their friend.

    I spent an hour with my MP, Paul Fletcher begging him to consider the ABC to be the real opposition, not Labor, and it has a billion dollar budget to campaign against the LNP. I am not sure he understood.

  83. strange

    Stve Kates, you’ve done it again, published complete and utter tosh. Firstly is this a promise – “Let me come back to this Zaki business one last time”. I hope so.

    Secondly, Ciobo knew that a person who had been convicted had been invited to Q&A. Ciobo is big enough to look after himself. One would expect that a politician of Ciobo’s standing could look after himself, but no you parade him as some innocent. The fact that Ciobo leapt proffered the opinion that Zaki’s citizenship should be removed, and so displayed poor judgement and a lack of control as a junior minister, is his own problem. You can’t offer the “he made me do it” defence for a minister. It at least was a bit of a change from the usual media appearance with a LNP minister which is usually a love in with Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt or some other suck hole in the Murdoch media.

    Give ioty a rest Steve and open the other eye for a change.

  84. JC

    The fact that Ciobo leapt proffered the opinion that Zaki’s citizenship should be removed,

    He didn’t. You’re either lying or too stupid to understand language.

  85. strange

    Oh, and Steve, I was expecting something from you on the Obamacare Supreme Court decision, or are you just too angry to write about that?

  86. blogstrop

    strange, nobody here gives a fuck what you hope for.

  87. strange

    So JC what does this mean then?

    STEVE CIOBO: Well, I got to tell you, Tony, my understanding of your case was that you were acquitted because, at that point in time, the laws weren’t retrospective. But I’m happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I would be pleased to be part of a government that would say that you’re out of the country as far as I’m concerned.

  88. Elroy

    So the true agenda emerges, as we knew it would. All this confected, huff and puff hyperbole has been building up to this, yet another push to purge the ABC of it supposed ‘leftist’ bias and, if Santa is listening, flog it off. Happy Christmas, Rupert!

    The premise of the whinge, that the ABC let Zaky Mallah, a convicted ‘terrorist’ (which he isn’t), on TV who had the temerity to put a question to a Liberal minister and then told everyone to join ISIS (which he didn’t), was demolished in the following days; Gerard Henderson was particularly painful, and amusing, on Lateline as he tied himself in knots trying the deny the reality of the offending quote, and even a TV comedian, Charlie Pickering on The Weekly, rather effectively skewered the LNP’s hypocrisy and pompous feigned outrage.

    I’m sure this edition of Q&A cheered our PM up no end – he must have been furious at the constant repetition film clip of him praising the ABC to the highest heavens following his favourite ABC show The Killing Season, itself a show which gave the lie to the ABC ‘leftie’ bias canard by demolishing the opposition over three weeks and destabilising the ALP leader, and so was hungry for revenge. To quote Mr Abbott, ‘Thank you, thank you ABC!’

    So the Q&A pouting was a smokescreen; The Australian, Gerard’s employer who gave a guy a big spread was not called out for sedition, and nor was the Courier Mail, Channel 9, Channel 10 et al, or any of the other commercial operators who have played footsie with him, and worse things have happened at sea, even on Q&A when some bloke lobbed his footwear at John Howard, but no matter – the meme now is that the ABC is a nest of Greenie vipers that must be eradicated for the sake of democracy etc. Won’t somebody think of the children?

    The hypocrisy of brave free market warriors run to the nanny state for protection from, er, the nanny sate is pretty funny, and it continues with the sight of the champions of free speech like George ‘We have right to be bigots!’ Brandis and the party of the aforementioned John Howard who in 1996 lauded his party’s tradition of defending individual liberty and declared his election victory as a repudiation of ‘stultifying political correctness…much that I do not believe that [flag burning] should be a criminal offence, I do hold to the old Voltairean principle that I disagree with what he says but I will defend to the death his right to say it, and I see that kind of thing as just an expression, however offensive to the majority of the community, an expression of political opinion.’ Those were the days, huh? Damn Menzies socialist!

    And the laughs continued with Abbott’s announcement that an ABC internal review would not produce the desired result and that a government investigation would, moving away from nanny and into Stalinism. An independent review? No, that’s too risky too. Show trials are the only way.

    But the new premise is as much nonsense as the old. The ABC is not a nest of Greenies, it is a broadcaster which provides a critical service. The ABC are on constant alert to remain impartial due to overblown episodes like this, but I think the conservative end of politics is far more sensitive to perceived bias and criticism because they are appalled that anyone would dare question their judgement; that, and the fact that conservatives are frequently wrong and detest being called on it. As a wiser man than me said, ‘Reality has a liberal bias’.

    The question is often asked ‘Why are there no authentic conservative voices on the ABC?’ and the answer is quite simple – the money’s not good enough. You think Alan Jones would do it for ABC wages? Andrew Bolt left because he got a better offer. This is the genius of the free market conservative love! That, and the fact that journalism is best performed by people with functional critical faculties who can construct a legible sentence, but to suggest that they are incapable of separating their personal feelings from the facts is, frankly, insulting.

    In this day and age, the last thing we want to do is sell the ABC. Given the decline in newspapers and journalism in both quantity and standards due to the Intertubes, the state-funded media model is looking more and more like only way the west will get to hear impartial, in-depth and varied voices as opposed to the profit-driven monotones of ageing moguls, PR releases and cash-strapped, over-leveraged corporations.

    Once upon a time conservatives cursed the Pravda model of news gathering and dissemination; now, in the hands of Murdoch, it embraces it. The clock will turn, however, and the ALP will return to government, and the ABC will hold Labor’s feet to the fire, and Tony Abbott will once again cry ‘Thank you, thank you ABC”

    Cheers

    Elroy

  89. JC

    So JC what does this mean then?

    He’s saying that if he had a chance of getting him the fuck out of here and sent back to his roots he would. That’s not what the government is proposing though, as the classification is only for dual citizens found to be fighting, beheading, raping and throwing gays off buildings for ISIS. You of course support ISIS.

  90. Ros

    We have automated weapons, or the Israelis and US do, that can accurately locate the site of incoming fire within metres and return fire within microseconds, not that I am suggesting we should aim missiles at the ABC. We have computer diagnosticians that can diagnose, match to individuals dna and generate a customised treatment program for a cancer patient in a few minutes. We have an ABC that takes 6 weeks to respond to an individual complaint. The complaints program was developed in the 1950’s.

  91. Gab

    It never ceases to amaze how leftards will defend to their last breath a terrorist and convicted felon, that also calls for two female journalists to be gang-raped in public. But then that’s how low the left have become. May they squirm forever in their own muck.

  92. candy

    I reckon it would not have blown out to this stage if Malcolm Turnbull had bothered to take an interest when the ABC were making up stories about the Navy burning asylum seekers. It was very damaging media for a new government at that time, and it was deliberate to destroy OSB. They kept at it for months, too.

    Anyway, government ministers appearing there now are sending a message it’s all okay and no hard feelings.
    Incomprehensible they would do that, when there is a lot of other media to appear on. Mark Scott will be sweating on them appearing, is my hunch.

  93. Ros

    The ABC and SBS are among the things Australians would most readily cut to balance the budget, according to a survey by Choice magazine. April this year.

    What did the ABC say when they saw that. Nothing of course, suffering as they do from solipsism syndrome, they simply concluded it was just a figment of their group imagination.

  94. Ross B

    The constant hand-wringing among conservative pollies about whether the planet would explode if the ABC were sold off is pathetic. Has anybody ever done a realistic poll of the right question?

    Sure, ABC annual reports tell us that Aunty is super popular – some critical national institution – but these have about as much credibility as reports on leadership popularity in North Korea. Lord Wentworth might have trouble holding his seat in a close post-sale election but really – could the broad masses not come to grips with an ABC-free life if it were simply no longer available as a public broadcaster?

    The LNP don’t have to wage some crazy them-versus-us-vendetta. The politics are not that hard;

    1. State-owned media was reasonable once – prior to the dramatic change in the nature of mass communications brought about by the internet. It is no longer reasonable – given private media providers struggle to remain profitable and the ABC competes in the sector with the huge advantage of taxpayer-funded product – free of cost of the capital burdens of all other players.

    2. There is no longer any reasonable market-failure in the market for media nor entrertainment – not the slightest lack of diversity, content or competition for audience within the commercial media space – and free-to-air providers are at risk of failing in the current landscape.

    3. Modern communications mean national and international providers are either already available or can be readily made available 24x7x365-days across the span of the country (No? Surely?).

    4. (For those who fret about whether there is sufficient high-brow content – i.e. not me) licence conditions for commercial providers can be modified (codified? eeks) to ensure minimum information/news/current-affairs content is maintained (how about improved – and why not auction the 6/7/8pm free-to-air news slots as part of the licence??).

    5. A state-funded and overseen ABC has all the apparent safeguards to ensure it remains unbiased, but in practice – large media institutions inevitably develop a prevailing internal culture and likely organisational bias. Under current arrangements for the ABC we have the worst of all worlds since the pretence of impartiality can be maintained – without impartiality ever really being delivered.

    6. A$1.2B

    I’d shut it tonight…

  95. strange

    JC, just how stupid are you?
    It pretty simple. Fuck off, take your medication and change your incontinence pad you waste of space.

  96. Gab

    JC you know “strange” and “1234” are one and the same idiot, yeah?

  97. strange

    Ross B – if you are right I look forward to Abbott taking the closure of the ABC as an explicit issue to the next election. Bring it on. A bit different to the lie he took to the Australian people at the last election for no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

  98. Tel

    And the laughs continued with Abbott’s announcement that an ABC internal review would not produce the desired result and that a government investigation would, moving away from nanny and into Stalinism. An independent review? No, that’s too risky too. Show trials are the only way.

    You got tangled in your own bollocks there mate, how can you possibly conclude that an internal review is independent? Out of consistency you must also support the idea that every single tax audit of a business should be done by the business itself.

  99. JC

    Gab
    Thanks for reminding me Gab. Strange also supports gang raping righting journalists too. I forgot that one.

    No, I didn’t until now. So “strange: supports ISIS, but what is he doing with “1234”? I’m guessing “1234” chimes later supporting “Strange” cheering for ISIS.

    Hey “strange/1234” it’s really no biggie. We’re used to it. The bulk of the Q&A audience was in full cheer mode for the Islamist, so it’s Ok to come out of the closet.

  100. strange

    JC – still can’t provide a coherent response?

  101. notafan

    Ciobo did not know Mallah was going to be in the audience, they were told that new citizenship laws would be discussed but not that a convicted criminal and terrorist sympathizer would be in the audience. .
    Ciobo, for whatever reason was familiar with Mallah’s case so the gotcha failed.
    That fact is also evidenced by Fitzgibbon’s floundering, if they were briefed Fitzgibbon would or should have been up to speed as well.

  102. john constantine

    Announce that the top abc wage will be capped out at the same dollars a year as a senators wage.

    That might be easy enough to get through the balance of power senators.

    Do their abc slow.

    [they will be able to get around it by job sharing, and selling product through production companies, but let them. See how ‘much loved’ the cheating fuckers are to the general public when their money grubbing multimillionaire socialist status is revealed.]

  103. Elroy

    ‘You got tangled in your own bollocks there mate, how can you possibly conclude that an internal review is independent? Out of consistency you must also support the idea that every single tax audit of a business should be done by the business itself.’

    Not at all, chum. Abbott doesn’t trust an internal review or an idependent review to furnish the result he wants; his best chance guaranteeing what he wants is by instituting a government review so he can control the process, or handpick the ones who do who will know what’s required of them.

    Out of consistency you must also support idea that governments alone must conduct reviews lest an independent one turns up a politically inconvenient conclusion.

    Cheers

    Elroy

  104. A H

    Elroy, it’s simple, people who want the ABC should pay for it. People who don’t want the ABC should not pay for it.

    Tax is backed up by violence. If you don’t pay tax, you go to jail. If you fry to break out of jail you get shot. There is no moral high ground here. The ABC survives on theft.

  105. Elroy

    There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like the Joint Strike Fighter, but there you go – optional and direction-specific tax is only for the absurdly rich – the rest of us are not allowed such privileges.

    But really, are you going to run the ‘All tax is theft’ argument? I thought than one was settled some hundreds of years ago. You sound like some sort of Randian Galtist festooned in Tea Party flags. Give it up, it’s the 21st Century! And a world without taxes you would not like…

    Cheers

    Elroy

  106. Up The Workers!

    I see that Richard Marles is supporting Bull Shitten, Leader of the Australian Liars Party, and the Party’s in-house propaganda sheltered workshop, the A.L.P.B.C. and their chauffeured interview guest Zaky Mallah.

    Just out of curiosity, I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines ‘Marl’ as: “Kind of rich soil often used as manure.”!

    You can rely on the Oxford Dictionary.

    Succinct, precise and definitive.

  107. Elroy

    There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like the Joint Strike Fighter, or mining subsidies, but there you go – optional and direction-specific tax is only for the absurdly rich – the rest of us are not allowed such privileges.

    But really, are you going to run the ‘All tax is theft’ argument? I thought than one was settled some hundreds of years ago. You sound like some sort of Randian Galtist festooned in Tea Party flags. Give it up, it’s the 21st Century! And a world without taxes you would not like…

    Cheers

    Elroy

  108. Austin Mangosteen

    Strange how some people confuse privatization of the ABC with closure–unless it is a Freudian slip! The fears of a virgin in a commercial world–maybe. Privatization of the ABC will be closure for a leaking faucet of taxpayer funds. Whether privatization would mean closure for the ABC any quicker than Fairfax is heading towards bankruptcy–surely not! The ABC is an important organ for collectivist thought. One would think that with such collective and considered thought, expectations of a new experience would rise with anticipation of what it might be like after all.

  109. notafan

    Defence isn’t the same as an entertainment provider competing in the market place.
    If the ABC becomes say a voluntary subscription model no-one who wishes to use it will be deprived of the opportunity.
    I’m sure they could offer a senior’s discount to subscribers.

  110. Squirrel

    “…..The problem was that he was brought onto Q&A by the ABC specifically to ambush a government minister….”

    I gave up on Q&A long ago, precisely because of this sort of tedious, puerile behaviour – which so often, as in this instance, seems to come from a smug, smartypants lefist perspective – the very epitome of the cheap shot, and quite unworthy of a “national broadcaster” which is so jealous of its independence.

  111. Tel

    Not at all, chum. Abbott doesn’t trust an internal review or an idependent review to furnish the result he wants; his best chance guaranteeing what he wants is by instituting a government review so he can control the process, or handpick the ones who do who will know what’s required of them.

    Please, don’t tell lies, these are the words Abbott said: “We are not satisfied with an internal ABC inquiry because so often we’ve seen virtual whitewashes when that sort of thing happens. There is going to be an urgent government inquiry with recommendations.”

    OK, I bolded the word there for you.

    Out of consistency you must also support idea that governments alone must conduct reviews lest an independent one turns up a politically inconvenient conclusion.

    That’s crap, I never said the ABC are not allowed to do their own internal review, of course they are welcome to do that; but the result will be completely predictable, they will find nothing wrong and do nothing. You know what the outcome is going to be as well as I do.

  112. Tel

    There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like the Joint Strike Fighter, or mining subsidies, but there you go – optional and direction-specific tax is only for the absurdly rich – the rest of us are not allowed such privileges.

    I’m 100% confident that the supposedly “subsidised” mining industry pays orders of magnitude more tax than you do. You are kidding yourself if you think you transfer wealth to them.

  113. 1234

    To say a minister was “ambushed” on a program like Q&A tells you more about the preparation and general ability of the minister than the so called ambush. That Ciobo was ill disciplined and impulsive tells you all you need to know about the competence of the Abbott government.

  114. Gab

    lol “1234” still pretending not to be “strange”. Pretty easy to spot it’s the same scumbag.

  115. Rabz

    Tax is backed up by violence. If you don’t pay tax, you go to jail. If you fry to break out of jail you get shot. There is no moral high ground here. The ABC survives on theft.

    Great stuff.

  116. Rob MW

    “There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like the Joint Strike Fighter, or mining subsidies, but there you go – optional and direction-specific tax is only for the absurdly rich – the rest of us are not allowed such privileges.”

    Why stop at joint strike fighter and mining subsidies ?

    Why not the subsidies to the unemployed, aged pension, disability pension, rental assistance subsidies and etc……etc…..etc ? Come on mate ante up, unless you are just another fuckwit that thinks that “I” is “We” and you speak for all Australians.

    What do you, in your deluded mind, call excises & customs ? Are they not “…..direction-specific tax…..” you know like excise on smokes, alcohol, fuel…..etc….etc you fucking moron.

    The only taxes that are “…..optional….” in Australia, mate, are opt-out State based levies………fucking moron…… and take that bloody chip with you before you do yourself an injury.

  117. AP

    Elroy, I’d be completely surprised if you pay taxes. The mining industry doesn’t receive any subsidies from the government. You really need to learn the English language a bit better. Now off you go back to the Drum where you belong.

  118. duncanm

    Elroy:

    There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like… mining subsidies

    says it all really.

  119. JohnA

    Elroy #1722274, posted on June 27, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    So the true agenda emerges, as we knew it would. All this confected, huff and puff hyperbole has been building up to this, yet another push to purge the ABC of it supposed ‘leftist’ bias and, if Santa is listening, flog it off. Happy Christmas, Rupert!

    No, Elroy. The idea of a publicly funded, government-owned broadcaster is long past its “Use-By Date”
    The idea of a publicly funded broadcaster which is
    a) ignoring its charter
    AND
    b) maintaining an utterly rebellious and insouciant attitude to the concept of legislative accountability for its actions
    never passed the sniff test, and should never have been allowed – EVER.

  120. DrBeauGan

    Mud-wrestling is much more fun to watch when it’s done by pretty girls in bikinis.

  121. Gab

    Mud-wrestling is much more fun to watch when it’s done by pretty girls in bikinis.

    I’ll take that as a comment.

  122. blogstrop

    And they had the hide to say Tony Abbott spoke only slogans.

  123. .

    And a world without taxes you would not like…

    Yes I would.

  124. Elroy

    I’m 100% confident that the supposedly “subsidised” mining industry pays orders of magnitude more tax than you do. You are kidding yourself if you think you transfer wealth to them.

    Tel, I’m sure that the mining industry does pay more gross tax than me, me not being a mining company, but not average – the miners pay about 14%, a lot less that than my PAYG.

    And there’s no “subsidies” about the subsides, champ. They come out at $18 billion a year, when ch sounds like a bit of a wealth transfer to me. But tell me, oh brave free marketeers, where does the Ayn Rand playbook say that the taxpayer should subsidise the country’s most profitable industry? Is it not capable of coping with its own expenses?

    Cheers

    Elroy

  125. .

    Tax is backed up by violence. If you don’t pay tax, you go to jail. If you fry to break out of jail you get shot. There is no moral high ground here. The ABC survives on theft.

    Correct.

    The mining industry also receives a negative effective rate of protection/assistance.

    Lefties really are violent dullards, without the chutzpah to do the robbing themselves.

  126. You’ll have to break that down a bit better Elroy.
    Please point to the chapter in the tax laws that says:
    “Mining co’s pay 14% tax”, and
    “Elroy must pay a lot more than 14%”

    This would be of invaluable assistance to those of us who’ve missed that bit when last skimming through the tax act.

  127. .

    They come out at $18 billion a year

    No, they don’t.

    But tell me, oh brave free marketeers, where does the Ayn Rand playbook say that the taxpayer should subsidise the country’s most profitable industry?

    We don’t.

    We actually saddle it to subsidise other industries.

    Which, is morally and in terms of outcomes based policies, wrong.

  128. blogstrop

    Evil miners, companies making profits, others doing it by cutting down trees!

  129. blogstrop

    Shouldn’t you be in the TAFE library studying for your exams, El-roy?

  130. .

    Has Elroy buggered off to look up what effective rate of assistance is?

    There’s hope yet, but he’s got to stop this front running BS where he presumes to have an argument and does research by Google mid argument, ala Grugory.

  131. notafan

    So mining companies pay no tax and are handed 18 billion in subsidies.
    Tax deductions are not subsidies.
    Diesel fuel excise was intended to be used to maintain roads (whether it raises more than is expended on roads is immaterial ) ie it was a specific purpose tax.
    Persons, being farmers and miners ), who purchased diesel fuel not for the purpose of using roads get the tax they pay refunded. They should be simply be exempted but that is not how the scheme was implemented.
    Only in the mind of a mining hating ideolog is an exemption from paying a specific purpose tax because it doesn’t apply to you a ‘subsidy’.

  132. They should be simply be exempted but that is not how the scheme was implemented.

    Ah….Notafan, I can confirm that is how the scheme was implemented.
    The concept of paying the road use tax on off-road diesel, and having it rebated it fairly new.
    The scheme always was, off road use? Okay, you don’t pay the road tax.

    The current pay-claim-um-haw-okay-you-get-a-refund is costly, time consuming, uses paperwork & time.
    It is in effect an interest free loan to the Commonwealth by individual farmers (& any others who use off road diesel).
    The scheme should revert to its original incarnation.

  133. .

    We should get rid of fuel excise, it actually is a regressive tax and it is unaffordable to the poor, indigent and least paid workers.

  134. Rob MW

    “……..where does the Ayn Rand playbook say that the taxpayer should subsidise the country’s most profitable industry?”

    That would be the welfare industry dickhead.

  135. Rob MW

    “The current pay-claim-um-haw-okay-you-get-a-refund is costly, time consuming, uses paperwork & time.”

    They have made the rebate a line item of our BAS statements which has made it easier, however, the rebate itself is classed as income so is subject to tax. Sounds stupid, but that is the way that it is.

  136. Boambee John

    Tel
    #1722295, posted on June 27, 2015 at 5:30 pm
    And the laughs continued with Abbott’s announcement that an ABC internal review would not produce the desired result and that a government investigation would, moving away from nanny and into Stalinism. An independent review? No, that’s too risky too. Show trials are the only way.

    You got tangled in your own bollocks there mate, how can you possibly conclude that an internal review is independent? Out of consistency you must also support the idea that every single tax audit of a business should be done by the business itself.

    I look forward to strange’s recommendation that the Police be given back the right to conduct their own “independent” reviews of their actions!

  137. the rebate itself is classed as income so is subject to tax.

    Offset 100% [one would hope] by the tax deduction for paying the rebated amount to begin with. This of course is complicated somewhat when the pay/rebate happen in different financial years, with possibly vastly differing financial circumstances in those years.

    Yep, the initial payment of road tax on off-road diesel should be scrapped. Full stop.

  138. Boambee John

    Sorry, that should be Elroy, not strange (assuming they are not clones).

  139. Rob MW

    “Yep, the initial payment of road tax on off-road diesel should be scrapped. Full stop.”

    As a user of more than 200,000 lts p.a of off-road diesel I couldn’t agree more. Tell you what but, I reckon I have at least 2 tractors that can smell the refuelling truck from 50 kms.

  140. notafan

    I assumed it was always the same SATP.
    I bet it was changed to prevent tax evasion. Much easier for the ATO to check a claim is valid and then issue a refund than chase someone who should have paid but didn’t.

  141. I bet it was changed to prevent tax evasion. Much easier for the ATO to check a claim is valid and then issue a refund than chase someone who should have paid but didn’t.

    The ATO check nothing.
    The standard of evidence for a claim is the same as it was for the rebate. You gotta be registered, you quote your exemption number.
    Nobody from the ATO gets off their bronze to come & check you’re using diesel off road, coz that is exactly what they’re going to find.

    A whole lot more workable system would be the North American one, where off-road fuel is dyed. God help anybody using dyed fuel on-road (going to town for spare parts & stuff like that is okay – but if you’re from Calgary & you turn up in Quebec with a tank full of dyed fuel, you really got some ‘splaining to do)

  142. Elroy

    Rob MW –

    Why stop at joint strike fighter and mining subsidies etc etc…?

    Why not the subsidies to the unemployed, aged pension, disability pension, rental assistance subsidies and etc etc? Because I think they are worthwhile expenditures.

    I don’t think I speak for all Australians – I obviously don’t speak for you – hence the use of Sir Humphrey’s perpendicular pronoun. And I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ‘direction-specific’ taxes; my intention there was to point out that the absurdly rich pay pretty much as tax as they feel like and then ‘donate to charity’, which means they get to pick what happens to their money – ‘direction-specific’, see? They get to specify the money’s direction – while patting themselves on the back and have everyone tell how wonderfully generous they are.

    And I’m really not sure if the one being called a ‘fucking moron’ by a total stranger is the one with the chip…

    Cheers

    Elroy

  143. Rob MW

    “Nobody from the ATO gets off their bronze to come & check you’re using diesel off road, coz that is exactly what they’re going to find.”

    Not entirely correct. My turnout was audited about 20 years ago. Funny really, as soon as they saw the first tractor they got back in their hire car and drove the 200 k’s back to Dubbo for their flight back to wherever they came from. They just wanted to know who owned the tractor, I didn’t have the heart to tell that the bank did at that stage 🙂

  144. Notafan, I’m not clear on how the current system is superior to the initial model, not for detecting questionable claims.
    As a general rule there’d be a helluva job to achieve anything by conducting an on-farm audit. What’re the ATO fellers going to do besides stroll around sniffing tanks & saying “Yep, diesel in that one!”.

  145. Infidel Tiger

    I don’t think I speak for all Australians – I obviously don’t speak for you – hence the use of Sir Humphrey’s perpendicular pronoun. And I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ‘direction-specific’ taxes; my intention there was to point out that the absurdly rich pay pretty much as tax as they feel like and then ‘donate to charity’, which means they get to pick what happens to their money – ‘direction-specific’, see? They get to specify the money’s direction – while patting themselves on the back and have everyone tell how wonderfully generous they are.

    Got any proof of this?

    I think you’ll find the tax burden falls almost entirely on those in the top bracket. A good 50% of Australian households are not even net taxpayers.

  146. Rob MW

    “……..and then ‘donate to charity’,…..”

    Fucking charities eh ? I’m with you on that one mate, remove all charities tax deductibility statuses and the fucking rich will have to then give it the government because there will no point in the rich giving it to the charities. Good one dickhead, now back to the drawing board………fuck me…….where did you come from.

    I’m not a stranger mate…….this is the fucking internet……where all friends here; just ask Mark Scott and Zaki.

  147. Charity? Examples of a “Charity” donations to each are tax deductible:
    Sea Shepherd.
    Greenpeace.
    Oxfam.
    Animals Australia.
    WWF.
    etc. etc. etc. (y’all got the picture by now?)

  148. Jeremy

    Steve,
    I applaud your intent, but you as well “Miss the point”!
    The ABC is simply an expression of academia writ large. You could sack the whole of the ABC today, and they would be replaced tomorrow from “our” universities with another crew of self hating nongs with no grasp of logic, no knowledge of history and a determination to destroy their own culture.
    We must stop funding people who hate our culture to teach our children.
    I think the only real solution is to stop public funding of education entirely.

  149. Elroy

    We actually saddle it to subsidise other industries.

    Which, is morally and in terms of outcomes based policies, wrong.

    Alexander Hamilton would disagree.,

    Has Elroy buggered off to look up what effective rate of assistance is?

    No, Elroy buggered off because he has other things to do. You are not, funnily enough, my priority.

    Got any proof of this?

    Why, certainly!

    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/03/17/tax-secrets-rich-famous/

    http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2013/06/top-200-aussie-philanthropists

    I think you’ll find the tax burden falls almost entirely on those in the top bracket. A good 50% of Australian households are not even net taxpayers.

    That just shows you how out of whack income distribution is.

    Please point to the chapter in the tax laws that says:
    “Mining co’s pay 14% tax”

    So mining companies pay no tax and are handed 18 billion in subsidies.

    No, I claimed that mining companies pay about 14% in tax and are handed about $18 billion in subsidies. If you would like to correct those figures, correct away.

    That would be the welfare industry dickhead.

    The welfare industry that Ayn Rand ended her days the ungrateful recipient of?

    ‘I look forward to strange’s recommendation that the Police be given back the right to conduct their own “independent” reviews of their actions!’

    Tel is still wrestling with the differences between ‘internal’, ‘independent’ and ‘government’ reviews. Giddy up, Tel!

    And if you anti-tax fundies want to know what a low-tax environment looks like, try a holiday in Kansas. You’ll be back.

    Cheers

    Elroy

  150. You could sack the whole of the ABC today, and they would be replaced tomorrow from “our” universities with another crew of self hating nongs with no grasp of logic, no knowledge of history and a determination to destroy their own culture.

    Spot on. People talking about reform, getting rid of the Board & Mark Scott are deluded. Whatever the Libs do, the left will undo at a later date and then some. As someone recently said here, all institutions are eventually taken over by the left. There is only one thing to be done with the ABC.

  151. wreckage

    No, I claimed that mining companies pay about 14% in tax and are handed about $18 billion in subsidies. If you would like to correct those figures, correct away.

    Sure. Your definition of subsidy is incorrect.

    That just shows you how out of whack income distribution is.

    So, they don’t pay tax, and if they do, that just proves that they have to pay more? Ingenious!

    What exactly is “out of whack” about income distribution? Most people live very comfortably. Capitalism has seen to that. Why should anyone give two shits about a handful of guys getting rich, provided it’s part of a social structure that benefits us all?

  152. 1234

    Hang in there Elroy. This is a circle jerk for Steve Kates and his flat earth crypto facists – it lands on your head sometimes but the volume is reduced, now that they are dribbling. But as one jerk off here keeps saying, if your are getting flack you must be over the target. I do it for the laughs – they need it north of brissie. Best if you do too. And organise swngining voters in marginal electorates. Bombs aways mother fuckers.

  153. Elroy

    Sure. Your definition of subsidy is incorrect.

    Oh. What is my definition of subsidy? And why is it wrong?

    So, they don’t pay tax, and if they do, that just proves that they have to pay more? Ingenious!

    No, deranged. What a bizarre conclusion. It just means the income rate is top heavy. Dur!

    Most people live very comfortably.

    A lot don’t. Too many.

    Capitalism has seen to that.

    It sure has!

    Why should anyone give two shits about a handful of guys getting rich, provided it’s part of a social structure that benefits us all?

    They shouldn’t, but it’s not and it doesn’t. The entire economy is put under enormous strain when the kleptocracy keep the billions stashed away. We do not all benefit.

    Cheers

    Elroy

    PS 1234, it’s fun here, isn’t it?

  154. 1234

    I mean, how can anyone, including Kates, talk about a green left bias considering the ABC’s reports on the Neo liberal free market agenda for Greece? Caveot emptor anyone for anyone who loaned to Greece? Thought not.

  155. Stimpson J. Cat

    Ayn Rand playbook

    I’ve never read Ayn Rand.
    I thought about reading one of her books, shrugged, and went on with my day.
    I’ve already got the weight of the world on my shoulders.

  156. Stimpson J. Cat

    Strange, please tell me you are not 1234 and Elroy as well?
    If I want to see Puppetry of the Penis I’ll rent the dvd.

  157. wreckage

    Elroy, do you think maybe you could stop to defend any of your statements, instead of making new ones?

    I’m happy to wait.

  158. wreckage

    Oh. What is my definition of subsidy? And why is it wrong?

    It’s incorrect. I hate having to repeat myself.

    So, they don’t pay tax, and if they do, that just proves that they have to pay more? Ingenious!

    No, deranged. What a bizarre conclusion. It just means the income rate is top heavy. Dur!

    If the statement makes you angry, you shouldn’t have made it. Dur!

    Most people live very comfortably.

    A lot don’t. Too many.

    A tiny minority. Fewer than ever in history. But I suppose we can go back to one of the systems that failed dysmally, if this one is only about 98% successful.

    Capitalism has seen to that.

    It sure has!

    If only someone had tried Communism, so we could see how well it worked!

    Why should anyone give two shits about a handful of guys getting rich, provided it’s part of a social structure that benefits us all?

    They shouldn’t, but it’s not and it doesn’t. The entire economy is put under enormous strain when the kleptocracy keep the billions stashed away. We do not all benefit.

    No. Sorry. Wrong on all counts. You’re borderline so economically and financially illiterate you’re borderline innumerate. But, feel free to demonstrate any of your assertions. I’ll wait right here.

    Cheers

    Hotey toety, or whatever.

  159. Tel

    No, I claimed that mining companies pay about 14% in tax and are handed about $18 billion in subsidies. If you would like to correct those figures, correct away.

    You obviously have no idea how tax works, and very little idea of what a corporation is anyway.

    Let’s suppose there’s a fire and people are running up and down the hill carrying buckets of water from the river to the fire. Someone quickly scatters some chalk dust in a line along the ground to the river, and calls out “Everyone form a line and start passing buckets”. The same people who were running up and down the hill, then move to the chalk line, space themselves out and start passing buckets up and down … which gets more water to the fire more efficiently.

    Same people, same buckets, same water, same fire… but now it runs more efficiently because it’s organized.

    Which part is the “corporation” then? It’s that chalk line on the ground. It’s a construct, a way of organizing your activity. Corporations are not people and people are not corporations. So you want to tax that chalk line on the ground? Does that make sense? You can tax the people who are standing on that line, you can force them to hand over one in every three buckets to government, where the bureaucrats tip buckets of water over each other, or they find some poor single mother and tip buckets over her head in the name of pretend government charity. You can’t tax the chalk line itself.

    Getting back to the mining industry as a whole, you have people (real people) earning money and paying tax, some of them earn quite well (and pay a lot of tax), you also have shareholders paying tax and for every dollar the corporation pays, those shareholders claim back from their franked dividends, effectively all the real tax is paid by the shareholders. You also have all of the peripheral business providing support for the industry, also hiring people and those people also pay tax, the small business owners also pay tax.

    Now you want to compare an industry as a whole with other industry? No problem, the Productivity Commission already does that.

    http://www.minerals.org.au/news/productivity_commission_affirms_taxpayer_assistance_for_mining_negligible

    The effective rate of assistance — net assistance per unit of value added — was around 4 per cent for the manufacturing sector, over 2 per cent for the primary production sector and less than 1 per cent for mining.

    If you check that 1% and where it came from, it was related to research & development (an offer available to all industries, if they do R&D, something given to us by Paul Keating, if I recall). This is effectively saying that if you do research and development for your product, then the government accepts that some of those research outcomes will eventually be useful to the nation as a whole; so they want to encourage this activity. In effect, government is paying people to perform some activity more than they would otherwise do. This is no different to government paying public servants, and indeed some of the “subsidy” goes via the CSIRO who are in fact public servants.

    You might disagree that government should pay people to undertake research (I tend to feel it’s a bad idea for government to meddle like that) but anyhow the mining industry take advantage of these “subsidies” a lot less than manufacturing.

    Let’s compare with the manufacturing industry — unionized workers getting pay that is ridiculously high by world standards, propped up by constant government wealth transfers from other industries (both at the state and federal level), not indirect things like R&D but big fat lump sum money drops handed directly to manufacturing companies to keep their factories from closing. The more government hands them, the less competitive they become. The only reason they got this far is one of the major political parties belongs to the unions.

  160. Rob MW

    “I do it for the laughs”

    Little digits – No you don’t, you do it because you’re addicted. Now stop it, you’ll go blind. Guide dogs are expensive and Elroy wants to remove their tax deductibility status.

  161. .

    Elroy, I see you are still a giant amongst intellectual pygmies.

    If you want to read about the effective rates of assistance, read the trade and assistance reviews written by the productivity commission, not a joke online newspaper like the new daily you perpetually undergraduate twit.

    Alexander Hamilton – why do I care? His ideas were theoretically wrong. Hundreds of years of empirical research proves that he was wrong.

    No, I claimed that mining companies pay about 14% in tax and are handed about $18 billion in subsidies. If you would like to correct those figures, correct away.

    They’re not correct. As the sun is not the moon and grass is not red, this is simply incorrect

    Most people live very comfortably.

    A lot don’t. Too many.

    You twit – you are trying to extort a consumer surplus through the government. Excise taxes hurt the poor and indigent the most. You just ignored this because you think utility is a function of government spending.

  162. Old Ranga

    The attempt to sandbag Ciobo was puerile and stupid, but to me the biggest issue was security. At risk were those on the bus (including the driver) and everyone in the Q & A studio.

    I thought that most of us now understood the demonstrated potential for one-off terrorist actions by Islamist sympathisers. Apparently not.

  163. Elroy

    It’s incorrect. I hate having to repeat myself.’

    How is it incorrect?

    If the statement makes you angry, you shouldn’t have made it. Dur!’

    It was your statement that is deranged and bizarre. Please explain how an income distribution model where

    ‘A tiny minority. Fewer than ever in history. But I suppose we can go back to one of the systems that failed dysmally, if this one is only about 98% successful.’

    Define ‘Tiny’. Please provide evidence that only 2% do not ‘live comfortably’.

    ‘If only someone had tried Communism, so we could see how well it worked!’

    Aha! The good old binary view of ideology! But the opposite of ‘free market’ capitalism is not doctrinaire communism. There are other ways, Salvage! It’s the 21st Century!

    ‘No. Sorry. Wrong on all counts. You’re borderline so economically and financially illiterate you’re borderline innumerate. But, feel free to demonstrate any of your assertions. I’ll wait right here.’

    ‘You’re wrong!’ is all very well, but it doesn’t move the debate along, does it? Try to demonstrate where my assertions are wrong, and without the personal insults if you can. I’ll wait right here.

    Cheers

    Elroy

    PS Guide dogs are expensive. Elroy wants to remove their tax deductibility status.
    Elroy said no such thing. Elroy is being deliberately distorted. Even worse, maybe Elroy isn’t being deliberately distorted but honestly misunderstood by people who just don’t understand but are convinced of the their own righteousness.

    Here’s a thought – why not fund guide dogs from the tax base?

  164. wreckage

    Like I said, you haven’t bothered to go beyond blunt assertion of soft-left tropes that even the more serious of the left have abandoned. You’re currently asking me to prove that cows aren’t magenta pink and don’t drive spaceships.

    You’ve vomited forth a slurry of total bilge. You haven’t made a single quantifiable statement to disprove, apart from your gibberish about mining subsidies, which is simply, factually, incorrect.

    Of course, you could prove me wrong with a decent citation, as dot pointed out, above.

    Ad for the accusation of a “false dichotomy”: let’s imagine a scale. At one end is our rapacious capitalism. At the other, the disasters of communism. How far towards the total catastrophe would you like to move?

  165. .

    Elroy is dodging punches and running from me like he’s Floyd Mayweather.

    Incapable of learning, set himself on cruise control to “success” by mindlessly trolling with The Australia Institute nonsese.

    Elroy – without the public sector, people like you would be completely fucked. In fact you’d die out.

  166. Rob MW

    “PS Guide dogs are expensive. Elroy wants to remove their tax deductibility status. Elroy said no such thing. Elroy is being deliberately distorted.”

    Errr…… yes you did old squid so let’s recap:

    Elroy said @ – #1722571, posted on June 27, 2015 at 10:00 pm
    “And I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ‘direction-specific’ taxes; my intention there was to point out that the absurdly rich pay pretty much as tax as they feel like and then ‘donate to charity’, which means they get to pick what happens to their money – ‘direction-specific’, see?”

    You also say:

    “Here’s a thought – why not fund guide dogs from the tax base?”

    But have already said @ – #1722380, posted on June 27, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    “There are plenty of things I don’t want my taxes, AH, like the Joint Strike Fighter, or mining subsidies, but there you go – optional and direction-specific tax is only for the absurdly rich – the rest of us are not allowed such privileges.”

    Contradiction is either implied or expressed and mate, you have achieved both.

  167. wreckage

    http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-2/10-1-industry-assistance.html

    Effective industry assistance. Read it and retire to the ladies’ room with a necktie.

    And there’s no “subsidies” about the subsides, champ. They come out at $18 billion a year

  168. Tel

    … my intention there was to point out that the absurdly rich pay pretty much as tax as they feel like and then ‘donate to charity …

    We could start a rule where only poor people are allowed to donate to charity. The poorer you are, the more you would be expected to donate. Sounds massively workable.

    Walk past the guy panhandling in the corner of Martin Place with his hat out and a few coins… snatch the coins and say, “Gimme that! It’s for bloody charity!!” Willie Sutton, eat your heart out.

    “Here’s a thought – why not fund guide dogs from the tax base?”

    What? You mean like with tax deductible donations? Naaa, would never work, some dingbat would get on the Internet and endlessly piss and moan about it. There’d be no end to the caterwauling.

  169. .

    Another lefty fuckhead bites the dust. This place is a killing field for lefties. JC would be proud.

  170. Elroy

    ‘Not at all, chum. Abbott doesn’t trust an internal review etc etc…’

    ‘Please, don’t tell lies…’

    Tel, I didn’t lie – I didn’t quote Abbott directly. To me, the words ‘We are not satisfied with an internal ABC inquiry because so often we’ve seen virtual whitewashes when that sort of thing happens. There is going to be an urgent government inquiry with recommendations” express the view that Abbott does not trust the internal inquiry process, and that’s what I said. What do those words mean to you?

    ‘That’s crap, I never said the ABC are not allowed to do their own internal review, of course they are welcome to do that; but the result will be completely predictable, they will find nothing wrong and do nothing. You know what the outcome is going to be as well as I do.’

    Oh I’m sorry, I was using your twisted logic that ‘[I] must also support the idea that every single tax audit of a business should be done by the business itself’. Of course, businesses (and the police, thank you Boambee John) are welcome to do that; but the result will be completely predictable, they will find nothing wrong and do nothing. You know what the outcome is going to be as well as I do.

    ‘Elroy, I see you are still a giant amongst intellectual pygmies.’

    Ooh, searing sarcasm no less! Ouch! Ouch! It hurts! Oh, the pain…

    If you want to read about the effective rates of assistance, read the trade and assistance reviews written by the productivity commission, not a joke online newspaper like the new daily you perpetually undergraduate twit.’

    If you have a problem with my figures, explain it. Shooting the messenger doesn’t cut it. Address the content, not the form.

    ‘Alexander Hamilton – why do I care? His ideas were theoretically wrong. Hundreds of years of empirical research proves that he was wrong.’

    Actually he was right. Please stipulate or guide me to the ‘hundreds of years of empirical research that proves that he was wrong’.

    They’re not correct. As the sun is not the moon and grass is not red, this is simply incorrect.’

    What, then, is correct? You’re not very good at this, are you?

    You twit…’

    So charming!

    ‘Excise taxes hurt the poor and indigent the most.’

    Like the GST.

    You just ignored this…’

    No I didn’t. I didn’t bring it up. Big difference.

    ‘…because you think utility is a function of government spending.’

    As it can be.

    You’re currently asking me to prove that cows aren’t magenta pink and don’t drive spaceships.!

    No, I’m asking you to provide some back up for your assertions.

    ‘You’ve vomited forth a slurry of total bilge. You haven’t made a single quantifiable statement to disprove, apart from your gibberish about mining subsidies, which is simply, factually, incorrect.’

    There you go again with the charm, but no amount of your acrimonious umbrage can mask that I did make a quantifiable statement. That’s what you say is simply, factually, incorrect. Don’t you read what’s you write? So again, with patience, I ask, what is simply, factually correct?

    ‘Of course, you could prove me wrong with a decent citation, as dot pointed out, above.’

    I shall choose my own citations and the manner in which I use them. I do not have all day to find a citation that comports to a standard that is, to me unknown. If you have an alternative citation, let’s see it.

    Ad for the accusation of a “false dichotomy”: let’s imagine a scale. At one end is our rapacious capitalism. At the other, the disasters of communism. How far towards the total catastrophe would you like to move?’

    That depends on which way the catastrophe lies, does it not? I obviously think it lies one way and you the other. Attention the extreme ends with both see enslavement, one by privately held corporations and the other by the state.

    I assume that neither wants to see either eventuate, I hope, so what are the alternatives? I feel we are way too far towards the ‘total catastrophe’ of enslavement by privately held corporations and that we should head back the other way; not, as I mentioned, to doctrinaire Soviet-style totalitarian communism, but something more Scandinavian might be nice.

    Elroy is dodging punches and running from me like he’s Floyd Mayweather.’

    You flatter yourself. Elroy is off adding to the utility to the function of government spending.

    ‘Incapable of learning, set himself on cruise control to “success” by mindlessly trolling with The Australia Institute nonsense’

    The Australia Institute publishes nonsense? In what way? Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

    Elroy – without the public sector, people like you would be completely fucked. In fact you’d die out.’

    Whynare you people so unpleasant? It really doesn’t do much for your credibility to indulge yourselves in this juvenile manner. Grow up, chaps!

    ‘Elroy said no such thing. Elroy is being deliberately distorted.”

    Errr…… yes you did old squid so let’s recap…

    “And I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by ‘direction-specific’ taxes; etc etc…’

    Contradiction is either implied or expressed and mate, you have achieved both.

    No, fish-face, you have misconstrued me. Allow me to clarify. You don’t want your taxes spent on the ABC, I don’t want mine spent on the JFS. Agreed? Good. I then went on to say that most of us, barring the uber-rich, do not have the luxury to pick where our taxes go but that the uber-rich do, by dint of the fact that they have such large disposable capital sums.

    Now, I then made the observation that if the absurdly wealthy were taxed a bit more substantially then maybe Guide Dogs Australia et al would not have to be out begging; that’s not to say I think the government could, or should, provide for all charities, and nor did I ever suggest that charities should lose their tax exempt status, what I was trying to suggest was that the absurdly wealthy’ disposable capital sums could be distributed across the charitable decor more equitable and without prejudice, thus ensuring the less sexy but no less worthy get a bite goof the cake. Sorry if I was unclear.

    ‘Effective industry assistance. Read it and retire to the ladies’ room with a necktie.’

    Excellent! A quantifiable statement! Thank you! I shall read it and return! I will, however, pass on your suggestion to end my misery – too much to do! But Well done! See? That didn’t hurt, did it?

    We could start a rule where only poor people are allowed to donate to charity etc …’

    Oh, now you’re just being daft. Satire, huh? Ho ho, it is to laugh.

    What? You mean like with tax deductible donations?’

    Naaa, more like block grants paid for with the disposable capital of the uber-wealthy.

    Naaa, would never work, some dingbat would get on the Internet and endlessly piss and moan about it. There’d be no end to the caterwauling.’

    Why can’t we can have both?

    Another lefty fuckhead bites the dust. This place is a killing field for lefties.’

    Another charming nutbag! But, as you can see, the report of my death is an exaggeration.

    Cheers

    Elroy

  171. Leigh Lowe

    Hey Elroy,

    Have you spoken with a healthcare professional about your internet rambling, chum?

    Cheers

    Leigh.

    PS … RU OK?

  172. JC

    Who opened the toilet lid and let Elroy out?

  173. Elroy

    Just trying to be thorough, Leigh, but thanks for your concern.

    And J.C’s being funny! Bless!

    Cheers

    Elroy

  174. Stimpson J. Cat

    Aha!
    I see a new patient. 🙂

  175. Stimpson J. Cat

    I shall choose my own citations and the manner in which I use them. I do not have all day to find a citation that comports to a standard that is, to me unknown. If you have an alternative citation, let’s see it.

    I take it that basically means “I won’t put up, and I won’t shut up”.
    Did I get it right?
    Do I get a gold star?

  176. Stimpson J. Cat

    A hug at least?
    Ain’t no love, in the heart of the city… 🙂

  177. wreckage

    Yeah, he pretty much just spouts shit then runs.

    So anyhow, Elroy, where is the capitalist society that instituted the Gulags and killed multiples of millions more of its own citizens than the Nazis?

    Please list your quantifiable statements – so far you’ve made one – and I will, kindly, because of my deep nobility of spirit, find yo citations that prove you were wildly, massively, embarrassingly wrong, on a case my case basis.

    No effort needed on your part, apart from actually putting numbers to your bold and visionary – not to imply hallucinatory – statements.

    The linked document, while limited to the Federal government, demonstrates that your notions of direct assistance to mining are not merely wrong but utterly batshit crazy.

    Your attempts at high-handed snark would come across much better if you first wiped your own feces off the wall of your cell.

  178. wreckage

    He can’t hug from inside his special jacket.

  179. Rob MW

    “No, fish-face, you have misconstrued me.”

    Hee…heee……. I don’t think so old squid, you can’t have it both ways amigo, well, perhaps you can but you are on your own. Now, if you pulled your finger out would you fart and blow out the window ?

  180. Elroy

    ‘Do take it that basically means “I won’t put up, and I won’t shut up”.
    Did I get it right?
    Do I get a gold star?’

    No, no and no.

    A hug at least? Ain’t no love, in the heart of the city… ‘

    Aw, OK then! How can I say no to you?

    Yeah, he pretty much just spouts shit then runs.’

    No, he pretty much just voices an opinion then adds to the utility to the function of government spending. Sorry. Things to do.

    ‘So anyhow, Elroy, where is the capitalist society that instituted the Gulags and killed multiples of millions more of its own citizens than the Nazis?’

    Well I can’t say I’ve ever done a thorough head count of the death toll engendered through the ‘free market’ actives of the British Empire, and Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish imperialism, but I’m thinking it might have been a few.

    But I see you have fallen straight through the ‘binary ideology/’false dichotomy’ trapdoor again! It’s a nonsense question! We’ve been through this! There are more than two choices! It’s not either Randian capitalism or Stalinist communism!

    I might as well ask you where is the capitalist society that instituted free healthcare, free Kindergarten to university education, and guaranteed employment, free utilities and housing? Actually, that doesn’t sound too bad…

    Please list your quantifiable statements – so far you’ve made one – and I will, kindly, because of my deep nobility of spirit, find yo citations that prove you were wildly, massively, embarrassingly wrong, on a case my case basis.’

    Ok, let’s do that then. My quantifiable statements were that the mining industry pays a tax rate of approximately 14%, enjoys subsidies of around $18 billion per annum, and that that the uber-wealthy dodge tax and get to, effectively, pay it towards causes they approve of.

    No effort needed on your part, apart from actually putting numbers to your bold and visionary – not to imply hallucinatory – statements.’

    Do you want some citations? Here, I’ll give you a head start with one we’ve gone I’ve already, our old pals at the Australia Institute discussing the $18 Billion subsidy:

    http://www.tai.org.au/content/mining-age-entitlement
    14% tax paid by miners:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/miners-in-a-royal-spin-over-tax-contribution-20140818-1056rt.html
    I’ll throw in a poverty rate:of 13%:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Australia
    And those naughty Richie Riches

    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/03/17/tax-secrets-rich-famous/

    http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2013/06/top-200-aussie-philanthropists

    You want to dispute and rebut? Go wild!

    ‘The linked document, while limited to the Federal government, demonstrates that your notions of direct assistance to mining are not merely wrong but utterly batshit crazy.’

    Uh huh. Yeah, I didn’t say it was ‘direct assistance’, but if you want to demonstrate that my notions are not merely wrong but utterly batshit crazy then please, get on with it. It’s been a while.

    Now, in spirit off reciprocation and to demonstrate that deep nobility of spirit of yours, please present evidence of your 2% ‘uncomfortableness’.

    ‘Your attempts at high-handed snark would come across much better if you first wiped your own feces off the wall of your cell.’

    Yes! Do let’s all go into the toilet. So sophisticated!

    He can’t hug from inside his special jacket.’

    His middle name begins with ‘H’…

    ‘No, Elroy. The idea of a publicly funded, government-owned broadcaster is long past its “Use-By Date”’

    Nope, that idea is more important now than ever.

    ‘The idea of a publicly funded broadcaster which is
    a) ignoring its charter AND b) maintaining an utterly rebellious and insouciant attitude to the concept of legislative accountability for its actions never passed the sniff test, and should never have been allowed – EVER.’

    You obviously do not understand the concept of ‘independence’. The ABC is not the Daily Telegraph, or Pravda. It is the ABC. get over yourself.

    ‘Hee…heee……. I don’t think so old squid, you can’t have it both ways amigo, well, perhaps you can but you are’

    Oh dear, I want dear enough, Flounder? Please let me know where you got confused.

    Cheers

    Elroy

Comments are closed.