Australian Politics General...

[PZ99]

 

[wayneL]

Think you will find they all will have their own agendas often for their own mobs plus given the power structures that operate in the Parliament unlikely they will have much impact.

As for the Voice I think its a good idea wont please all and wont carry much power but don't discount the symbolism and pride that it will carry hopefully for all Indigenous Australians.

You have to start some where its been a long time coming.

Finally something is being done -

I've always thought the small business community was the low hanging fruit for any party and could never figure out why they (we) are largely forsaken.

Labor could be almost unbeatable if they embraced small business and dropped the far left, woke nonsense.

As would LNP to be fair

 

[moXJO]

I've always thought the small business community was the low hanging fruit for any party and could never figure out why they (we) are largely forsaken.

Labor could be almost unbeatable if they embraced small business and dropped the far left, woke nonsense.

As would LNP to be fair

Unions are not small business friendly. Small businesses don't unionise. They want big business generally. And yes I've had particular govt departments say as much.

 

[moXJO]

No, you gave no examples.

“Unbiased news doesn’t exist. Everyone has a bias: everyday people and journalists. And that’s OK,” Mastrine said. But it’s not OK for news organizations to hide those biases, she said.

Voters need more credit than most people care to give them, most people that vote are pretty smart and clued up.

Rudd, Gillard there was a directed news campaign against them that became quite toxic.
I would say that voters are pretty dumb and will run with whatever sht you feed them.

 

[JohnDe]

Rudd, Gillard there was a directed news campaign against them that became quite toxic.
I would say that voters are pretty dumb and will run with whatever sht you feed them.

Are you a voter?

Let’s make a list of PM’s that have had articles written about media causing there demise:
John McKewen
John Gorton
William McMahon
Gough Whitlam
Malcolm Fraser
John Howard
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gilard
Tony Abbot
Malcolm Turnbull

Quite a list there, might have to ban all media to protect the voters.

 

[PZ99]

Are you a voter?

Let’s make a list of PM’s that have had articles written about media causing there demise:
John McKewen
John Gorton
William McMahon
Gough Whitlam
Malcolm Fraser
John Howard
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gilard
Tony Abbot
Malcolm Turnbull

Quite a list there, might have to Nann all media to protect the voters.

Examples please.

 

[JohnDe]

The 26 minute mark.

 

[PZ99]

The 26 minute mark.

The 1:40 minute mark.

 

[JohnDe]

Examples please.

That’s my point, it’s all so easy for ones own bias to cloud their view into thinking that there is a group brainwashing the voters, and everyone else other than themself are too gullible to make their own decisions.

 

[JohnDe]

The 1:40 minute mark.

The 1:40 minute mark.

Yes leaked information from someone from the political system, which any reporter and news organisations would turn into hot news. Like they’ve done for hundreds of years. What about it?

 

[PZ99]

Yes leaked information from someone from the political system, which any reporter and news organisations would turn into hot news. Like they’ve done for hundreds of years. What about it?

Err No... "A paper known for it's antagonism towards Turnbull".

You like to avoid the point don't you ?

That’s my point, it’s all so easy for ones own bias to cloud their view into thinking that there is a group brainwashing the voters, and everyone else other than themself are too gullible to make their own decisions.

So in other words your examples don't exist. Whereas the Murdoch example does exist because it was so blatant to anyone who isn't biased towards the Murdoch media

If you want to accuse others of clouded thinking that's your prerogative. But it's not a license to ignore/rewrite history.

 

[JohnDe]

Err No... "A paper known for it's antagonism towards Turnbull".

A paper did the “strategic leak” ?

 

[PZ99]

A paper did the “strategic leak” ?

"A paper known for it's antagonism towards Turnbull"

 

[JohnDe]

"A paper known for it's antagonism towards Turnbull"

And what is new about a paper that has antagonised politicians and leaders?

People in political positions, elected or not, whittled away and fed media until they achieved their goal. Same story that’s happened for thousands of years in politics.

“Et tu, Brute”

Enoch Powell, ‘For a politician to complain about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea’.

 

[PZ99]

And what is new about a paper that has antagonised politicians and leaders?

People in political positions, elected or not, whittled away and fed media until they achieved their goal. Same story that’s happened for thousands of years in politics.

“Et tu, Brute”

Enoch Powell, ‘For a politician to complain about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea’.

What's new about it is that example was the first time the Murdoch media was directly involved in cutting down a Prime Minister halfway through a term... in other words the voters didn't have their say about a change in their Prime Minister. Murdoch, who isn't even an Australian citizen anymore decided to troll our political system to remove a progressive leader and install their own conservative sock puppet who is now leading that same party in opposition.

As I said from the start... if you can provide a similar example of this happening in the past I would like to see it.

I'm not interested in who or how the media campaigned for in the leadup to elections held over thousands of years because at least the voters have their say as to who they vote for.
(or are brainwashed using your words which is strange considering you also said voters were pretty smart and clued up)

That did not happen in the Turnbull case - which makes it unique. It was a classic case of the born-to-rule mentality that is synonymous with the right leaning corporatocracy of which Murdoch is a proud member along with all the other tax avoiders that seek to widen the gap between the rich (them) and the poor (everyone else).

Like I said you seem to have developed a need to avoid the point (reminds me of someone else who posts in this thread... easy to find.... just use the search function, Murdoch and then one of the right leaning poster's member name) so I suspect you might just be having a bit a lend of us mate.

Fine with me

 

[moXJO]

Are you a voter?

Let’s make a list of PM’s that have had articles written about media causing there demise:
John McKewen
John Gorton
William McMahon
Gough Whitlam
Malcolm Fraser
John Howard
Kevin Rudd
Julia Gilard
Tony Abbot
Malcolm Turnbull

Quite a list there, might have to ban all media to protect the voters.

Pretty sure PM's were not lining up to kiss the other media Barron's ar5es.
It's more than just "bad headlines".

 

[JohnDe]

What's new about it is that example was the first time the Murdoch media was directly involved in cutting down a Prime Minister halfway through a term... in other words the voters didn't have their say about a change in their Prime Minister. Murdoch, who isn't even an Australian citizen anymore decided to troll our political system to remove a progressive leader and install their own conservative sock puppet who is now leading that same party in opposition.

As I said from the start... if you can provide a similar example of this happening in the past I would like to see it.

I'm not interested in who or how the media campaigned for in the leadup to elections held over thousands of years because at least the voters have their say as to who they vote for.
(or are brainwashed using your words which is strange considering you also said voters were pretty smart and clued up)

That did not happen in the Turnbull case - which makes it unique. It was a classic case of the born-to-rule mentality that is synonymous with the right leaning corporatocracy of which Murdoch is a proud member along with all the other tax avoiders that seek to widen the gap between the rich (them) and the poor (everyone else).

Like I said you seem to have developed a need to avoid the point (reminds me of someone else who posts in this thread... easy to find.... just use the search function, Murdoch and then one of the right leaning poster's member name) so I suspect you might just be having a bit a lend of us mate.

Fine with me

Most of what you have just written is your point of view, you have no proof other than an ABC report which points out that Turnbull had more enemies than friends and they leaked damaging “strategic “ information about him to the media.

I actually liked Turnbull, and I get my news information from multiple sources. Two thirds from different ABC formats, the rest from different news limited formats the Economist and internet formats.

Turnbull’s downfall was caused by more than one factor, blaming a media organisation is the simplest of reasons.

Now you mention that the voters did not get to have their say on the Turnbull decision. The Australian politics is not like a Presidential system, we do not vote for a PM, we vote for a local MP and a Party. The political parties vote for their leader, and that leader usually becomes the PM.

And as the example of PM Kevin Rudd and PM Julia Gillard, the party can and does remove their leader/PM.

As for me sounding like someone else I have no idea who or what that has to do with all of this, other than a smoke screen.

 

[PZ99]

Most of what you have just written is your point of view, you have no proof other than an ABC report which points out that Turnbull had more enemies than friends and they leaked damaging “strategic “ information about him to the media.

What more proof do you need ? It's all over the internet if you bother to look.

I actually liked Turnbull, and I get my news information from multiple sources. Two thirds from different ABC formats, the rest from different news limited formats the Economist and internet formats.

Turnbull’s downfall was caused by more than one factor, blaming a media organisation is the simplest of reasons.

It's also the most obvious reason. If you get information from multiple source I suggest you use those sources to find your own proof if you don't believe me. The ABC is a good start. The guardian is another. Youtube is the best.

Now you mention that the voters did not get to have their say on the Turnbull decision. The Australian politics is not like a Presidential system, we do not vote for a PM, we vote for a local MP and a Party. The political parties vote for their leader, and that leader usually becomes the PM.

That has nothing to do with the point. When people vote, they do so based on who leads the party, what their polices are and who their local member is. Why else would the party leaders ask for your vote?
The voters did not get to have their say on the Turnbull decision because Turnbull was cut down by the Murdoch media halfway through a term.

And as the example of PM Kevin Rudd and PM Julia Gillard, the party can and does remove their leader/PM.

What does this have to do with anything ?

As for me sounding like someone else I have no idea who or what that has to do with all of this, other than a smoke screen.

It's funny you should say that... because that other poster addressed you using the very same words that I did but you're OK with that yeah ? LOL

 

[JohnDe]

What more proof do you need ? It's all over the internet if you bother to look.


It's also the most obvious reason. If you get information from multiple source I suggest you use those sources to find your own proof if you don't believe me. The ABC is a good start. The guardian is another. Youtube is the best.


That has nothing to do with the point. When people vote, they do so based on who leads the party, what their polices are and who their local member is. Why else would the party leaders ask for your vote?
The voters did not get to have their say on the Turnbull decision because Turnbull was cut down by the Murdoch media halfway through a term.



What does this have to do with anything ?


It's funny you should say that... because that other poster addressed you using the very same words that I did but you're OK with that yeah ? LOL

I’m happy with the proof from the ABC doco that you supplied: ‘strategic leaks from political insiders to media organisations weakened Malcolm Turnbull’s position of power’.

A fair few Australians cast their votes for their local member, the one with the most votes wins the seat and the party with the most seats wins the election. The leader of that party becomes PM but if enough members of the party disagree with the way the leader is taking the party and country they can have an internal vote to remove the leader and then another vote to elect another leader/MP.

 

[PZ99]

I’m happy with the proof from the ABC doco that you supplied: ‘strategic leaks from political insiders to media organisations weakened Malcolm Turnbull’s position of power’.

A fair few Australians cast their votes for their local member, the one with the most votes wins the seat and the party with the most seats wins the election. The leader of that party becomes PM but if enough members of the party disagree with the way the leader is taking the party and country they can have an internal vote to remove the leader and then another vote to elect another leader/MP.

Of course they can. We all know that. The Turnbull situation is unique. I live in Sydney where at that time the right wing talkback radio station was owned by Murdoch and they bashed Turnbull all day every day - calling for him to be replaced. Murdoch flies into the country and days later that radio station says Dutton is going to roll Turnbull which Dutton denies and then does it anyway.

Anyway... as an aside... a bit of light reading > https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2021/04/26/crime-of-the-century-alan-kohler/