Australian Politics General...

[JohnDe]

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/

So you are saying that because one media organisation ‘bashed Turnbull every day’ and Turnbull was unable to rally his team and give them confidence. Which lead to some in the Liberal party to call for a no-confidence vote in their leader.

 

[PZ99]

So you are saying that because one media organisation ‘bashed Turnbull every day’ and Turnbull was unable to rally his team aigive them confidence. Which lead to some in the Liberal party to call for a no-confidence vote in their leader.

Pretty much as demonstrated in the video and countless others... yes.

 

[JohnDe]

How large is Rupert Murdoch's reach through News Corp in Australian media, old and new? - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au

 

[PZ99]

I like this bit: "News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller told the inquiry this overstated the company's power, noting that Labor won Queensland's last state election, despite News Corp's Courier Mail pushing for a change of government".

This is the best bit however... ASF covering the whole event...

Peter Dutton - The Great Pretender?

And Dutton is still there. Another try in six months ? after the election?They need to get rid of TA. He is a cancer.

www.aussiestockforums.com

And don't forget this... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09...upert-murdoch-kerry-stokes-influence/10262552

 

[JohnDe]

I like this bit: "News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller told the inquiry this overstated the company's power, noting that Labor won Queensland's last state election, despite News Corp's Courier Mail pushing for a change of government".

I like this part 'When it comes to radio, Mr Murdoch is a minority company shareholder in a market where ownership is somewhat more diverse than in print.'

It puts into perspective your claim "Murdoch are the only ones that cut down Prime Ministers", even though your own evidence reports that 'his enemies were rolling over the top of him' and 'strategic leaks to the media' is the reason he was weakened as a PM and leader.

And you then state " 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". One radio station in one city.

But it's important to note that the subject of Mr Rudd's petition was news media, and the data does not specifically show whether people were listening to news.

Evidence so far that one media source caused the Liberal Party to remove Malcolm Turnbull as leader is very thin, especially when your supplied ABC doco shows that members of the Coalition brought the end to the Turnbull leadership by any means possible. Malcolm Turnbull was not able to shore up his supporter base, nor persuade his enemies that his plans were the best solution to the countries problems, and when the vote came he did not have the numbers.

Conspiracy theories need more evidence than a radio station and an angry ex PM. Rudd and Gillard had their own, but even they moved on.

Australia is a diverse multi cultural country, we have many forms of news sources which more people are using than ever before, even when Turnbull was in power.

Time to stop crying about the loss, the country is bigger than one person.

 

[PZ99]

I like this part 'When it comes to radio, Mr Murdoch is a minority company shareholder in a market where ownership is somewhat more diverse than in print.'

It puts into perspective your claim "Murdoch are the only ones that cut down Prime Ministers", even though your own evidence reports that 'his enemies were rolling over the top of him' and 'strategic leaks to the media' is the reason he was weakened as a PM and leader.

And you then state " 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". One radio station in one city.

View attachment 144919



Evidence so far that one media source caused the Liberal Party to remove Malcolm Turnbull as leader is very thin, especially when your supplied ABC doco shows that members of the Coalition brought the end to the Turnbull leadership by any means possible. Malcolm Turnbull was not able to shore up his supporter base, nor persuade his enemies that his plans were the best solution to the countries problems, and when the vote came he did not have the numbers.

Conspiracy theories need more evidence than a radio station and an angry ex PM. Rudd and Gillard had their own, but even they moved on.

Australia is a diverse multi cultural country, we have many forms of news sources which more people are using than ever before, even when Turnbull was in power.

Time to stop crying about the loss, the country is bigger than one person.

I suggest you read the links again before going on about Conspiracy theories

Especially the third link.

One radio station in one city? No. One station in 3 cities. 2GB, 3AW, 4BC big audience reach.

It's worth pointing out your ABC article is covering a period after those radio stations were sold by the Murdoch media.

But like I said... read the third link... it answers all your questions especiialy the ones you say it doesn't.

What two billionaire media moguls had to do with the Liberal leadership spill

Malcolm Turnbull's demise was unusual for many reasons, and truly unique for one: his was the first known prime ministership to be the subject of a billionaires' tug of war between the nation's most powerful media moguls.

www.abc.net.au

As for stopping crying about the loss... well ... if the cap fitz ....

 

[JohnDe]

I suggest you read the links again before going on about Conspiracy theories

Especially the third link.

One radio station in one city? No. One station in 3 cities. 2GB, 3AW, 4BC big audience reach.

It's worth pointing out your ABC article is covering a period after those radio stations were sold by the Murdoch media.

But like I said... read the third link... it answers all your questions especiialy the ones you say it doesn't.

What two billionaire media moguls had to do with the Liberal leadership spill

Malcolm Turnbull's demise was unusual for many reasons, and truly unique for one: his was the first known prime ministership to be the subject of a billionaires' tug of war between the nation's most powerful media moguls.

www.abc.net.au

As for stopping crying about the loss... well ... if the cap fitz ....

It was you that mentioned one radio station in one city " 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".

 

[PZ99]

It was you that mentioned one radio station in one city " 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".

Of course I said that. What's your point? Are you suggesting I listened to 3 different radio stations in 3 different cities 800klms apart all at the same time?

 

[wayneL]

Turnbull really appealed to Labor voters and the ABC Trots, and that about all anyone needs to know about why he lost the Libs.

FWIW

 

[JohnDe]

Of course I said that. What's your point? Are you suggesting I listened to 3 different radio stations in 3 different cities 800klms apart all at the same time?

My point is that you have over simplified the cause of Turnbull's loss of the Liberal leadership, put all the blame onto one media organisation, not taken into account that multiple MPs took it upon themselves to leak damaging material to media and worked against Turnbull thus making him look a poor leader, and that voters come from all walks of life and not all use the same media sources that you do.

 

[PZ99]

My point is that you have over simplified the cause of Turnbull's loss of the Liberal leadership, put all the blame onto one media organisation, not taken into account that multiple MPs took it upon themselves to leak damaging material to media and worked against Turnbull thus making him look a poor leader, and that voters come from all walks of life and not all use the same media sources that you do.

I never said all use the same media sources that I do - that's your over simplified conclusion.

Clearly you are not reading the link so I'll just post the best bits of it here.

"Mr Stokes told Mr Murdoch that rolling Mr Turnbull would deliver government to Labor, that the industrial relations landscape would see the likes of the CFMEU thrive.

Mr Murdoch's reply? One version, told to the ABC, is that Mr Murdoch told Mr Stokes:

"We have got to get rid of Malcolm. If that's the price of getting rid of him then I can put up with three years of Labor."
A remarkably similar version was told to the Australian Financial Review. In it, Mr Murdoch told Mr Stokes: "They'll only be in for three years — it won't be so bad. I did alright under Labor and the Painters and Dockers; I can make money under Shorten and the CFMEU."

Simple enough for you ?

 

[JohnDe]

I never said all use the same media sources that I do - that's your over simplified conclusion.

Clearly you are not reading the link so I'll just post the best bits of it here.

"Mr Stokes told Mr Murdoch that rolling Mr Turnbull would deliver government to Labor, that the industrial relations landscape would see the likes of the CFMEU thrive.

Mr Murdoch's reply? One version, told to the ABC, is that Mr Murdoch told Mr Stokes:

"We have got to get rid of Malcolm. If that's the price of getting rid of him then I can put up with three years of Labor."
A remarkably similar version was told to the Australian Financial Review. In it, Mr Murdoch told Mr Stokes: "They'll only be in for three years — it won't be so bad. I did alright under Labor and the Painters and Dockers; I can make money under Shorten and the CFMEU."

Simple enough for you ?

You have given nothing but hearsay.

The quotes that you posted, who made them?

Was it Stokes or Murdoch?

 

[PZ99]

You have given nothing but hearsay.

The quotes that you posted, who made them?

Was it Stokes or Murdoch?

I have given what you don't want to hear and that's why you're dragging this out for the sake of nothing.

Why ask who made the quotes ? More denial dribble ?

 

[JohnDe]

I have given what you don't want to hear and that's why you're dragging this out for the sake of nothing.

Why ask who made the quotes ? More denial dribble ?

No, you have only given what you believe. However, can you give the name of the person that you quote.

It is so easy to fling mud, harder to prove where the mud came from.

As sptrawler mention "why condemn one side" "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"

Condemning the source because you didn't like the outcome is easy. Standing back and looking at the whole picture and accepting that more people saw it differently is hard for some.

The people made up their own mind and voted. If they thought that they were hoodwinked they had another opportunity to vote at the following election.

 

[sptrawler]

So you are saying that because one media organisation ‘bashed Turnbull every day’ and Turnbull was unable to rally his team and give them confidence. Which lead to some in the Liberal party to call for a no-confidence vote in their leader.

Absolutely spot on.
The other issue with regard Turnbull is, since the vote of no confidence by his team, he has done his utmost to undermine the team.
Which in my opinion re enforces that it was a correct decision.
You can't have a leader, who as soon as he is deposed turns and becomes a traitor to the team, why was the person in the team in the first place? If not to promote the team beliefs, why be in the team, other than for personal gain or public exposure.
Run as an independent, if you can't agree with the parties political agenda, simple really.

 

[PZ99]

No, you have only given what you believe. However, can you give the name of the person that you quote.

It is so easy to fling mud, harder to prove where the mud came from.

As sptrawler mention "why condemn one side" "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"

Condemning the source because you didn't like the outcome is easy. Standing back and looking at the whole picture and accepting that more people saw it differently is hard for some.

The people made up their own mind and voted. If they thought that they were hoodwinked they had another opportunity to vote at the following election.

So what you're saying is all those links I've posted are just my belief and not real ? That one takes the cake.

As for standing back and looking at the whole picture well I suggest you start backing up your claims. I've given you enough links for you to read to back up my claims - so far you've given us nothing to back yours.

The people had no opportunity to vote - you can't use an election that took place the following year to say the people had their say on these events. That is false logic.

As you are constantly wasting your time posting the same denial I'm not going to waste any more time feeding it.

At the end of the day - all you're doing is grandstanding - just like Murdoch's man Peter Dutton is doing right now in parliament... running the same line over and over again like a broken record hoping to land a point against the Govt whilst becoming irrelevant in the process.

Their plan to derail the climate change policy has just failed as of yesterday now that we finally have a progressive senate instead of a hostile one when Abbott was running the Libs.

They are now reduced to an irrelevancy like never before - just like your conspiracy theories are in this thread.

See Ya

 

[JohnDe]

So what you're saying is all those links I've posted are just my belief and not real ? That one takes the cake.

As for standing back and looking at the whole picture well I suggest you start backing up your claims. I've given you enough links for you to read to back up my claims - so far you've given us nothing to back yours.

The people had no opportunity to vote - you can't use an election that took place the following year to say the people had their say on these events. That is false logic.

As you are constantly wasting your time posting the same denial I'm not going to waste any more time feeding it.

At the end of the day - all you're doing is grandstanding - just like Murdoch's man Peter Dutton is doing right now in parliament... running the same line over and over again like a broken record hoping to land a point against the Govt whilst becoming irrelevant in the process.

Their plan to derail the climate change policy has just failed as of yesterday now that we finally have a progressive senate instead of a hostile one when Abbott was running the Libs.

They are now reduced to an irrelevancy like never before - just like your conspiracy theories are in this thread.

See Ya

PZ99
So what you're saying is all those links I've posted are just my belief and not real ? That one takes the cake.

As for standing back and looking at the whole picture well I suggest you start backing up your claims. I've given you enough links for you to read to back up my claims - so far you've given us nothing to back yours.

The people had no opportunity to vote - you can't use an election that took place the following year to say the people had their say on these events. That is false logic.

As you are constantly wasting your time posting the same denial I'm not going to waste any more time feeding it.

At the end of the day - all you're doing is grandstanding - just like Murdoch's man Peter Dutton is doing right now in parliament... running the same line over and over again like a broken record hoping to land a point against the Govt whilst becoming irrelevant in the process.

Their plan to derail the climate change policy has just failed as of yesterday now that we finally have a progressive senate instead of a hostile one when Abbott was running the Libs.

They are now reduced to an irrelevancy like never before - just like your conspiracy theories are in this thread.

See Ya

I must now presume that you have no idea who allegedly said those quotes that your argument relies on, and so you have spat the dummy.

Ciao

 

[JohnDe]

Turnbull really appealed to Labor voters and the ABC Trots, and that about all anyone needs to know about why he lost the Libs.

FWIW

There is more to it than that, but yes those factors do seem to have contributed to the outcome.

 

[PZ99]

I must now presume that you have no idea who allegedly said those quotes that your argument relies on, and so you have spat the dummy.

Ciao

You presumed wrong because you are just running a position of automatic denial to everything that's been presented to you.

No one can force you to see what you don't want to see

 

[JohnDe]

PZ99
You presumed wrong because you are just running a position of automatic denial to everything that's been presented to you.

No one can force you to see what you don't want to see

Ok, let us know when you find the source of those quotes that support your argument.

Ciao