This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Ho ho ho .

Is the ABC more influential than Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt ?

Surely not.

Click to expand...

The difference with your argument is all the other programs the left controlled ABC has like Insiders, QandA, Media Watch, 7.30 report, Lateline, teh Drum and Virginia Tripioli on the ABC breakfast show....They are all anti Abbott....There is an imbalance as to what you are referring.
 

Amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement. As far as the Breakfast Show goes there is more trivia and idle chit chat than any serious political commentary. As for the others, whoever is in government gets the coals raked over them by all the media, it comes with the territory and if they can't take the heat...
 

So are you trying to tell me the Green/Labor left wing democratic socialists do not control the ABC and all their associate programs with their socialistic propaganda?

It has been reported that some 41% of the ABC staff are Greenies, some 32% are left wing Labor and 14% Liberal..

http://australiafirstparty.net/abc-bias-watch-editorial-cues-directed-by-australian-labor-party/

ABC Bias Watch: editorial cues directed by Australian Labor Party
May 4, 2015

The Australian taxpayers’ national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (your ABC), costs a billion dollars a year to run. The corporatised organisation runs out of a centralised monolithic building in inner Sydney’s Ultimo. It’s public servant management and staff receive perks so generous they can go on leave as often as parliamentarians – about a quarter of the year.

Full time ABC employees work an average 76 hours per fortnight, providing for a minimum four free days per fortnight. More than $214m of the $453m national wage bill is spent at Ultimo in inner Sydney. THE ABC is paying eight broadcasters more than $250,000 a year, with Q&A and Lateline host Tony Jones leading the pack on an annual salary of more than $350,000. Employees receive superannuation contributions at the rate of 15.4%, well in excess of the 9% government guarantee to ordinary Australian workers.

ABC Relies on Big Government

Since public servants rely on the big government socialist Labor Party for artificial life support and to maintain a Canberra-like lifestyle, ‘Aunty’ has always leaned toward Labor and away from the conservatives. So the ABC aims to please the gatekeepers of the pay-checks.

Every time the conservatives return to power in Canberra to sort out Labor overspending and debts, they have cut the ABC budget and jobs have gone. In the end could anyone imagine a publicly funded broadcaster, which is paid by the government, being biased in favour of a small government?

So guided by instinctive self-preservation, the ABC has become full of feral lefties. Under MD Russell Balding’s direction and then Gillard-appointed replacement MD Mark Scott, the ABC has become a Department of Labor Party Propaganda akin to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.

Scott has previously said that his method to secure additional funding for the ABC was to convincing the government the national broadcaster was working in its interests. “I think you’ve got to couch the arguments in terms of what we are in a unique position to deliver that is in the interests of government of the day.” he said.

The only time the ABC was almost brought into line was under Jonathan Shier in 2000 addressing left-wing bias in ABC programming and editorial scripting. PM Tony Abbott is too feeble to touch the ABC untouchables. He is a fool for being so feeble and deserves all the flack the lefties throw at him and his conservative government on a daily basis from multiple ABC media channels.

ABC Feral Lefties

Take last week. News Limited’s, Piers Akerman has revealed yet another classic case of ABC bias driven directly from the Labor Party:

“In a bizarre form of tag-team interrogation, four senior ABC interviewers attempted to trap Environment Minister Greg Hunt on the Abbott government’s emission reduction fund (ERF) in a series of interviews over five days.

Whether it was coincidence or through some sort of group-think within the political secretariat of the nation’s monolithic taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the effort lent credibility to the view that the ABC is the ALP’s propaganda arm. In terms of achieving a “gotcha” moment, it failed on every count.

Melbourne ABC 774’s Rafael Epstein was the first to bat just over a week ago, on April 23.This is how he began: “Just trying to make it understandable for both myself and everyone else, am I right in saying that you’ve purchased a fifth of the emissions you need to purchase using a quarter of your money? Is that roughly right?

Hunt’s response was simple: “No, it’s completely false.”

And so it went.

The facts about the ERF, Hunt said, were simple. The Abbott government had abolished the carbon tax and electricity prices dropped.

The government then passed the ERF and the Labor Party and many of their fellow critics insisted that there would be no demand under the fund. The fund is an incentive based payment through an auction process — a market-based mechanism — to find the cheapest emissions reduction project in the country; directly cleaning things up.

The first auction was conducted by the Clean Energy Regulator which announced that 47 million tonnes of emissions reductions projects had been awarded.

That’s four times the total volume of emissions reduction which occurred under the entire period of Labor’s failed carbon tax.

The price per tonne was $13.95, or less than one-ninetieth, or about 1.1 per cent of the average price of emissions reductions of $1,300 under the carbon tax.

Hunt said Epstein had begun his interview with points from the Labor Party’s presentation, which Epstein passionately denied.

He then pointed out that Epstein’s assumptions generally were wrong.

Next to engage the minister was the 7.30 Report’s Leigh Sales that evening. She should have done more homework.

“Minister,” she began, “with this first auction today you’ve spent about 25 per cent of your budget to reach about 15 per cent of your goal. Doesn’t that demonstrate that your policy’s not going to be enough to meet Australia’s emission reduction targets?

Hunt’s whacked that claim out of the ground, saying: “No, with respect, the presumptions in your question are quite wrong.”

He then gave the figures he had smashed Epstein with earlier in the day.

Sales was on the backfoot and spluttering “but…” before she managed to make another claim: “Minister, if you can address my point, at $13.95 per tonne, the amount set today, given that you have $2.55 billion to spend, you will fall short of Australia’s targets by about 57 million tonnes.”

Hunt responded: “No, that’s false.” Not going to let go, as wrong as she was, Sales came back with: “Minister, with this – with this policy — let’s talk about the current policy. Let’s talk about the current policy. With this policy, taxpayers are paying polluters not to pollute.” She was wrong again, as Hunt replied: “Well that’s false.” Undeterred, Sales tried a different tack, asking the minister to submit the figures to an independent audit so that “we can see firstly if the promised abatement happens, and secondly, if it’s value for money?”

Unfortunately, as Hunt pointed out, such an audit has already been conducted. Deloitte signed off on the first round of audit.

Floundering, Sales protested: Is it going to keep happening? Because we need to know if people are delivering what they’re promising that they’re going to be delivering for this money. The answer, Hunt said, is of course. The independent probity audit had been present throughout the whole process at his request.

Even the Labor-aligned Climate Institute has admitted the process has produced fine examples of emissions reduction but that is not the point for the ABC’s political warriors who failed to pursue Labor when it launched its disastrous policies of pink batts, green loans, cash for clunkers and the carbon tax experiment which failed to reduce emissions, but cost Australians $15 billion.

Sales failed, she needed constant correction and her analysis was fundamentally wrong. Not that she was alone in that, as the next of the ABC’s interrogators, Radio National’s Ellen Fanning, found on April 24 and ABC’s 702 presenter Linda Mottram discovered just a few days ago on April 28.

ABC BiasRed and Black anarchy attire at your ABC, delivering ‘Labor Gotchas’

Of the four presenters, Mottram was most persistent in parroting Labor lines, as Hunt noted in his pithy replies, over her protestations.

She began with the proposition that “the other big issue for you in the past week or so has been the first option paying firms not to pollute…”

Not a good place to start at all, according to Hunt,who said: “No that’s the ALP’s language and of course that is deeply politically loaded and…”

He was interrupted by Mottram who asked: “But it’s true isn’t it?”

And again, Hunt was able to inform yet another ABC star: “No it’s false.”

In between interruptions from Mottram, Hunt managed to state the obvious: “The ABC uses… ALP’s language… they don’t use unloaded… language.” It’s the ALP’s language that the ABC uses all the time, Hunt said, the national broadcaster never uses the language of the conservatives.

As for the substance of the interview, Hunt said Mottram “couldn’t be more wrong. Couldn’t be more wrong.”

As one would expect of an organisation which follows an ABC script.

Dead Parrot
 

This is one thing I agree with Noco about. The ABC does have a strong leftwing bias. Yes they attack all stripes of government but nearly always from the left ie their big fights with Hawke and Keating were over Iraq and East Timor respectively.

PS welcome back Noco. Glad you are well.
 

The ABC has consistently come out ahead of commercial networks in "who do you trust" polls, and no wonder when we have a doyen of the Right Alan Jones exaggerating the cost of wind power by 10 times. If people like him can't get his facts straight, no wonder people trust the ABC more.
 

Funny how you aren't willing to recognise the fall in revenue during the Labor years as the main reason for the deficits.

So, what is your explanation for why productivity was lower under workchoices than the IR system pre and post work choices?



I don't know if companies always reward their best employees. In my current job I've had pay rises ranging from 0% to 5% over a 4 year period, yet my review has always had me as the 1st or 2nd best performing worker in my team. The company has produced a record profit in each of those years, so the crappy pay rises wasn't due to a lack of funds.

As for the greens sabotaging the Carmichael coal mine, if we don't follow the rule of law, then by definition we are lawless and that's what you get in a failed state. Why do you support a coal mine that needs $100 or more per tonne of coal to break even? Why not buy a near bankrupt coal mine or company? Could step n to buy the bankrupt Alpha Natural Resources (4th largest coal producer in the USA), or possibly Patriot Coal in the USA. Maybe Peabody Energy as their shares have dropped (plummeted) from $16 to just $0.99 or how about Arch as their shares dropped from $33 to $1 as well. The world is awash with coal. Why build an expensive new mine when you could buy brownfield sites for mere cents in the $? Maybe it's just your latent communism where you like a big lick of Govt subsidy to help things along?

The Norwegians are divesting from coal. Standford University is divesting from coal. CBA has walked away from financing the uneconomic Adani project. Coal will be around for a while yet, but it's economic importance is fast falling by the wayside.

noco said:
I often repeat John F. Kennedy...."Think what you can do for your country and not what your country can do for you"......The problem with many in this country of ours, we are too greedy and want everything for nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm so glad you're out supporting the poorly paid CEOs in Australia on 100 times the average wage, some even more. It's a poor showing when in say the USA they could be on 300 times the average wage. No wonder they need to cut Sunday shift loadings, though I'm not sure how that'll improve productivity.
 

Thanks for your kind thoughts banco.....Two weeks after my procedure I feel like a new man.....a lot more energy and a lot less being lethargic.

I repeat my earlier advice to all ASF members, don't delay being checked out if you become out of breath or suffer even the mildest of chest pain......I became out of breath for some weeks before and nearly left it too late....Another 4 days and I was goooooooone.
 

Makes Abbott's claims of the pensioner's electricity bill doubling from the carbon tax pale into comparison. Then again, I'd not want someone who thinks a 10% increase = 2 times to run the local chook raffle, let alone the Australian economy.
 

It's a bit like who do you trust to give you healthy food?

McDonalds, Hungry Jacks, KFC, or the school canteen?

Most will say the school canteen, doesn't mean it is correct. Just a perception, that plays to those who feel it is right, because it should be.

That is the problem, with people who can't think outside of the box, "it is true, because we are told it is true, and we expect it to be true". Positive reinforcement at its best.
 

labor's revenue increased from 2007 to 2013....It went from $272.633 billion to $367.041 billion

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-T...Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Appendix-C

Appendix C: Revenue and receipts history and forecasts

Table C1: Australian Government (cash) receipts
2003-04
$m 2004-05
$m 2005-06
$m 2006-07
$m 2007-08
$m 2008-09
$m 2009-10
$m 2010-11
$m 2011-12
$m 2012-13(e)
$m 2013-14(e)
$m 2014-15(p)
$m 2015-16(p)
$m
Income taxation
Individuals and other withholding
Income tax withholding 89,638 97,304 103,120 107,119 113,982 115,899 118,532 129,654 142,770 151,300 163,900 174,800 185,600
Other individuals 19,935 22,554 24,895 25,797 29,525 30,030 25,928 27,795 31,141 35,000 37,300 41,000 44,700
less: Refunds 12,325 13,734 15,244 17,145 19,601 23,569 24,390 24,711 25,537 26,500 26,700 28,800 30,700
Total individuals and other withholding 97,247 106,123 112,770 115,770 123,906 122,361 120,070 132,739 148,373 159,800 174,500 187,000 199,600
Fringe benefits tax 3,590 3,703 4,049 3,761 3,856 3,399 3,504 3,303 3,731 3,970 4,450 4,920 5,130
Superannuation funds 5,551 6,248 6,368 8,211 12,054 9,217 6,099 6,519 7,562 8,050 9,050 11,010 12,950
Company tax 36,101 40,404 48,960 57,100 61,700 60,391 52,209 56,262 66,584 71,170 78,680 78,540 81,580
Resource rent taxes(a) 1,168 1,459 1,917 1,510 1,686 2,184 1,251 806 1,463 5,400 6,400 5,630 6,620
Income taxation receipts 143,658 157,937 174,063 186,353 203,202 197,552 183,132 199,628 227,714 248,390 273,080 287,100 305,880
Sales taxes
Goods and services tax 33,069 35,184 37,342 39,614 42,424 41,335 43,967 46,083 45,861 48,432 51,189 53,900 56,611
Wine equalisation tax 704 682 656 650 665 693 733 722 708 710 720 760 810
Luxury car tax 335 298 322 364 452 393 472 483 435 450 460 480 520
Other sales taxes(b) -48 -10 -16 -6 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total sales taxes 34,060 36,154 38,304 40,621 43,541 42,420 45,173 47,288 47,004 49,592 52,369 55,140 57,941
Excise duty
Fuel excise 13,540 14,276 13,992 14,663 15,252 15,637 15,675 16,267 16,978 17,950 18,670 18,800 19,260
Other excise 7,539 7,612 7,822 8,086 8,474 8,736 8,764 9,490 8,567 8,520 8,310 8,360 8,690
Total excise duty 21,079 21,888 21,814 22,749 23,727 24,373 24,439 25,756 25,545 26,470 26,980 27,160 27,950
Customs duty 5,038 5,012 4,488 5,063 5,561 5,814 5,341 5,429 6,996 7,800 9,000 9,130 9,570
Excise and customs receipts 26,117 26,900 26,302 27,812 29,288 30,186 29,780 31,185 32,541 34,270 35,980 36,290 37,520
Carbon pricing mechanism 4,020 6,640 7,340 6,750
Other indirect taxation
Agricultural levies 603 584 610 608 611 620 395 445 421 440 436 443 449
Other taxes 1,655 1,740 1,936 1,999 1,734 1,848 2,494 2,292 2,263 2,497 2,888 2,923 2,999
Total other indirect taxation receipts 2,258 2,324 2,546 2,607 2,345 2,468 2,888 2,738 2,684 2,937 3,324 3,366 3,447
Indirect taxation receipts 62,435 65,377 67,152 71,039 75,174 75,075 77,841 81,211 82,229 90,819 98,313 102,136 105,658
Taxation receipts 206,092 223,314 241,215 257,392 278,376 272,627 260,973 280,839 309,943 339,209 371,393 389,236 411,538
Interest received 1,056 1,400 2,325 3,731 4,769 5,166 4,025 4,943 4,267 4,390 4,486 4,414 4,756
Dividends and other 10,627 11,271 12,403 11,514 11,772 14,806 19,665 16,242 15,665 23,442 16,715 16,393 18,330
Non-taxation receipts 11,683 12,670 14,728 15,245 16,540 19,973 23,689 21,185 19,931 27,832 21,201 20,806 23,086
Total receipts 217,776 235,985 255,943 272,637 294,917 292,600 284,662 302,024 329,874 367,041 392,595


If you consider your self 1 st or 2nd best and your company does not recognize your worth then it must be your self assessment...If you believe you are worth more, then negotiate with your boss for more remuneration or seek other employment which may recognize your valued experience....But do your homework first.

With regards to your comments on the coal industry, you may be living too much in the present time and not thinking ahead when coal prices will begin to increase in 2016 with the high demand from India who find coal fired power stations are by far the cheapest to run and with modern anti pollution equipment CO2 emissions are almost zero......I repeat again, India has 300,000,000 people living without power, so coal will be around for decades to come...We have enough coal to last another 300 years, so why not sell it when you can.....40 or 50 years from now we may eventually see the merits in nuclear power which is now favored by the South Australian Labor premier....Bob Hake is even promoting the use of nuclear power and and the deep earth storage of of spent rods.

Even the Queensland state Labor Government wants the Adani project to proceed as they need the royalties to prop up their failing government with 6.7% unemployment.
 

ABC doesn't often get facts wrong and just talk **** like say Alan Jones. It's the stories they run and what they focus on that portrays their bias. For example I think on no other issue is their stance so clear as on asylum seekers. If any international organization prints something critical of Australia's treatment of asylum seekers it will be a headline on the ABC for sure. On gay marriage they'll run soft pieces with families with "two dads" or "two mums" (although that blew up in their face when one of the "two dad" families they profiled turned out to be child molesters).
 

The ABC certainly got it wrong with those two child molesters, however I say that its part of their brief to try and cover all angles of a story, not just be a government mouthpiece. When the asylum boats were coming under Rudd/Gillard there was daily coverage, no trying to cover it up or hide behind "on water matters", the Labor government's failure was reported by the ABC as much as by other media. So, you want the ABC to cover up the Coalitions mistakes ? That's not their job.
 

You probably need to re visit the ABC's coverage of the asylum seekers issue, most was focused on Abbotts inhumane refusal to agree with it.
 

Too right, I have had the displeasure of having to deal with the smugs sons of biarches who run the local branches. None of them seem to have OK cards when I challenge them on the jobs and they don't seem to be short of a quid either.

My point allegory is that just because Adam Goodes is a sook, doesn't mean the hole team is a sook too.
 
noco said:
Prices for coal and iron ore will rise again and it is anticipated it will happen in 2016......
Click to expand...

That's not borne out by the commentary of those that have a good track record with commodity pricing ball gazing. The tip is that the sale price for iron ore will drop to pre good times $20/ton

Predictably there are plenty of brokers out there talking up 2016 as the return to prosperity, especially with the Fed election campaign in focus.
 


I hope you recover well Noco. It must be a shocked you to think the ticker was malfunctioning.

Besides we can't have the champion of the Bourgeoisie out of action with the Proletariat constantly trying to destroy the system.
 

Now if we can just get rid of Virginia and her dogmatic know everything persona.

What does moving QANDA to the news division set out to achieve? And why is it a game changer for Abbott and his servile ministers?
 
Tisme said:
Now if we can just get rid of Virginia and her dogmatic know everything persona.
Click to expand...

Yes, she can be annoying at times.

What does moving QANDA to the news division set out to achieve? And why is it a game changer for Abbott and his servile ministers?
Click to expand...

The ABC were considering doing this anyway. It's a cheap tactic by Abbott to make it appear that the ABC is bending to his will. He knows that he can't do much else against the ABC because there will be a public backlash.
 

* Then by your treasury statistics one has to wonder why the deficit is ballooning with record revenue under Abbott?

* My company has a performance review system where you rate yourself and then your manager rates you. The only time my manager has disagreed with my self assessment is when he provides me a higher ranking. The point I'm making is that companies do not always reward those who put in the extra effort. CEOs in general do not deserve their obscene pay levels. Citibank recently tested 60 large Australian companies to see if CEO pay and ROI was correlated - it wasn't. Less than half had a positive ROIC-WACC, and only 13 out of 60 had a positive TSR. So if productivity is good for the prols, surely it should be equally applied to the bourgeoisie?

* If you believe coal is going to be such a good investment have you increased you personal asset allocation towards it? As for the QLD Govt wanting Adanai to build their coal mine, well no Govt is ever going to block investment unless they really have to, but its good they're not following the Liberal game of socialising the losses via subsidised infrastructure as Newman wanted to.

* Nuclear power will never be a viable alternative without a carbon price. In the UK they have had to guarantee a wholesale price close to 4 times the average charged in Australia (92.5 pounds/MW vs ~$50) to get the Port Hinkely nuclear reactor built. It's a higher level of subsidy than solar or wind require. Reactors being build in other parts of Europe are near double their original budget and many years behind schedule. The beauty of wind and solar is they can provide new capacity relatively quickly.
 
I'm waiting for a 12 flag conference from Tony to explain why his predictions of an Olympic Dam renaissance have turned out to be so wrong.

Wasn't it just the carbon and resource taxes that were stopping BHP was going ahead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
949
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...