Robbie

To answer your question I have no idea how a Labour Government would handle this but that is not the point. Tony is in the chair and I am merely maintaining the high standards of Government demanded by the former Opposition. That is that the Government of the day must be utterly perfect and anything that goes wrong at the national level must be attributed to the Prime Ministers incompetence. We had this for the last three years, why should I be cutting Abbott any slack? He set the standard. He needs to be judged by his own high standards!

Yes but did he set the standard with a prepared speach or was it off the cuff?

You do know there is a difference?

One he just making stuff up as he speaks, other other is were he get someone else to make stuff up.

Robbie

To answer your question I have no idea how a Labour Government would handle this but that is not the point. Tony is in the chair and I am merely maintaining the high standards of Government demanded by the former Opposition. That is that the Government of the day must be utterly perfect and anything that goes wrong at the national level must be attributed to the Prime Ministers incompetence. We had this for the last three years, why should I be cutting Abbott any slack? He set the standard. He needs to be judged by his own high standards!

I couldn't give a rat's rrrs what standard you hold the current Prime Minister to, you could have just stopped here.

I have no idea

The answer you provided shows you are more intent on scoring points than serious debate. Personally I think he's handled it well there was little else he could say.

The media have pounced on Andrew Robb for saying we spied on the Indonesians and they've pounced on Abbott for failing to apologise to the Indonesians for spying on them. Can you spot the problem here?

Probably not.

Robbie

To answer your question I have no idea how a Labour Government would handle this but that is not the point. Tony is in the chair and I am merely maintaining the high standards of Government demanded by the former Opposition. That is that the Government of the day must be utterly perfect and anything that goes wrong at the national level must be attributed to the Prime Ministers incompetence. We had this for the last three years, why should I be cutting Abbott any slack? He set the standard. He needs to be judged by his own high standards!

Hood, I would give up mate. You'll get more luck out of a bucket of sand with a flag that reads, "What about Labor?".

Regarding the China dispute, I think Bishop was correct in her reaction and statements. China's sudden annexure of the East China Sea and deciding that their permission was needed for use of the airzone was arrogant and ludicrous in equal measure, and worthy of condemnation. Plus we are always going to side with the yanks, and it won't put at risk the FTA because that is very much in China's interest.

Of course, Tony going one step further and underlying the fact that our alliance is with the US and Japan, was totally unnecessary, but appears to be standard fare for a guy with the diplomatic nous of an armoured tank.

I couldn't give a rat's rrrs what standard you hold the current Prime Minister to, you could have just stopped here.

I have no idea

The answer you provided shows you are more intent on scoring points than serious debate. Personally I think he's handled it well there was little else he could say.

The media have pounced on Andrew Robb for saying we spied on the Indonesians and they've pounced on Abbott for failing to apologise to the Indonesians for spying on them. Can you spot the problem here?

Probably not.

Robbie

It would have been nice to have been able to have a serious debate in the public arena on any number of major issues in the previous three years but I don't think we ever got near any facts, or reasoned argument, just idiotic slogans, fear mongering and personal abuse from ShockJocks, Lobby groups and Tony and the boys amplified by the News Ltd echo chamber. Tony is in charge, the buck stops with him. He needs to deal with all this. If the media is giving him some grief, so what? Welcome to government and accountability. Let us see how he goes.

Robbie

It would have been nice to have been able to have a serious debate in the public arena on any number of major issues in the previous three years but I don't think we ever got near any facts, or reasoned argument, just idiotic slogans, fear mongering and personal abuse from ShockJocks, Lobby groups and Tony and the boys amplified by the News Ltd echo chamber. Tony is in charge, the buck stops with him. He needs to deal with all this. If the media is giving him some grief, so what? Welcome to government and accountability. Let us see how he goes.

Do you think the "idiotic slogans, fear mongering and personal abuse from ShockJocks, Lobby groups and Tony and the boys amplified by the News Ltd echo chamber." is any worse than the sustained campaign being waged by the Fairfax papers. They have allowed stories to go to print that are obviously incorrect (there were deliberate lies), but let's not get the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign. You can put the ABC in there as well.

Until the left can come to terms with the facts that smear campaigns go both ways there will never be serious debate about this.

​Care to name the 10 issues over 10 weeks you alluded to earlier, just for the sake of good order?

Do you think the "idiotic slogans, fear mongering and personal abuse from ShockJocks, Lobby groups and Tony and the boys amplified by the News Ltd echo chamber." is any worse than the sustained campaign being waged by the Fairfax papers. They have allowed stories to go to print that are obviously incorrect (there were deliberate lies), but let's not get the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign. You can put the ABC in there as well.

Until the left can come to terms with the facts that smear campaigns go both ways there will never be serious debate about this.

​Care to name the 10 issues over 10 weeks you alluded to earlier, just for the sake of good order?

Did you wake up the Far Right side of the bed again Robbie?

Do you think the "idiotic slogans, fear mongering and personal abuse from ShockJocks, Lobby groups and Tony and the boys amplified by the News Ltd echo chamber." is any worse than the sustained campaign being waged by the Fairfax papers. They have allowed stories to go to print that are obviously incorrect (there were deliberate lies), but let's not get the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign. You can put the ABC in there as well.

Until the left can come to terms with the facts that smear campaigns go both ways there will never be serious debate about this.

​Care to name the 10 issues over 10 weeks you alluded to earlier, just for the sake of good order?

What the hell, I'll bite.

What "deliberate lies" have been printed, Rob?

What the hell, I'll bite.

What "deliberate lies" have been printed, Rob?

There was an allegation against Abbott a week or so back that was proven to be incorrect but the Age ran with the storey and repeated the allegation as if it was fact. I can't recall the storey, there have been so many, but I remember saying to my wife at the time what a dishonest bunch of bastards they are.

Did you read the storey in the Age about the litany of broken promises they have broken, one of which was because of the diplomatic incident they could no longer keep their promise to stop the boats; that sound like a broken promise to you? Perhaps an eff up by the Left that they have to wear.

You and I will never agree on this, you seem to think that the media are only against the ALP when in the fair fax media it seems that 4 out of every 5 articles are anti Liberal.

When was the last time a prime minister's university exam results were published on the front page go a leading newspaper, absolutely disgraceful conduct.

Btw at least he got to Oxford and passed the course with honours, I wonder what the qualifications of the Journalist are and how he fared at TAFE?

Edited November 30, 201311 yr by RobbieF

I know that most of the lefties on here hate the Australian newspaper and all their journalists, but this is a vey good piece written by Greg Sheridan and I doubt that any fair minded person would be able to find too much fault with it. Mind you some of you are so far entrenched in the left you couldn't see the truth or the other side if you fell over it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/spy-story-shows-abc-at-its-left-wing-worst/story-e6frg76f-1226771740588

I would have pasted it here in full for all those that refuse to read, or pay for the Australian, but it's pretty long article.

Edited November 30, 201311 yr by RobbieF

There was an allegation against Abbott a week or so back that was proven to be incorrect but the Age ran with the storey and repeated the allegation as if it was fact. I can't recall the storey, there have been so many, but I remember saying to my wife at the time what a dishonest bunch of bastards they are.

Did you read the storey in the Age about the litany of broken promises they have broken, one of which was because of the diplomatic incident they could no longer keep their promise to stop the boats; that sound like a broken promise to you? Perhaps an eff up by the Left that they have to wear.

You and I will never agree on this, you seem to think that the media are only against the ALP when in the fair fax media it seems that 4 out of every 5 articles are anti Liberal.

When was the last time a prime minister's university exam results were published on the front page go a leading newspaper, absolutely disgraceful conduct.

Btw at least he got to Oxford and passed the course with honours, I wonder what the qualifications of the Journalist are and how he fared at TAFE?

Why do you continually misconstrue or misrepresent what I say? I have never once said that the media are only against the ALP. I have said that Murdoch papers set a vendetta against the Labor government, and that is backed up by statistical evidence as well as Murdoch's strong ties with Abbott. It is fact, not conjecture.

I am not disputing that Fairfax are more left leaning, and certainly have been very critical of the Abbott government. In my opinion, for the most part, rightly so. You perceive that Fairfax have an anti-Coalition bias. Fairfax, to my recollection, have always gone after the government at the time. They absolutely hammered Gillard over various issues. I can produce a string of headlines for you.

So, going back to these "deliberate lies", there's a story you can't recall, and an OPINION piece on broken promises. The diplomatic incident referred to in the article was the stand off with Jakarta which forced a boat to be taken to Christmas Island. The pre-election commitment was to turn back the boats where it was safe to do so. I wouldn't so much categorise it as a broken promise, but it showed how flimsy and unrealistic a policy of "stop the boats" can be. The promise of more transparency has without question been broken by Morrisson's farcical Sergeant Schultz briefings. The backflip on Gonski that looks to have shafted the signatory states is also a broken election promise, no matter how much Abbott tries to paint it differently.

I would add that it is utterly ridiculous how you keep trying to claim the phone tapping incident is "Labor's mess". The incident is no-one's mess. Countries have spied for generations, and the leak was completely outside of Australia's control. Hence the unified stance being taken in the Parliament.

You can place your labels on me and others all you like Rob. Anyone reading this thread can see who has their eyes and ears firmly shut. When you are capable of looking at the Coalition government with a critical mind, instead of continually deflecting to "what would. Labor do?" or "those dishonest ABC bastards", I will begin to take you more seriously.

I don't give a [censored] whether you take me seriously or not, I don't care if you don't respond to any of my posts I don't really want to engage you in any way; you and I are diametrically opposed and it's a waste of my time so put me on ignore and do us both a favour.

This diplomatic problem is only the Libs because the Aholes at the Guardian and the ABC waited until after the elevation to release the information.

Btw what unified stance, Plibersmack and a few other ALP hacks have criticised the Libs for this, don't you read the papers.

IN THE PARLIAMENT. Shorten could have torn shreds off Abbott during QT over his handling of the incident, but he hasn't because the national interest should always come ahead of political point scoring.

Your posts don't annoy me in the least, why would I put you on ignore? You're a firmly rusted on Lib supporter. My old man was one of those as well. I would speak to him the same way I'm speaking to you.

This diplomatic problem is only the Libs because the Aholes at the Guardian and the ABC waited until after the elevation to release the information.

Are you serious or just trolling?

Are you serious or just trolling?

Of course I'm serious but I'd be surprised if you are.

I assume you think all this came to light after Abbott was elected do you; how long do you think the Guardian had this information and how long do you think the ABC had it?

IN THE PARLIAMENT. Shorten could have torn shreds off Abbott during QT over his handling of the incident, but he hasn't because the national interest should always come ahead of political point scoring.

Your posts don't annoy me in the least, why would I put you on ignore? You're a firmly rusted on Lib supporter. My old man was one of those as well. I would speak to him the same way I'm speaking to you.

Just how could he have done that without admitting that the Labor Party were in charge when this occurred, and that it did in fact happen?

Do you think it would have been appropriate for him to admit we did it at all; Robb has been criticised for saying it happened, correct?

I'm not your old man, I don't have to put up with you.

You mss the point I hate the Labor Party and I'm not stupid enough to believe that the Libs get everything right; the Victorian Libs are a joke and I will probably vote informal at the next election. If they elected either Turnbull or Hockey as leader I'd do the same federally.

"Put up with me" lol

You keep saying you're taking your bat and ball and going home, then immediately return. Admit it, you're a glutton for punishment.

We are in agreement that Shorten should keep his mouth shut, as he has done, partly for the reasons you point out.

If you seriously, honestly believe that the ABC has sat on this information and waited for the Coaltion to assume government, you are truly gone mate. That's not just conspiracy theory stuff, that's loony bin material.

"Put up with me" lol

You keep saying you're taking your bat and ball and going home, then immediately return. Admit it, you're a glutton for punishment.

We are in agreement that Shorten should keep his mouth shut, as he has done, partly for the reasons you point out.

If you seriously, honestly believe that the ABC has sat on this information and waited for the Coaltion to assume government, you are truly gone mate. That's not just conspiracy theory stuff, that's loony bin material.

Yes put up with you, you talk a lot of crap.

Of course they sat on it and if you don't understand why then you have NFI.

The ABC is as anti right wing as any media outlet in the Western World.

Read the link I posted above and see if even you can find much to disagree with, remember you have to be objective.

Are you serious or just trolling?

Have a read of this and let me know if the ABC are soft on the left.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/when-aunty-turned-a-blind-eye/story-e6frg996-1226771725147

But then again when you get so well rewarded by the people you are supposed to hold up to scrutiny it can be a little difficult; can't it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-top-end-pay-rises-double-inflation-rate/story-e6frg996-1226771770010

I can't get past the first paragraph unless I subscribe. In any case, what would your response to my critique be? Constructive? Based on your contributions here, I sincerely doubt it. You're convinced the ABC and every non-Murdoch paper is out to get Abbott and nothing is going to persuade you otherwise.

I haven't defended the ABC's decision to release the information, but I absolutely dispute the idea that they would sit on it until the Coalition was in power is some sort of sabotage attempt. It's an absurd theory for which there isn't a shred of evidence as far as I am aware. One that only Andrew Bolt followers would ascribe to.

I do like your request for ME to be objective I've already provided numerous examples where I've backed a move by the current government. You've given no concessions at all.

Must be off, Rob. I look forward to wasting more of your invaluable time with more of my "crap" at a future undetermined date.

II haven't defended the ABC's decision to release the information, but I absolutely dispute the idea that they would sit on it until the Coalition was in power is some sort of sabotage attempt. It's an absurd theory for which there isn't a shred of evidence as far as I am aware. One that only Andrew Bolt followers would ascribe to.

Why do you dispute that so absolutely?

The abc has had the info in electronic form for months

A quick text search for "australia" could have found all buried references in a matter of seconds

So tell me why they sat on it

Why do you dispute that so absolutely?

The abc has had the info in electronic form for months

A quick text search for "australia" could have found all buried references in a matter of seconds

So tell me why they sat on it

Why do you dispute that so absolutely?The abc has had the info in electronic form for monthsA quick text search for "australia" could have found all buried references in a matter of secondsSo tell me why they sat on it

DC - Not sure what your source for that claim is, but the ABC MD Mark Scott testified before a Senate Committee that the ABC had the material for a few days before publication, certainly ruling out that they had the information before the election. This is on the public record.

I have no particular interest in defending the ABC, but Rob was stating something as fact, which it is not. It is a theory which I believe has little basis.

DC - Not sure what your source for that claim is, but the ABC MD Mark Scott testified before a Senate Committee that the ABC had the material for a few days before publication, certainly ruling out that they had the information before the election. This is on the public record.

I have no particular interest in defending the ABC, but Rob was stating something as fact, which it is not. It is a theory which I believe has little basis.

Bwahahaha.

I believe him.

DC - Not sure what your source for that claim is, but the ABC MD Mark Scott testified before a Senate Committee that the ABC had the material for a few days before publication, certainly ruling out that they had the information before the election. This is on the public record.

I have no particular interest in defending the ABC, but Rob was stating something as fact, which it is not. It is a theory which I believe has little basis.

it was i heard that a number of media services had the 20,000 odd pages of purloined material for three months

i had heard the excuse was that it had taken time to find the info amongst so much data i.e. they had only found it a few days before publication (which would be bulltish)

so it might have been a clever answer. it may well be the abc md himself only found out then - plausible denial maybe

at least the guardian was supposed to have had it for three months

it was i heard that a number of media services had the 20,000 odd pages of purloined material for three months

i had heard the excuse was that it had taken time to find the info amongst so much data i.e. they had only found it a few days before publication (which would be bulltish)

so it might have been a clever answer. it may well be the abc md himself only found out then - plausible denial maybe

at least the guardian was supposed to have had it for three months

I guess if my salary more than doubled over a 5 year period I'd be a bit [censored] at the ones who took over and spelt the end of the gravy train.

An analysis of ABC employment data obtained exclusively by The Australian shows the ABC's top 100 earners took home an average pay of $226,144 in 2011-12, up from $165,680 in 2006-07, pocketing $4.6 million in pay rises courtesy of the taxpayer.

Mr Scott's pay has more than doubled, from $323,109 in 2007 to $678,940 last year.

This is an increase of 110 per cent during a period in which most workers got a total increase of 21 per cent. His pay boost equates to an average rise of $70,000 a year, before executive bonuses are included.

Edited November 30, 201311 yr by RobbieF