Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

Best we agree to disagree I guess. I agree the ABC should be independent and tue government shouldn't try and stifle debate, but that doesn't mean they should give every whacko convicted nutjob a national media platform to air and debate their views.

As I said, even the ABC have admitted they made a mistake in allowing Zaky on the show
 
Baloo said:
Best we agree to disagree I guess. I agree the ABC should be independent and tue government shouldn't try and stifle debate, but that doesn't mean they should give every whacko convicted nutjob a national media platform to air and debate their views.

As I said, even the ABC have admitted they made a mistake in allowing Zaky on the show
8-
I don't disagree that it was a mistake. I do think that the way the Government has reacted to it is way over the top and they are clearly using it to push a far greater agenda.
 
It's Abbott. It's sadly expected these days and with News Limited behind them they are getting away with it.

The next election can't come quick enough. Now if only we had a viable opposition.......
 
Baloo said:
As I said, even the ABC have admitted they made a mistake in allowing Zaky on the show

as far as i have read the ABC admitted they made a mistake allowing him live on the show. somewhere i read they said he should not have been i the audience, but instead submit a video question.
 
Tigers of Old said:
There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. The line can't keep shifting or we're in treacherous territory.
I want everyone to be able to express their view and I want to be able to form my own judgements on what I wish to listen to no matter how offensive it might be.
They're just words. Make your own mind up on what they mean, don't have it made for you.

Agree
 
I don't have any real sympathy for the ABC here, the troll casting and shock television approach that rendered Q&A unwatchable for me years ago has finally backfired on them.

Not that I endorse the government's tantrum reaction.
 
It seems lots of people here are running a freedom of speech argument in defence of the ABC on this when in reality that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

The issue is not whether the individual has freedom of speech. He clearly does as he has not been charged for anything he said. For that matter he also wasn't charged for tweeting the Miranda Devine and Rita Panathi should be pack raped!!!!! I think any fair minded Australian would think that the tweet was repugnant. Nevertheless he had and has the freedom of speech to express his views.

The issue here is whether the tax payer funded national broadcaster should have provided a media platform for him to express his views in an uncontrolled fashion. My view is they should not have. If they really wanted a "gotcha question" they could have done a video question but they clearly chose not to. Not surprising I guess as Q&A has been one of the most left wing programs on the ABC for a long time. The ABC bangs on about being "independent" I guess they don't realise that independent and unbiased are not the same thing.

Its understandable that the government doesn't consider the ABC admission that they made a mistake as being credible. If any broadcaster honestly felt they had made a mistake in airing anything then they would not replay it later in the week. Either dishonest or incompetent. I know which one I favour but everybody can choose which one they think fits.
 
mld said:
I don't have any real sympathy for the ABC here, the troll casting and shock television approach that rendered Q&A unwatchable for me years ago has finally backfired on them.

Not that I endorse the government's tantrum reaction.
Not often I agree with you but in this case, yes!
 
poppa x said:
So "freedom of Speech" should allow a convicted terrorist a voice on the ABC.
But Andrew Bolt must be silenced.
I think I understand this.

Bolt has column inches and his own TV show and a democratically elected government (of arsehats and mincing poodles) attempting to amend the legislation that was used to slap him. In what way is he "silenced"?

And Mallah is not a convicted terrorist. He was charged but acquited of terrorism offences. He was convicted, but not on charges of terrorism.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Bolt has column inches and his own TV show and a democratically elected government (of arsehats and mincing poodles) attempting to amend the legislation that was used to slap him. In what way is he "silenced"?

And Mallah is not a convicted terrorist. He was charged but acquited of terrorism offences. He was convicted, but not on charges of terrorism.
This is what makes me feel uneasy about the whole thing.

The line that is being taken is that there are "sides" and some feel comfortable using words like traitors.

What is the difference between what we are doing and what other Governments do to silence their critics , like in Iran or Russia or many other places ? yes there may be a difference in the degree of punishment but in the end it comes down to a Government telling the people what is right and what is wrong. Abbott and his group would say the difference is that we are right in what we believe in and they are wrong. That may be the case but the part I don't like is a Government deciding whether my views are right or wrong and a government telling me whether I have the right to listen to views that I may disagree with on the national Broadcaster.

I am uneasy with a Government member telling a citizen that he would be proud to strip his citizenship from him. I was uneasy with the Howard government judging whether David Hicks was innocent or guilty. Not because I think they are wrong because my views are irrelevant to the fact that i don't believe that is the role of a Government. Our Government's role with David Hicks should have been no more than ensuring that an Australian citizen had his rights protected and that if he were found guilty that would have happened through a transparent and fair legal process. Governments are not judge and jury, that is why we have courts.

I don't have fully developed views on this but I am very uneasy about where this is taking us as a nation.
 
Sintiger said:
This is what makes me feel uneasy about the whole thing.
...

I don't have fully developed views on this but I am very uneasy about where this is taking us as a nation.

I am seriously worried about the cumulative affects of what the government have been doing. Be it statements, policies, legislation. I can't work out what, if any, vision he has for what an Australia that he commanded for 20 years would look like. To be honest I don't think he's thought about it, he just wings it. A true leader I think has a vision for where the nation should be heading. I honestly can't imagine what Abbott's Australia would be like. One thing is for certain. He and Brandis and friends are making it easier to stay away.
 
I hope so much that Cathy McGowan wins Indi again. So good having a decent, independent person working for the electorate rather than for a particular party. She's been great.
 
rosy23 said:
I hope so much that Cathy McGowan wins Indi again. So good having a decent, independent person working for the electorate rather than for a particular party. She's been great.
If that is he case she more than likely will win one would hope
 
Tony Abbott's national security scare campaign hides the truth: he's making a hash of the economy

Date
June 30, 2015 - 5:55PM

Ross Gittins
The Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor


Tony Abbott and his ministers are more interested in diverting our attention to exaggerated threats to national security than in fixing our economic threats, says Ross Gittins.

Am I the only person who isn't cringing in fear, looking for a rock to hide under and hoping Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton will save us from the tide of terrorism surging towards our shores?

As is their wont, the media are enthusiastically indulging our desire to dwell on all the gruesome details of a spate of terrorist acts in faraway countries of which we know little.

But this seemingly innocent nosiness is leaving us with a quite exaggerated impression of the chances of our ever coming into contact with such an event.

Apparently, all you have to do to be in mortal danger is attend the making of an ABC current affairs program. It's a field day for any attention-seeking nut of Middle Eastern background.
Advertisement

Would you say our Prime Minister is seeking to calm our overblown fears or is playing them for all he's worth?

Precisely. And I'll tell you why. Because he's discovered he's not much chop at leadership - at inspiring us with a vision of a better future, at explaining and justifying necessary but unpopular measures - but he is good at running scare campaigns, to which the Aussie punter seems particularly susceptible.

But, above all, because he wants to divert our attention from the hash he's making of managing the economy.

In opposition, and facing a Labor government that lacked all confidence in its own ability as an economic manager, Abbott assured us the Liberals had good management in their DNA. I thought he had a point, but what we didn't discover until too late was that he and his chosen Treasurer just didn't have that gene in their bodies.

They started by telling us that, apart from the immense damage being done by Labor's carbon and mining taxes, the economy's big problem was the budget, something they, being Libs, could fix in a jiffy.

They had one go at fixing the budget, got themselves into terrible trouble in the polls, then gave up. Pretty much the sole purpose of this year's budget was to reverse their poor political standing by ditching or modifying many of their unpopular policies.

From that day to this, we've heard little more of the evils of debt and deficit. Almost all of what little improvement in the budget deficit is expected will come from bracket creep.

Fortunately, the budget deficit and the still-small level of public debt to which it has given rise was never the central, pressing problem for the economy the oppositional Abbott & Co made it out to be.

We will have to deal with the deficit eventually, but it's not pressing. And fortunately, thanks to the good offices of Peter Costello, primary responsibility for the day-to-day management of the economy was long ago shifted from the politicians to the econocrats of the Reserve Bank.

Trouble is, no matter how many more times the Reserve cuts interest rates, it's having little success in getting the economy moving at a satisfactory clip. And with more mining construction projects being completed as each day passes, the economy is in danger of drifting into recession.

It may not happen, but the possibility that it will is too high for comfort. The Reserve has been calling out for help from Canberra, but Abbott and Hockey have been turning a deaf ear, far too busy coping with the confected national security crisis.

Now we've received a very could-do-better annual report card from the International Monetary Fund. Far from urging Abbott and Hockey to redouble their efforts to reduce deficit and debt, it's telling them they have plenty of "fiscal space" relative to other advanced economies - room to increase debt - and should be doing more to encourage spending on infrastructure by the state governments.

The problem is that while the Reserve has been using too-low interest rates to get the "non-mining" private sector moving, the public sector has been doing nothing to help. Indeed, despite the incessant talk - federal and state - about the greater efforts being made to ensure the adequacy of our infrastructure, nationwide public capital expenditure actually fell by 8 per cent over the year to March.

The decline came from the state governments, not Canberra. But since it's the national government that's primarily responsible for the health of the national economy, this provides Abbott and Hockey with no excuse.

That covers the Abbott government's poor performance in the immediate management of the economy. But it's just as ineffectual in dealing with the less pressing, more structural need for us to lift our economic game if our continued material prosperity is to be assured.

Despite the ever-growing pile of reports it has commissioned on the financial system, competition, industrial relations, taxation and federalism, it's becoming increasingly clear that, having wounded itself so badly in last year's budget and still being behind a weak-led opposition in the polls, the government has no stomach for taking reform proposals to next year's election.

Economists, business people and even the government's own intergenerational report are warning that our productivity isn't likely to grow fast enough in coming years without further reform, but to no avail.

If the Liberals do have good economic management in their DNA you'd think by now they'd be turning to others among their number with greater leadership skills. But not, apparently, while they can hide behind the charade of concern about threats to national security.

Ross Gittins is economics editor.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-national-security-scare-campaign-hides-the-truth-hes-making-a-hash-of-the-economy-20150630-gi16ie.html
 
shawry said:
If that is he case she more than likely will win one would hope

It will be a hard ask but fingers crossed. They're also running a National candidate to preference the Libs.