The pond doesn't like constantly featuring the reptiles' obsession with elevating the Hansonite tribe in the hive mind, but must live with the cards that are being dealt.
The pond had been hoping it would be just another meditative Sunday, and that spot has been reserved for prattling Polonius for quite some time, so it was his turn, and wouldn't you know... Hansonite alert, as Polonius fantasised that Pauline would help in his endless jihad to take down the ABC ...
The header: Pauline Hanson’s surge puts the ABC on notice; Pauline Hanson may succeed where five Coalition prime ministers failed in forcing the ABC to change its editorial culture.
The caption, containing a cunning dog whistle: Pauline Hanson ... no one should be surprised that One Nation’s popularity increased markedly after the Bondi Beach massacre. Picture: supplied
The Polonial take wasn't that surprising, deploying the Hansonites as a boogeyperson to threaten the ABC, make them see the errors of their ways, and turn to the righteous Polonial path.
Those familiar with Polonius might wonder when his favourite term, "conservative-free zone" turns up, and the pond promises they won't have to wait long ...
In the past, some opponents of the lack of viewpoint diversity on the ABC have wondered why Coalition governments, led by Malcolm Fraser, John Howard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, have not been able to encourage the ABC board to break the left’s domination of what is a conservative-free zone.
Sure, in various ways, Fraser, Howard, Abbott and Morrison tried. Not so Turnbull, who has been almost an uncritical ABC supporter. Especially nowadays when he has ready access to ABC studios to attack the Liberal Party in the capacity of one of its former leaders. ABC journalists just love this. And they rarely if ever ask him about losing 14 seats to Labor in the 2016 election or the blowout in costs to his fave Snowy Hydro 2.0 project.
As to the others, there was never the determination to do so. Traditionally, there has been strong support for the ABC from Nationals parliamentarians and regional and rural Liberal Party MPs. The ABC is more politically balanced in rural and regional areas. Moreover, Coalition MPs outside the major cities can get ready access to the ABC in their electorates.
Hanson is of a different stock. She appears to detest the ABC in the Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney axis and could act against it. This, after all, is where the ABC most readily demonstrates its support for left-wing causes.
At this point, the reptiles interrupted with extremely large photos displayed in linear order of ABC people the hive mind must hate.
It reminded the pond of this poster for enemies of the five year plan.
The reptiles hadn't organised this vile bunch in the proper way, so the pond took the opportunity to make the images and show the reptiles how to do it ... Laura Tingle. Picture: X; John Lyons. Picture: supplied; David Marr. Picture: supplied; Sarah Ferguson. Picture: ABC
Put that in a poster and those rogues would grace a Stalinist "most wanted" list.
Polonius naturally deemed this unruly crew "controversial", which surely is a bit of a stretch, but then it's likely that Polonius would find an overcooked egg "controversial" ...
Needless to say, a government cannot, and should not, run a public broadcaster. Nor can a board. That’s the role of the ABC’s managing director and editor-in-chief (currently Hugh Marks). The role of the board – under its chairman (currently Kim Williams) – is to ensure that the functions of the corporation are performed effectively with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia.
It is sometimes said that ABC journalists must abide by the corporation’s charter. That’s a somewhat benign document. What’s important is section eight of the Australian Broadcasting Act 1983. It sets out the duties of the board including ensuring “that the gathering and presentation” by the ABC “of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism”.
The federal government appoints the ABC board, including the ABC chair, except for the staff-elected board member (currently Tingle). And the board appoints the managing director. A One Nation government could appoint as many board members as it would be legally entitled to.
Speak loudly and carry a big One Nation stick, but Polonius realised he might have gone too far, he might have joined the reptile bandwagon, hooked up with the craze for Pauline...
I am not advocating a vote for One Nation.
He is, he is!
The lust for revenge, the chance to dish it out to those wretched cardigan-wearers, got too much for him, and he jumped the shark so he could nuke the ABC fridge ...
However, I am saying that such an administration could affect the ABC by financial cuts and the like.
Yes, take that cardigan-wearers and remember, whatever the "however", keep in mind that a vote for Pauline could wreak righteous havoc on the miscreants.
Now back to that disgraceful mob, with not one of them worthy of being employed on Sky Noise down under (still no rebrand?)
On May 24, on a visit to Tasmania, Williams appeared on the Poll Position podcast where he was interviewed by Brad Stansfield and Alex Johnston. The following exchange took place. Williams: “The ABC is not an especially left-wing or right-wing organisation and, in fact, the majority of ABC journalists – I would defy anyone to know how they vote.” Stansfield: “Oh, I reckon I could guess.”
Quite so. Clearly, Williams is in denial. ABC management cannot name one conservative among the television, radio or online outlets who are presenters, producers or editors. Little wonder that Stansfield queried Williams. The public broadcaster is replete with apparent Greens and teal supporters in prominent positions.
And after that litany of failures, it was time to tame any hint of an inner Tame: Shadow Home Affairs Minister Jonathon Duniam claims the ABC has made a “terrible error of Judgement” in selecting Grace Tame for a new podcast.
That sent Polonius right off ...
Really? Does “everybody” believe in Tame’s comment, as told to Hamish Macdonald on ABC Radio Sydney on March 16, that the evidence that Hamas murdered Israeli women and children and raped women was mere “propaganda”?
And what did the Ombudsman say about that interview?
Taking into account what was said in the program during the interview, and the continuing references to the interview from callers ringing in and providing their views and perspectives, the Ombudsman considers that the interview was conducted professionally, claims were appropriately challenged and in keeping with the editorial standards for a live radio program. (In full here)
Bloody ABC, the fix is always in ...
Also, under questioning from Liberal Party senator Sarah Henderson in Senate estimates on May 28, Marks refused to engage with the fact that Simon Robinson (the ABC’s soon to be head of news) had reposted a lengthy article titled “The Shoah after Gaza” by Pankaj Mishra. This was profoundly hostile to Israel. There is no evidence that Robinson has reposted an article supportive of contemporary Israel.
Supportive of ethnic cleansing, and a plan to make good a greater Israel? Only in the world of Benji lovers ...
It’s early days. However, Williams and Marks do not seem to be conscious of the validity of the critique that the ABC is replete with left-of-centre individuals who regard themselves as “progressives”. Until they and other board members cease being in denial on this issue, hostility towards the ABC within sections of Australia is likely to remain.
The real problem? Polonial pique.
Polonius has always fancied himself as the inventor of the real Media Watch, and considers it an outrage and a tragedy that the ABC never gave him any sort of gig, except for sparring on a couch with Marr, until tedium forced him off the air.
Now poseurs and preening pretenders hold his ordained spot, and it's just so unfair. Polonius was made for the ABC, not to play some dogsbody on Sky Noise.
But now he turns up like a soporific on Sky Noise down under (still no rebrand?), dressed up as a "Media Watch Dog", wherein he imagines he's some sort of furry ... (do they have doggy stuff in the studio?) Sky News Media Watch Dog Columnist Gerard Henderson says ABC Media Watch host Linton Besser has conceded Pauline Hanson must be taken seriously after One Nation’s surge in the polls.
They didn't even feature Polonius doing his thing?
Pauline must be taken seriously?
Actually no matter what happens the pond reserves the right to treat her and Barners, Tamworth's eternal disgrace, as clowns in a clown car heading for a cliff, in much the same way as the pond finds King Donald first class entertainment.
It might be serious for those living under the King, but surely they can enjoy the comedy ... the late Roman empire specrtacle.
And so to Polonius 'fessing up that the Hansonites are beloved by Murdochian media ...
Besser believes that One Nation’s evident increasing support has come despite shunning sections of the media. This is true in part. But other sections of the media have effectively “cancelled” Hanson in recent times.
Meanwhile, Hanson appears frequently on Sky News and One Nation has run a very effective social media campaign. Besser and the like should not be surprised that One Nation’s popularity increased markedly after the Bondi Beach massacre.
It will be interesting to see what case the ABC will put about its Middle East coverage when it and other outlets appear before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in the coming weeks.
Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.
And it will be interesting to see if the Jewish lobby manages to hide the ethnic cleansing currently going down in Gaza and the West Bank:
And so to the bromancer.
The pond didn't mean to offend by putting him in second spot.
Rather, think of him as the glorious conclusion to the parade of reptiles, down there with an elephant attending a Texas GOP convention.
The header: Albanese government is using AUKUS to conceal shameful defence reality; Albanese and Marles dissemble and deceive over Australia’s military weakness. Labor’s security performance is pure spin mixed with moonshine.
The caption for a frankly appalling collage, the only upside being that it can't be blamed on AI: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles, and other cabinet ministers, have not rid the broader Labor movement of its anti-nuclear superstitions. Artwork: Frank Ling.
The bromancer spent five minutes indulging in his usual emotional display of rage and impotence.
What was behind it this time?
Britain’s Defence Secretary, John Healey, resigned because he couldn’t get his Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to spend anything like what’s necessary for Britain’s defence. Healey, no show pony, showed his guest at the time, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles, what an honourable man does in circumstances Healey and Marles both face.
If Marles were a serious figure, he’d secure a much bigger defence budget or resign to demonstrate the seriousness of our situation. Britain is a much bigger military power than Australia, with a much bigger defence budget. Healey was offered between £10bn ($19bn) and £13bn extra over the next four years, vastly more than the puny increase Canberra’s planning.
Cue a shot of the pair Defence Minister Richard Marles with British Defence Secretary John Healey. Picture: Getty Images
That led the bromancer in to his usual state of panic, paranoia and hysteria. Yes, he seems to fancy himself as a "serious person"...
Healey wrote to Starmer: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.”
The same is true, 10 times over, of Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Unlike Healey, our politicians are not, essentially, serious people.
The Albanese government routinely refuses to disclose basic information or tell the truth about national security, especially what it’s doing in defence. This feeds Australia’s version of the disillusionment, cynicism and alienation people across Western societies increasingly feel towards mainstream politics.
The government apparently believes voters are now so fractured, and follow policy debates so little, that it can say almost anything and get away with it, so long as it repeats it often enough, loud enough, backs it with allied lobby groups and runs a good social media campaign. Sadly, sometimes that’s true. But reality has a way of ultimately seeping into public consciousness.
Those commentators who dismiss the significance of broken promises – a different category of deception, I acknowledge – have effectively lost faith in democracy. The Albanese government would have us believe it seriously intended to implement stage three tax cuts last term, then seriously intended not to change capital and property taxes this term, but was forced by circumstances to reverse itself before going to an election first. Who are they kidding?
The government routinely misleads on defence, but also does more than any government in our history to conceal basic facts. It also embodies contradictions it neither addresses nor resolves.
Contradictions? This from the bromancer, who routinely contains so many contradictions he sounds like Walt Whitman.
Who was all in on Japanese subs?
Buy your submarines from Japan, says US
Who once thought AUKUS was a flop?
This from a man who, way back when, knew it was a turkey ...
Bitter truth is we will likely never get any nuclear subs
And for those who read beyond that teaser trailer in the intermittent archive, they'll come across this dismissal of the Brits by the bromancer ...
Alternatively, there is talk of choosing the Astute but putting a US combat system, US weapons and even US propulsion system into it. Dear God in heaven, if we embrace the insanity of designing a new nuclear sub just for Australia, even 2060 will be optimistic for the first boat.
Or if we choose the Virginia, as we must, the Brits get nothing, yet Boris Johnson was assuring the British public that AUKUS meant hundreds and hundreds of well-paid jobs in Britain’s north. We made a mistake choosing the British Type 26 frigate, which still is not in service even in Britain and is two years behind schedule and counting. Just imagine a Brit submarine saga.
A cynical interpretation might be that the Liberals never explained, championed or campaigned for their own choice of the French sub. Choosing Marise Payne and then Linda Reynolds as defence ministers was grotesque, by Turnbull and Morrison respectively, as neither could carry the debate or the portfolio
So the government has solved only the problem that its own incompetent, lazy and inexplicable failure to champion its own defence programs brought about, but so far has substituted nothing concrete for it.
The result is likely no submarine capability for us at all, except museum piece Collins boats and whatever submarine visits the Americans or Brits send along. We should have kept the French subs going, perhaps at a reduced number of six or even three, then gone nuclear in an orderly way.
So it's impossibly quaint and impossible to understand why the British have returned in this bro outing, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Richard Marles at Lancaster House for AUKMIN meetings. Picture: Jacquelin Magnay
The bromancer decided to get emotional, perhaps because he's scribbled about it over the years in a way that manages to make even completely incoherent government policies sound rational:
We won’t have our fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines until the 2050s, assuming by some astonishing miracle the ever-changing plan proceeds flawlessly. By then our worst nightmares with China will have been realised or disappeared. I suspect the government is delighted with this because it means, without increasing the actual defence budget, it can pretend it’s doing something while actually doing nothing.
It’s happy doing nothing because, underneath, it doesn’t want a serious defence capability. If push comes to shove the Americans will deal with China, or not, so this view goes, and if we have no real capability we’ll have no real responsibility. And we won’t have any capability to speak of for decades.
The government is riddled with contradictions. Albanese, Marles and other cabinet ministers have not rid the broader Labor movement of its anti-nuclear superstitions. The government validates those superstitions by maintaining its commitment to keeping nuclear energy illegal in Australia.
This means Labor can’t embrace AUKUS emotionally. So nuclear reactors under the ocean surface, manoeuvring at high speed, surrounded by weapons, seeking out combat, are perfectly safe, yet reactors stationary on dry land in the most geologically stable continent on Earth are a menace to life.
As for being geologically stable, given the pond a craton every day of the week ...
And why on earth would anyone want to embrace defence policies or defence strategies emotionally?
Did Sir John Monash wander through the first world war in an emotional dither, plucking hankies out of pocket to hide his tears?
Famously ...
...He held the view that warfare was essentially a problem in engineering, of mobilizing resources, like the conduct of a large industrial undertaking; in 1918 the men in the line knew that all was right behind them. He eagerly made use of the most recent innovations. He took the view that an energetic offensive policy, 'feeding the troops on victory', was the short way to end the slaughter and misery. He was of the new scientific breed of generals, did not attempt to hob-nob with the troops and seek their popularity, and so was often criticized by the traditional 'inspirational' school of thought. (ADB)
Better to serve under Monash than an emotional Sheridan.
But the pond digresses.
Shouldn't matters of defence be dealt with in a calm, logical, rational and rigorous way, while recognising that there are always black swans on the horizon coming to upset the applecart, especially for generals wanting to fight the next war like the last one. Or bromancers inclined to emotion and madness ...
The pond should forgive the bromancer, he's always been emotionally unstable, always willing to hurl a petulant "that's nuts" at anyone or anything he finds disagreeable, and of course he's going to be driven mad ...
Defence Minister Richard Marles has played down concerns from Labor MPs over AUKUS, declaring the government remains “unambiguously supportive” of the landmark defence pact with the US and UK. Speaking at The Australian’s 2026 Defending Australia summit, Mr Marles said Australia had always preferred to receive in-service Virginia-class submarines rather than newly built boats, arguing the revised plan would simplify the transition, reduce costs and deliver a “really good outcome” for the nation’s military capability.
Instead of going his beloved "it's nuts", this time the bromancer's hysteria led to "bonkers".
Almost everything the government says about defence is misleading, preposterous or bonkers. Marles says that as an island nation dependent on trade of course Australia will have cutting-edge submarine capability. How come that’s urgent in the 2050s but not urgent today? No one could claim we have any naval cutting-edge capability now. The public ultimately registers the bulldust.
As a seller of prime BS, the bromancer knows a lot about bulldust, and perhaps recognising that he'd gone too far, he decided to throw in a billy goat butt ...
Don’t get me wrong. I’m in favour of AUKUS in principle, and nuclear subs.
But that "butt" was just a nonsense. He's not, really he's not ..."in principle" is just another classic bromancer fudge.
In principle he's as despondent as ever ...
Marles often claims he’s making record defence expenditure increases. This is moonshine. Despite our per capita living standard declining, population increase means GDP rises in dollar terms each year. Also, we’ve had sustained bouts of inflation. That means virtually every government activity is spending record amounts of dollars. It’s an utterly meaningless boast. As a percentage of national effort, the Marles boast is, even more transparently, pure baloney. In this coming financial year, 2026-27, the defence budget will decline, absolutely, in dollar terms and as a percentage of GDP. In 2026-27 the government will spend 2.02 per cent of GDP on defence, almost exactly the same as the level it inherited more than four years ago.
Last year the government breathlessly announced that, if measured by NATO standards, Australia actually already spends 2.8 per cent of GDP on defence. But in a telling sign of the government’s abiding arrogance, its absolute disinclination to allow debate or furnish even the most basic information, it didn’t tell us what this 2.8 per cent consisted of. There’s nothing classified in that information. Refusing to release it revealed Marles as an inferior Joh Bjelke-Petersen of a defence minister – “Don’t you worry about that!”
It's usual for reptiles to slip in a snap of something tantalising in these stories, and here it comes ...The Virginia-class fast-attack submarine USS Vermont (SSN 792) arrives at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia for a scheduled Submarine Maintenance Period (SMP). Picture: Department of Defence
Sob, and all we got is a snap ...
And so to a final unhappy gobbet ...
Marles claims he’s got $14bn extra for defence over the next four years. Again, a misleading claim. It turns out only $6bn is new government money. The rest is a heroic assumption about “novel finance” methods, basically private money, and even more heroic estimates of the proceeds of selling Defence property. It’s worse even than that. Defence also has to make various economies. The real extra money is vanishingly small.
The government is doing everything it can to conceal information. At Senate defence estimates, the opposition’s James Paterson asked the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, what were the 22 defence programs the government had said would be cut, delayed or reprioritised over the forward estimates. Chipman, a good man forced to look stupid by government diktat, claimed he didn’t know.
The government is working hard to prevent Senate estimates undertaking meaningful scrutiny of the defence budget. This is an affront to democracy. When a government announces it has cut or changed $5bn worth of 22 programs but won’t say what they are, it treats voters with contempt.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute in its book-length analysis of the defence budget concludes it goes nowhere near meeting even the (extremely) modest ambitions in the government’s own National Defence Strategy.
Given this stark, unyielding reality, I think the government’s happy to have the nation’s attention misdirected, debating nuclear subs in the 2050s. The dereliction and dishonesty in our national security policy are ruinous. And shameful.
Might not it be better to declare AUKUS a dead turkey?
Cut losses and run? Explore the sort of technologies currently making life difficult for Vlad the Sociopath?
Sadly the Murdochians wouldn't wear it and would kick up an unholy fuss, and so this dead carcass will litter the lizard Oz for years to come, its only benefit and use being that the bromancer can get a goodly amount of column inches out of it.
It would be so much easier if we just enjoyed these assorted follies as a kind of entertainment ... especially as it's been a long time between drinks at the pond for the two Toms ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.