Any principles left to throw overboard, Julia?

Labor caves to the wealthy private schools lobby. Remaining ALP voters who care about social justice switch to the Greens. Precisely no conservative voters change their votes to Labor.

That party is being run by geniuses, it really is.

ELSEWHERE: GetUp fights the Liberal/ALP disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of Australian voters in the High Court today. Barely any mention in the national media until someone wearing a Liberal shirt apparently tries to storm the bench. Let’s hope it hasn’t delayed what is an important and urgent case – probably the most critical election-related news of the day.

Advertisements

26 responses to “Any principles left to throw overboard, Julia?

  1. Wow. So in order to win the election, both parties promise to do … nothing? What if we don’t like the status quo?

  2. Well, I think you can guess my answer to that.

  3. I know, that’s already my plan. But it still sucks.

  4. “Precisely no conservative voters change their votes to Labor.”

    liberal v labor:
    same on boat people.
    same on gay people.
    same on employed people.
    same on environmental people.
    same on educational people.
    same on selfish, scared, racist, homophobic, un-educated denier people.

    vote [1] greens.

  5. Only reasons to put Labor above Liberals:

    • much less likely to implement elements of WorkChoices like getting rid of unfair dismissal protections;
    • mining industry will have to put *something* back out of its extra profits, even if it’s not much;
    • They’ll at least “consider” doing something about climate change eventually;
    • Tony’s the preferred candidate for FundiesFirst, SaltShakers, Exclusive Brethren, British American Tobacco and a whole host of other scary bastards.

    But yes, my first preference for the Greens is ever more secure.

  6. jordanrastrick

    A review of Howard era school funding due to report in 2012 will not have any of its recommendations adopted… until 2013.

    The AEU, who hate Gillard, call this “a cave in to the private schools.”

    Yawn.

    If anything, Gillard sticking it to the AEU makes me marginally more likely to vote for her. I don’t think the world is going to end if Joey’s keeps getting too much money for one more year, and I’m undecided about the overall merits of NAPLAN; but real education reform will need, amongst other things, someone prepared to shake teachers’ unions up a bit; and “Nixon going to China” syndrome dictates only a hard arse ALP leader can do it.

  7. It doesn’t surprise me but it pisses me off that she throws millions at the most privileged schools in the nation, schools that have opted out. The state system not good enough for their kids? Fine, but why on earth should I contribute so that these kids may enjoy more privilege than my own?

    Gillard clearly doesn’t want the vote of the progressive left leaning people, she’s pandering to conservatives and bigots.

    I see the ALP as the lesser of two evils but they are traitors to their original supporter base. I’m starting to hope that she loses the election, maybe then Labor will learn the folly of abandoning the people who supported them over the years.

    Maybe it wont make any difference who wins if the Greens get the balance of power.

  8. Oh, the “shake up teachers’ unions” meme makes an unwelcome return. I thought that little cliche had made its way to the dustbin of Ridiculous Generalisations.

    What, pray tell, are the teacher unions guilty of THIS time?

    And what HASN’T been said about the utterly vile nature of current private school funding to convince anyone that it’s grossly unfair? Or does putting your hands over your ears and shouting “La la la I can’t hear you!” actually work?

  9. jordanrastrick

    If you believe in at least the principle of universal public education, as I do, and are suspicious of our hybrid public-private model, then its perfectly legitimate to criticise current funding arrangements. However, this:

    “Fine, but why on earth should I contribute so that these kids may enjoy more privilege than my own?”

    is a bogus argument. Public schools receive overall more taxpayer money per child than private ones; given the vertical fiscal imbalance in Australia, the composition of funding that happens to be Federal vs “State” (i.e. administered by State governments, but basically from revenue ultimately raised by Federal taxes) is irrelevant.

    Further, I’d be prepared to wager a lot that the average parent sending children to a private school pays substantially more tax than the average parent sending theirs to a public school.

    So private school parents (and for that matter non-parents) are clearly subsidising the education of public school students, not vice versa. Now, that’s as it should be – indeed the public system could not exist, otherwise – and there’s always the argument to be made that the transfer should be higher, or indeed maximal (i.e. private school parents’ taxes contribute zero to their children’s education). But to try and frame the issue as though the subsidy actually somehow mysteriously runs in the opposite direction is crap.

  10. I don’t think the Labor party is making any decisions based on principle at the moment – they’re just running a small target election strategy.

    Don’t change anything, don’t promise anything controversial, don’t say anything that has the potential to offend or upset anyone. And if at all possible, try to pin the whole campaign on the basis of the PM’s “likeability” and nothing more.

  11. To be honest, I’ve no problem with public funding of all those private schools – provided they don’t charge fees.

    ie, that they become public schools.

    Fundamentally, I disagree with a two-tier education system. There is no reason why the children of the rich deserve a better education than the children of the poor.

  12. “is a bogus argument. Public schools receive overall more taxpayer money per child than private ones;”

    Really? I was under the impression that under Howard private school students gained more per capita than public and I didn’t notice Gillard changing that when she had the chance, rather she threw hundreds of millions at the richest schools. I could be wrong so go easy 😉

    I must have worded my post wrong because I’m opposed to a two tier education and health on ideological grounds. I don’t see that having more money should mean having a right to better health care or education.

  13. Received not gained.

  14. Splatterbottom

    RobJ if you include both State and Federal funding then public schools receive more per capita. However, most State funding goes to public schools and most Federal funding goes to public schools.

    What we really need to do is to empower parents by providing them with information about relative school performance, allowing them a choice of schools and implementing a voucher system.

  15. but the herald-sun told me Labor was run by union warlords, this is all very confusing

  16. Splatterbottom

    Obviously the AEU is not part of the Labor Right faction that executed Rudd. It is the AEU overlords putting it about that private schools receive more funding than public schools. RobJ’s mistake was to believe these discredited leftists.

  17. Ah the vouchers meme as well. And now the AEU are “discredited leftists” – casting their opinions aside with one fell swoop. Looks like every private school cliche in the book is being brought out today … a bit like Mr Bean and his pencils.

    If you won’t listen to the AEU, SB, because … well, just because, then read what the DOGS have to say: http://www.adogs.info

    They’ve been at it for decades and regularly spell out EXACTLY why the figures that supposedly show private schools have it “hard” in terms of funding are totally skewed.

    Jordan and SB haven’t provided links to back up their claims, and I’m going to put this to them: do the figures you quote take into account any building grants (excluding the BER)? Because those are REGULARLY left out of figures put forward by the likes of the AISV.

  18. Splatterbottom

    RM, see here:

    The reality, as noted in the 2010 Report on Government Services, is that total government funding per state school student is $12,639, while non-government schools only receive $6,606 per student. Every student that attends a non-government school saves government, and taxpayers, approximately $6,000.

    It’s also the case that the current socioeconomic status (SES) model of funding is needs based. Wealthier non-government schools only receive 13.7% of the recurrent cost of educating a student in a government school, with needier non-government schools receiving up to 70% of the figure.

    These figures refer to recurrent funding, when capital funding is included the imbalance is even greater. In relation to independent schools close to 90% of capital funding is provided by parents and school communities, with state and Commonwealth governments providing 10%

    You are running with the bad dogs on this one.

  19. “However, most State funding goes to public schools and most Federal funding goes to public schools.”

    Do you mean that most Federal funding goes to private schoools

  20. Splatterbottom

    Sorry RobJ, that is what I meant.

  21. Labour is now just Liberal with a teaspoon of conscience.
    30 years ago the Liberal party was where Labour is now. So where does that leave the current Liberal party? EXTREME RIGHT. Think about the toppling of Turnbull and who did it.

  22. First the vouchers arguments, then the “discredited AEU” sledge, and now quoting … wait for it … Kevin Donnelly? With his re-re-re-re-re-hashed holey arguments that he’s been pathetically throwing at us for over a decade?

    Please, something new. Not the old propaganda. Impress me, please.

  23. The issue should not be about whether the funds distributed by government are distributed ‘fairly’ – it should simply be about whether Public Schools are sufficiently funded to deliver a quality education to Australian children.

    If they are then who gives a shit if the Private schools are also receiving government money?

    But if they’re not, which seems to presently be the case, then I see no real justification for sending even a cent to the private schools.

  24. Pingback: John “unconstitutionally disenfranchising voters” Howard slammed, four years late « An Onymous Lefty

  25. alexanderwhite

    In what world are the electoral laws that disenfranchised voters “Labor” laws? The ALP tried to abolish them (and were blocked in the Senate by the Liberals and Indep senators).

    The electoral laws are entirely Howard’s and the Liberals.

  26. Wow – within a matter of days, both the ADOGS (www.adogs.info) and Kenneth Davidson in today’s Age carefully take apart even further the myth that private education subsidies save money for public education.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s