NationStates Jolt Archive

You assume everyone has a family like yours. By the time I was 5 two grandparents on dads side were dead as they were pack a day smokers since they were children (luckily no one in my family now smokes) and the ones on mums side had their hands full as the gran suffered from dimentia. Only one grandparent is still alive.

of my uncles/aunts only one was in the same city and he is a contract worker who can be called out on a moments notice to do industrial repairs. There wasnt anyone outside the family to take care of me so my mother worked part time.

Every situation is different and it can not be assumed that someone has nearby relatives

No, actually I did not assume that. I said that I've wondered about it because I personally didn't go to childcare.

I think childcare, especially if it's government run or funded should be for people who really need it.

And you know what, my family is complicated too, and I still had the best education. So :mad: to your rant.

I can't stand Julia Guilard. I agree that she's dangerous, but I think the commie reference was uncalled for.
Well, in a neat twist that could lead us back to the original topic, she did start out with the Socialist Alternative back when she went to uni, or a group similar to it (I don't recall the name).

Anyways, the point is that she's certainly far to the left of Kevin Rudd economically. And while people can moderate their views and move towards the middle, a basic distrust of the profit motive as a way of making positive things happen must surely remain. So while she's been trying very hard to look somber and like she's feeling parents' pain, I did notice a spark in her eyes when she got to the option of basically taking over ABC long-term and giving it to "the community", meaning government departments. It fits together - and with the finance world disrupted it will be hard to find private takers for the centres right now. So it seems likely to me that she'll take over, with the result that the centres will completely dominate and reshape the existing market for and produce quality, public-school type outcomes for early childcare.

I'm lucky that my grandmother was able to look after me, but my parents both worked full time... more than full time... my mum worked all the time, and she still always managed to make sure I had everything. I just can't understand this mums who don't even work and they still send their kids to childcare. I think that childcare centres are great, but they should be for people who need them.

When talking about childcare are we just talking about those before preschool age? Or including those of preschool age?

In either case those that are sent to childcare of the mothers who don't work sending a hid to childcare for one or two times a day is beneficial to the child a it will allow them to work upon their social skills.

What I want to know is what is child care actually doing? I have heard people and even members of the government talk about it being part of the education system. What are they teaching the kids? Do they have formalised lessons? Or is it simply sometimes a case of maybe reading a book to them and getting some kids to describe what sound a cow makes. Pre school and child care is away for kids to learn and improve on things that aren't apart of a formal education such as hand-eye co-ordination, problem solving amongst others.

*snip*So it seems likely to me that she'll take over, with the result that the centres will completely dominate and reshape the existing market for and produce quality, public-school type outcomes for early childcare.

So do you think it will be for the better?

When talking about childcare are we just talking about those before preschool age? Or including those of preschool age?

In QLD I'm pretty sure most kids do preschool, so childcare agre is 4 and under.

In either case those that are sent to childcare of the mothers who don't work sending a hid to childcare for one or two times a day is beneficial to the child a it will allow them to work upon their social skills.

I personally don't believe that. I think fostering children to interact with other kids in other ways would be more beneficial. I also think that a child needs to have time to bond with his or her family.

What I want to know is what is child care actually doing? I have heard people and even members of the government talk about it being part of the education system. What are they teaching the kids? Do they have formalised lessons? Or is it simply sometimes a case of maybe reading a book to them and getting some kids to describe what sound a cow makes. Pre school and child care is away for kids to learn and improve on things that aren't apart of a formal education such as hand-eye co-ordination, problem solving amongst others.

From what I know, and things may have changed, is that childcare is not educational. It's almost just like babysitting. Preschool, on the other hand, is educational. You learn your ABCs, basic maths, art, music etc.

So do you think it will be for the better?
Either that or I was being sarcastic. Take your pick. :wink:

Seriously though, ABC provided a good service, but died of crappy management. That's not a referendum on the value of public- vs private provision of early childcare. I think there is scope to improve access by poor people to these services, but it would be dangerous to now appropriate ABC to do it. As I said, it will be difficult to find large private buyers who can get the finance, but it would be destabilising and bad for consumers in the long run if the government simply took over most of the centres and charged prices that have nothing to do with costs or competitive pressures. Better to just try and find small buyers who will only run one or two centres each and use ABC's collapse to improve competitiveness in the market. That should lower prices already.

In QLD I'm pretty sure most kids do preschool, so childcare agre is 4 and under.

Yeah well that's what I would consider it to be I was wondering what people refer to when they talk about it.

I personally don't believe that. I think fostering children to interact with other kids in other ways would be more beneficial. I also think that a child needs to have time to bond with his or her family.

Oh definitely the family is important too and there are also other ways in which the parents can get children to interact, which is why I was saying that one or two days might be only what they need.

From what I know, and things may have changed, is that childcare is not educational. It's almost just like babysitting. Preschool, on the other hand, is educational. You learn your ABCs, basic maths, art, music etc.

Yes indeed, I do remember hearing something from Gillard talking about getting children in childcare to begin formal education.

You may have noticed I've changed the thread title. It seemed easier than splitting the thread each time a new topic came up.

Please note there is no derogatory intention in the name. Australians have a long, proud tradition of whingeing about the government. I'd be dead worried if we stopped.

Go ahead, citizens, do your democratic duty!

Either that or I was being sarcastic. Take your pick. :wink:

Lol, okay, so you were being sarcastic.

Seriously though, ABC provided a good service, but died of crappy management. That's not a referendum on the value of public- vs private provision of early childcare. I think there is scope to improve access by poor people to these services, but it would be dangerous to now appropriate ABC to do it. As I said, it will be difficult to find large private buyers who can get the finance, but it would be destabilising and bad for consumers in the long run if the government simply took over most of the centres and charged prices that have nothing to do with costs or competitive pressures. Better to just try and find small buyers who will only run one or two centres each and use ABC's collapse to improve competitiveness in the market. That should lower prices already.

This is the best idea I've heard so far.

Oh definitely the family is important too and there are also other ways in which the parents can get children to interact, which is why I was saying that one or two days might be only what they need.

I guess if there's a long waiting list or something, the kids whose parents work full time and who are unable to be looked after by relatives or friends should get first preference. I don't know if that already happens or not.

I guess if there's a long waiting list or something, the kids whose parents work full time and who are unable to be looked after by relatives or friends should get first preference. I don't know if that already happens or not.

I doubt it does but that sounds like a good idea.

You know I always felt sorry for the kids that had to go to after school care every day. Don't know if they enjoyed it or not but the times I had to go, I hated it, I did prefer to go home or over to a friends place. I know that is just me but yeah. Though childcare for young kids would be different, though I hear that 6 month old babies are being sent to childcare, now surely there is something wrong with that.

You may have noticed I've changed the thread title. It seemed easier than splitting the thread each time a new topic came up.

Please note there is no derogatory intention in the name. Australians have a long, proud tradition of whingeing about the government. I'd be dead worried if we stopped.

Go ahead, citizens, do your democratic duty!

Yay, Mod approval.

But you have opened the flood gates now Ard, there is no telling where this thread will end.

As I said earlier if the government ever decides to pass a Bill of Rights the first right mentioned should be: Every Australian has the right to whinge and complain about the government both at a federal and state level.

Lapse: Have you got a reply from Senator Joyce yet?

Just wondering as I am yet to get one back on from Xenophon though they have been sitting in the 'cowards house' at the moment that would take up some time.

Or did they finish? I haven't had much chance to look on ABC this week and watch Parliament Question time. Though it has gotten boring recently Gillard just doesn't have the same X-factor as Costellp, not to mention the Dorothy Dixers aren't what they used to be.

I haven't actually sent it off yet, I keep on putting it off till 'this afternoon' and then 'tomorrow'

but we finally have a dedicated whinging thread :P

I haven't actually sent it off yet, I keep on putting it off till 'this afternoon' and then 'tomorrow'

Like any good Australian should :p

but we finally have a dedicated whinging thread :P

I know and with the government already doing so many poor and wrong things in which to whinge about, and the fact that they aren't even a year of office shows that there are some good times ahead. They won't be good for Australians and Australian society but they will be good for this thread.

perhaps we should just send them all a link to this thread? I can imagine Krudd on here in his spare time going through the forums, starting a flame war with us, getting banned for spamming...

LMAO, he could join us on Forum7. He wouldn't be banned as he wouldn't stoop to starting a flamewar. Gillard and some other members of his cabinet most definitely but Rudd isn't that sort of bloke.

And I better not continue spamming and stick to the topics at hand before this gets locked.

What is "whinge"?

...

I hope you are joking...

bloody seppos, don't even know how to have a good old whinge!

...

I hope you are joking...

bloody seppos, don't even know how to have a good old whinge!

Do you mean "whine"?

It is similar.

whine sounds more like a kid begging their parents for something in a really high voice.

whine sounds more like a kid begging their parents for something in a really high voice.

That is whats the Aussies are doing. They are begging mom and dad US and UK to come fix em.

That is whats the Aussies are doing. They are begging mom and dad US and UK to come fix em.

fix what ? i have not heard that we up shit creek without a paddle and needing help

Either that or I was being sarcastic. Take your pick. :wink:
Even I thought you were being serious, and I know you usually wear your feelings on your sleeve when it comes to general economics.

Seriously though, ABC provided a good service, but died of crappy management.
And was damaged by lots of internal bungles, don't forget those.

That's not a referendum on the value of public- vs private provision of early childcare. I think there is scope to improve access by poor people to these services, but it would be dangerous to now appropriate ABC to do it.
Why? So long as a fair price were given to purchase the facilities, and they were run with clear goals, then you couldn't say that it would make things worse. Incorporate what you need when it becomes available. Hell, it's what most private institutions do when they want to break into a market.

The collapse of it's finances show that it's peak price was pretty overvalued.

As I said, it will be difficult to find large private buyers who can get the finance, but it would be destabilising and bad for consumers in the long run if the government simply took over most of the centres and charged prices that have nothing to do with costs or competitive pressures.
How could it be any more destabilising than what ABC Learning's current problems have been? The only need for the government would be effective oversight, both over it's own decisions and over the internal operations in each centre.

You could also argue that it acts as an economic multiplier - People can work more or work more flexible shifts if they know they can secure an area for their child, and thus cost could be ignored a little.

In running these facilities there are already many people available for experience (both nationally and internationally), the government (even state ones) could function effectively as a single purchaser, so the price for children could be delivered at cost, not at cost + profit. Best of all it would allow for some zoned organisation with local governments, so housing & transport plans would allow for setting up these kinds of systems.

In this kind of industry you don't want to set up in competetition with other groups, you want to buy them out or set up in an untapped area, then slightly exploit the situation. A 'competitive pressure' wouldn't be sustainable except in a few areas (mainly high transit areas), with large groups (already holding onto other areas that other groups won't enter) supporting them.

Better to just try and find small buyers who will only run one or two centres each and use ABC's collapse to improve competitiveness in the market. That should lower prices already.
Why would it lower the price? You'd be selling these facilities which have been placed to minimise contact with other ABC Learning centres, and other childcare centres for that matter (yay, captive market), so it's not as if you could argue a mythical price lowering. Add that to increased general costs from each centre purchasing individual lots (less easy credit, increased cost of purchasing individualised consumables when compared to one big group forcing better deals), the increased cost of hiring qualified workers (both cost increases potential training costs), and you'd end up with an increased base cost, before the needs of paying debtors or gaining profit comes in.

You'd be more likely to get groups with already secure funds purchasing these things (so they could preserve them in the increasingly likely case that recession hits Australia), not people that could only buy one or two at a time (unless they get held off for a year or so).

fix what ? i have not heard that we up shit creek without a paddle and needing help

We will fix your country and we will station troops there until democracy takes hold.

That is whats the Aussies are doing. They are begging mom and dad US and UK to come fix em.

Say what?

We will fix your country and we will station troops there until democracy takes hold.
Can we start rebelling by sending our high speed winds from the north?

Say what?
Yeah, I don't know where that came from, anyway, U.K and U.S.A have been asking everyone else for aid (or not to be nasty to them in whilst they're in their economic woes)...

Yeah, I don't know where that came from, anyway, U.K and U.S.A have been asking everyone else for aid (or not to be nasty to them in whilst they're in their economic woes)...

That's it regime change in Australia

That's it regime change in Australia
Can I be the hardline 'anti-populist' ruler?

Can I be the hardline 'anti-populist' ruler?

as long as your pro American and export what ever you export to the US cheaply. your damn skippy.

My biggest problem about the government is that greens and Labour are not called a coaltion. I have never seen the greens support the liberals/nationals when labour votes the other way at either a council, state or federal level.

During the howard years the federal greens only ever made 4 ammendments to legislation and so far during the Rudd era what have the greens voted for against the Labour party?

My biggest problem about the government is that greens and Labour are not called a coaltion. I have never seen the greens support the liberals/nationals when labour votes the other way at either a council, state or federal level.

During the howard years the federal greens only ever made 4 ammendments to legislation and so far during the Rudd era what have the greens voted for against the Labour party?

Well, the greens are going to slap down the internet filter (thank god for that... I mean, we may have to put up with it for a little while until the legislation gets stopped, like the stupid alcopops tax). They have also been highly vocal about Australia's look-away attitude to human rights abuses in China. But those are small, I agree. The problem is, that although the Greens and Labor disagree on many issues, it's mostly because Labor don't go far enough. The Greens have tried to get abortion and euthanasia reform through, but Labor disagreed with them on that, and other issues. It's just that for most of the government's policies, the Greens say "Yeah, great, it's better than what it was before, but it's still not good". That's why they aren't a coalition.

Ok, for the foreigners out there, let me just say something: not everyone is unhappy with the Rudd government. Admittedly, I think a lot of that is because the alternative is worse, but there you have it. His approval ratings are astronomical.

Now, what I want to whinge about:

1) The baby-bonus. Stupid. If we want to increase population growth, open up immigration. Don't give stupid teenagers any more reason to have poorly thought out kids. Children are a big responsibility, not an easy money-making venture.

2) The internet filter. Everyone's already said everything about this, so I won't repeat it.

3) The RTD tax. Poorly thought out reactionist policy.

4) The opposition. Seriously, if the federal opposition actually offered some decent policy differences and stopped playing childish tit-for-tat, not only might they have a chance, but they might provoke the government to stay on their toes. A powerful opposition is a good thing.

5) That beiing said, Steve Fielding. The man is a tool. Someone who got less than 2% vote in a single state can decide what legislation gets passed and what doesn't. That power should belong to someone or something who truly represents a large percentage of the population. Like the Greens, who got 10% the primary House of Reps vote at the last election, or even the opposition, who obviously got a lot more.

6) State government. My god, the Brumby government has dug itself a big hole this time. Their lack of action particularly on public transport, including their failure to take back the operating contract off Connex, has been inexcusable. Again, it's unfortunate that the opposition is no better. Public transport is a vital service, and as such should not be left to the private sector. I'm a big fan of the free market, but not for essential services. (Having complained here, I am very happy with their abortion reform, and am pleased to hear there is similar plans for euthanasia reform. Next up, gay marriage?)

I'm sure I'll think of more later.

That is whats the Aussies are doing. They are begging mom and dad US and UK to come fix em.

No.

My biggest problem about the government is that greens and Labour are not called a coaltion. I have never seen the greens support the liberals/nationals when labour votes the other way at either a council, state or federal level.

During the howard years the federal greens only ever made 4 ammendments to legislation and so far during the Rudd era what have the greens voted for against the Labour party?

I don't think that the Greens and Labor have similar ideals. I think the Greens have every right to be a separate party. It's already pretty much a two-party system, and I think it's better to have variety.

Ok, for the foreigners out there, let me just say something: not everyone is unhappy with the Rudd government. Admittedly, I think a lot of that is because the alternative is worse, but there you have it. His approval ratings are astronomical.

People are just happy because they see his shiny little face and school-boy smile on TV all the time.

Now, what I want to whinge about:

1) The baby-bonus. Stupid. If we want to increase population growth, open up immigration. Don't give stupid teenagers any more reason to have poorly thought out kids. Children are a big responsibility, not an easy money-making venture.


Did you see what I said earlier on about the solution to that? Instead of giving skany teenagers the money, say that if you get married and have a child the government will pay of your HECS debt.

2) The internet filter. Everyone's already said everything about this, so I won't repeat it.

Seriously. It's so stupid.

People are just happy because they see his shiny little face and school-boy smile on TV all the time.
Aye, you have a point there. He's very good at manipulating the media. He does with TV what Howard did with talkback radio.
That being said, without wanting to go all Doctor here, didn't he look tired at the G20 press conference. Looked so haggard...

Did you see what I said earlier on about the solution to that? Instead of giving skany teenagers the money, say that if you get married and have a child the government will pay of your HECS debt.
Not a bad idea, except then you'll just have shitloads of single divorced parents. Heaps of cash strapped arts students will just get hitched, have a kid, then when their debt is cancelled, get the divorce and be stuck with the kid. It's just impossible to find a way to prove that it's a loving family environment.


Seriously. It's so stupid. Aye. Do these people not even read their own reports?

It's weird, Conroy is a real tech nerd and gets really, really excited about fast internet. Why is he doing this? Are Fielding and Xenophon's interests that important?

Or, another idea: is this just a ploy? Do they know that the Greens'll block it, but want to appease the young, naive conservative Senators with a "well, at least we tried, honestly we care about you, by the way pass this other piece of legislation plox"? It'd make sense really...
EDIT: well, more sense than actually wanting to pass it. It's a gamble though. If the opposition decides to support it, then suddenly the Rudd government is stuck with this filter nobody wants, and it'll make them look REALLY bad next election...

Why? So long as a fair price were given to purchase the facilities, and they were run with clear goals, then you couldn't say that it would make things worse. Incorporate what you need when it becomes available. Hell, it's what most private institutions do when they want to break into a market.
Yeah, but the sheer size of ABC means that it wouldn't be breaking into a market, it would be breaking it full stop. ABC was by far the biggest provider of childcare. But it was still somewhat constrained by market forces. If the government suddenly took over a chunk of that size, it would completely change the way the industry works. The private operators wouldn't be able to compete price-wise, so they'd have to move up-market, including paying better wages and investing more into securing the best resources. First of all that then reduces the aggregate number of places available to people on a lower income, and reduces the quality of the places available. In the end they all queue up for government spots, but where ABC had competitors, the government doesn't. And when at some point it would come to an expansion of the government's network, it would no longer be an issue of "does it meet investment criteria", but one of "does it meet political criteria". And to be honest, when it comes to distributing money to things that are popular with voters, it's not the safe seats that come first either.

How could it be any more destabilising than what ABC Learning's current problems have been? The only need for the government would be effective oversight, both over it's own decisions and over the internal operations in each centre.
And assuming it can do that, it will drive all other private operators into a different industry.

You could also argue that it acts as an economic multiplier - People can work more or work more flexible shifts if they know they can secure an area for their child, and thus cost could be ignored a little.
The reason people can't find places for their kids isn't so much cost as it is the limited total number of places available. It's a pretty inelastic demand. The government couldn't fix that, but I'm arguing that with ABC's market power distributed and greater competition, every single operator would have less of an incentive to let capacity stagnate, because competitors would take their business instead. Obviously that wouldn't happen in such a way if a huge number of centres were run by the state and charged at cost.

In this kind of industry you don't want to set up in competetition with other groups, you want to buy them out or set up in an untapped area, then slightly exploit the situation. A 'competitive pressure' wouldn't be sustainable except in a few areas (mainly high transit areas), with large groups (already holding onto other areas that other groups won't enter) supporting them.
That's the question. There are a few locations that a centre could be at: close to the family home, close to work, close to school or somewhere in between. If centres were independent, or owned by smaller companies, I think it's quite possible for firms to compete with each other by setting up somewhere along that line. But to the extent that the problem is limited places, even two centres side by side operated by different owners would be a feasible scenario.

You'd be more likely to get groups with already secure funds purchasing these things (so they could preserve them in the increasingly likely case that recession hits Australia), not people that could only buy one or two at a time (unless they get held off for a year or so).
And that's the danger right now. I'm arguing that the government should hold out for an ideal scenario, rather than simply take over and make childcare a state industry with a few high-class, up-market private centres to allow suburban moms another way to put one up on their neighbours.

His approval ratings are astronomical.

Well, when you go around on TV looking like you are doing something the people are happy. It doesn't matter what you do or not as long as you win the week in the media. Rudd isn't stupid he knows he can get people by just looking like he is doing something and running around and handing out $1000 cheques, and he knows the people will lap it up.

1) The baby-bonus. Stupid. If we want to increase population growth, open up immigration. Don't give stupid teenagers any more reason to have poorly thought out kids. Children are a big responsibility, not an easy money-making venture.

What was even more stupid was that they said only those on high incomes will not get it as they waste the money. Well that may sound fine on paper but when it is the lower classes and the poorer teenagers who are getting pregnant so they have money that isn't going to solve the problem.

What was really stupid act by the government in the last election was to cancel the Solar panel rebate for the so called rich, as they can afford it. Well exactly Mr Rudd they can afford to buy it the poorer people can't even with the rebate, so now what he has done is take away all incentive for those that can afford it and now they won't, and those that can't afford it won't going to get it anyway. Didn't think that through though I suspect it is part of the old labor class warfare mentality.

2) The internet filter. Everyone's already said everything about this, so I won't repeat it.

Which actually fits in nicely with the orginal thread topic and the continual freedoms that this government seeks to take from us.

3) The RTD tax. Poorly thought out reactionist policy.

Tabloid politics at it's finest. It gives him some bonus points as it looks like he is doing something when he knows full well it won't, it panders to the media crusade which the people start believing. And while he promised not to raise income taxes he being a labor politician wants to raise taxes despersatly he manges to get more tax revenue in.

It's weird, Conroy is a real tech nerd and gets really, really excited about fast internet. Why is he doing this? Are Fielding and Xenophon's interests that important?

Or, another idea: is this just a ploy? Do they know that the Greens'll block it, but want to appease the young, naive conservative Senators with a "well, at least we tried, honestly we care about you, by the way pass this other piece of legislation plox"? It'd make sense really...
EDIT: well, more sense than actually wanting to pass it. It's a gamble though. If the opposition decides to support it, then suddenly the Rudd government is stuck with this filter nobody wants, and it'll make them look REALLY bad next election...

I've been saying this for awhile now, though they must think it might get through as they have decided to list 1000 sites that they wish to block including ones on euthanasia and anorexia.

Fielding has already paid them some dues now, however, he approved the RTD taxes, which the government has been collecting for awhile without the approval of the Senate (is that even legal?) and he approved some other budget measures.

I doubt if the government was stuck with it that they would look bad they would just start dishing up crap about wanting to stop child porn and cracking down ways in which people will get it. The people will believe this and approve of it (not knowing what the real deal is) and will vote for them the next election. As I say Rudd isn't stupid he knows the people are stupid and how to play to tabloid politics.

I find it interesting that Rudd before the election wants us to get our internet speed up and running in line with another countries and now he is going to slow us down again.

Well, the greens are going to slap down the internet filter (thank god for that... I mean, we may have to put up with it for a little while until the legislation gets stopped, like the stupid alcopops tax). They have also been highly vocal about Australia's look-away attitude to human rights abuses in China. But those are small, I agree. The problem is, that although the Greens and Labor disagree on many issues, it's mostly because Labor don't go far enough. The Greens have tried to get abortion and euthanasia reform through, but Labor disagreed with them on that, and other issues. It's just that for most of the government's policies, the Greens say "Yeah, great, it's better than what it was before, but it's still not good". That's why they aren't a coalition.

So they disagree on the occasional thing. So do the liberals and nationals. The nationals want more and more money going into the outback. The liberals are far more likely to say "stand on your own feet" The bottom line is both coalitions vote together on the vast majority of legislation. That makes them a coalition even if they dont want to admit it.

I have never heard of a case where liberals and greens voted together against labour.

Well, when you go around on TV looking like you are doing something the people are happy. It doesn't matter what you do or not as long as you win the week in the media. Rudd isn't stupid he knows he can get people by just looking like he is doing something and running around and handing out $1000 cheques, and he knows the people will lap it up.
Yeah. Then again, people will always be happy when you give them money. Can you blame them? I'd be happy if I was given $1000

What was even more stupid was that they said only those on high incomes will not get it as they waste the money. Well that may sound fine on paper but when it is the lower classes and the poorer teenagers who are getting pregnant so they have money that isn't going to solve the problem.
I think it's stupid for ANYONE to get a handout for pushing out a little'un. It's not like people have been doing that for millenia or anything...

What was really stupid act by the government in the last election was to cancel the Solar panel rebate for the so called rich, as they can afford it. Well exactly Mr Rudd they can afford to buy it the poorer people can't even with the rebate, so now what he has done is take away all incentive for those that can afford it and now they won't, and those that can't afford it won't going to get it anyway. Didn't think that through though I suspect it is part of the old labor class warfare mentality.

I doubt it has anything to do with hyped up conspiracy theories about class warfare. What it's more likely to be about is trying to fund something important for everyone, and saving money by letting those who are wealthy enough pay for it themselves. We were eligible for the rebate, and got the solar panels, but we wouldn't have been able to afford it without government help. Unfortunately, in a market as small and solar panels, they need all the help they can get, including from the wealthy who, if they are too stingy to buy it themselves, should get the rebate the same as everyone else. The need is too great to worry about fairness.

Tabloid politics at it's finest. It gives him some bonus points as it looks like he is doing something when he knows full well it won't, it panders to the media crusade which the people start believing. And while he promised not to raise income taxes he being a labor politician wants to raise taxes despersatly he manges to get more tax revenue in.

Taxation is an important part of society. So called "sin taxes" are a decent way to do it. The RTD tax was not good. It failed to achieve it's aim of discouraging binge drinking, and actually made drinking more dangerous. I would have supported an overall tax increase on alcohol, same as cigarettes and overly fatty foods.

EDIT: I just saw on SBS that the BP solar panel plant is going overseas. Seems I was right about green techs needing more support...

So they disagree on the occasional thing. So do the liberals and nationals. The nationals want more and more money going into the outback. The liberals are far more likely to say "stand on your own feet" The bottom line is both coalitions vote together on the vast majority of legislation. That makes them a coalition even if they dont want to admit it.

I have never heard of a case where liberals and greens voted together against labour.

With any luck, the clean feed will be one such case...

Yeah. Then again, people will always be happy when you give them money. Can you blame them? I'd be happy if I was given $1000

Yeah that's right, well I would rather people assess the performance of a PM on what good he does to Australia and not because he gave people money.

I think it's stupid for ANYONE to get a handout for pushing out a little'un. It's not like people have been doing that for millenia or anything...

I'm not saying it is good or anything, all I am saying was the changes he made to it was misguided.

I doubt it has anything to do with hyped up conspiracy theories about class warfare. What it's more likely to be about is trying to fund something important for everyone, and saving money by letting those who are wealthy enough pay for it themselves. We were eligible for the rebate, and got the solar panels, but we wouldn't have been able to afford it without government help. Unfortunately, in a market as small and solar panels, they need all the help they can get, including from the wealthy who, if they are too stingy to buy it themselves, should get the rebate the same as everyone else. The need is too great to worry about fairness.

Well the ALP was founded on the working class and not only securing rights for them but also to get back at those 'toffs' and the fact of the matter is a lot of the ALP rank and file and many of the MP's have still got the mentality that has existed within the ALP for quite awhile. Which was one of the reasons why they stopped unis from offering full fee paying spots to Australian students (foreign students are more than welcome), even Latham had his hit list against private schools.

Anyway, to the solar panels, removing the incentive for those who may have the means to purchase solar panels was hardly good policy when those who do not have the means even with the rebate are not going to get it. And yes it seems you were right in them needing some support, maybe if the Rudd government had kept the incentive for those who could afford it, it might be faring better.

Taxation is an important part of society. So called "sin taxes" are a decent way to do it. The RTD tax was not good. It failed to achieve it's aim of discouraging binge drinking, and actually made drinking more dangerous. I would have supported an overall tax increase on alcohol, same as cigarettes and overly fatty foods.

I am not saying it is not, but this tax was pad policy, it wasn't going to achieve the aims that the government claimed it was going to achieve, and was a knee jerk reaction to a tabloid issue that was aimed at getting people to think that Rudd was doing something about it and another way for the ALP to increase its tax revenue. Something they knew it would looking at budget forecasts.

Also have you changed your avatar? Weren't you the Panda?

With any luck, the clean feed will be one such case...

We can only hope, at least the Greens haven't totally lost it.

We can only hope, at least the Greens haven't totally lost it.

Latest word on the street is that the coalition and the greens will be smacking this thing down. Thank Christ for that.

And yeah, I used to be the panda. I decided it was time to cease my grieving for the departure of our dearly beloved Hammurab, thus, the change.

It's strange, we seem to be agreeing on a lot of these issues. Good though. Shows I'm not crazy.

Speaking of crazy, I was thinking about what's been going on in Rudd's first year, and it seems like his fulfillment of election promises was gold. He's done everything he said he would (except for the computers in schools and solar panel rebate, but they weren't the key things I was interested in). He's done the apology but kept up on the intervention. He ratified Kyoto and pulled our paltry contingent out of Iraq. He's fixed the WorkChoices to keep all the good stuff Howard's reforms brought in and got rid of the unfairness of it all. He hasn't totally given the unions back their power, as we've seen by the ads the actu has been running trying to get Rudd to put it all back the way it was. He's instituted the ETS.

It just seems that he had a lot of time to formulate policy as opposition and in the election, and got it through as soon as he could, which is awesome. But his by the seat of his pants policy has lacked thought, and had obvious problems. It seems like, as you say, he's been going for tabloid approval rather than sound policy. I mean, I give him a bit of leeway with something like the guarantees on the bank deposits: even though it wasn't perfectly coherent at first, he fixed it when enough people yelled at him telling him what was wrong. But the IDEA was right. Maybe it's just because he's new, maybe it's because he's inexperienced, but his recent efforts have not been as successful as his first moves. I'm still happier under Rudd than under Howard.

I just pray the coalition stays true to it's big business ideals and demolishes this internet filter. It bugs me more than anything else. True story actually, I spoke to my local member personally, and he went and made a personal submission to Conroy about it all. Apparently a lot of people have been getting in touch with him about it. It was nice to see that democracy works sometimes.

Rudd pulled out 500 troops from Afghanistan.(last June). There are still up to 1000 troops guarding the embassy. But he and Brown certainly took the pressure off Obama on Iraq. Kev 07's "Sorry" speech was of tremendous significance as was Chris Evans' moderating of Australia's draconian refugee laws that many Liberals didn't like.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is a big one for Kevin Rudd to achieve and I'm betting he'll ultimately have to work with Turnbull on it. Their positions are not as far apart as they pretend - a few months and the amount of carbon reduction are the obvious negotiating points. The Greens will keep trying to push for a 20% reduction but Senator Feilding and The Libs won't go for that. The important thing is to get the scheme established first and take the Australian people with it. Carbon Credits represents a golden opportunity to tackle unemployment - particularly in the bush and with aboriginal populations. Companies will pay for people to plant trees, come up with energy conserving ideas and inventions and build sustainable communities. That's one reason why business is generally accepting.

Back to Kev 07's problems....he does too much policy-making on the run. He needs to consult more with people and avoid the "crash through or crash" mistakes of the Whitlam era. Some of his debacles this year were the alcopops tax and Fuelwatch. Fortunately for him, they were small setbacks. He will need to learn this lesson the hard way, however.

6) State government. My god, the Brumby government has dug itself a big hole this time. Their lack of action particularly on public transport, including their failure to take back the operating contract off Connex, has been inexcusable. Again, it's unfortunate that the opposition is no better. Public transport is a vital service, and as such should not be left to the private sector. I'm a big fan of the free market, but not for essential services. (Having complained here, I am very happy with their abortion reform, and am pleased to hear there is similar plans for euthanasia reform. Next up, gay marriage?)

here i was thinking Alan Carpenter was a dick (more so on him saying no to V8s)

here i was thinking Alan Carpenter was a dick (more so on him saying no to V8s)

What did he do?

Not a bad idea, except then you'll just have shitloads of single divorced parents. Heaps of cash strapped arts students will just get hitched, have a kid, then when their debt is cancelled, get the divorce and be stuck with the kid. It's just impossible to find a way to prove that it's a loving family environment.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, it's just better than the baby bonus system we have now.

BTW. Are there any other Brisbanites?

BTW. Are there any other Brisbanites?

Didn't you just have a thread on this?

Didn't you just have a thread on this?

I was seeing if I could pick up any strays. :p
/end threadjack.

We can only hope, at least the Greens haven't totally lost it.

That implies that the greens once "had it"

That implies that the greens once "had it"

:D Well a lot of their policies are absurd and should never be put into place, but they do have a few good things worth mentioning that I agree with, though that may mean I have lost it.

I was seeing if I could pick up any strays. :p
/end threadjack.

Oh I see.

yeah I too agree with the odd thing by the greens. But I also agree with the odd thing the raving drunk yells out down by the bus station

Very funny SS!

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, eh?

I respect Bob Brown

I'm friends with Lindsay Tanner (ALP Minister of Finance and De-regulation) - I had him out to my school to talk politics with my Year 12 class.

I'm friends with Lindsay Tanner (ALP Minister of Finance and De-regulation) - I had him out to my school to talk politics with my Year 12 class.

And?

I once had a 20 minute political rant with my state member. The scary thing is that he agreed when I started talking smack about his party :S

And?

Nah! I was just indulging myself Blou. It was a big thing that Lindsay camre out to address my National Politics students just a few weeks before their exams - and Lindsay spoke about his role in intervening in the economy. He fielded lots of questions from my students who were pretty impressed to have a Federal Minister speak to them at the height of the Wall St crisis (This was on Oct 9th)
I normally despair at the Labor Party but I still really like Lindsay - we've been friends since the mid-70s:)

Nah! I was just indulging myself Blou. It was a big thing that Lindsay camre out to address my National Politics students just a few weeks before their exams - and Lindsay spoke about his role in intervening in the economy. He fielded lots of questions from my students who were pretty impressed to have a Federal Minister speak to them at the height of the Wall St crisis (This was on Oct 9th)
I normally despair at the Labor Party but I still really like Lindsay - we've been friends since the mid-70s:)

Where do you teach Collectivity? I just sat my National Politics exam aswell, being in year 12 and all. Some of us went to Canberra and chatted with a whole lot of pollies including him (God I love being in a school with connections...) there earlier in the year, but having him during the financial crisis bit would have been awesome. He was very impressive. And he agreed with me that in monopoly it's pronounced "Pall Mall", and not "Paul Maul". Good man.

So in the middle of a financial crisis the finance minister spends the afternoon talking to school children.

I assume it was in his electorate or a marginal electorate.

Why wasnt he reviewing different theories and trying to improve Australias situation. Who knows that afternoon may have been better spent with his staff if he could work out a way to keep one of thoes childrens parents employed.

There isnt an election for years in the federal system. he should of managed his time better

Nah! I was just indulging myself Blou. It was a big thing that Lindsay camre out to address my National Politics students just a few weeks before their exams - and Lindsay spoke about his role in intervening in the economy. He fielded lots of questions from my students who were pretty impressed to have a Federal Minister speak to them at the height of the Wall St crisis (This was on Oct 9th)
I normally despair at the Labor Party but I still really like Lindsay - we've been friends since the mid-70s:)

Fair enough.

What did he do?

one big thing is to bring in a three year testing on Day Light Savings,which he said would help with doing Businesses with the east duing summer and other things,

we voted No on it twice that we don't want it and he goes behind our backs and those that

one big thing is to bring in a three year testing on Day Light Savings,which he said would help with doing Businesses with the east duing summer and other things,

we voted No on it twice that we don't want it and he goes behind our backs and those that

Yeah I love it how governments just dictate daylight saving without the consent of the people.

The SA government has decided to extend it through till the first weekend of April. Of course what this means is that because SA is already half an hour ahead its true time, then those living on the West Coast of SA will be getting up and going to work and to school while it is still dark (and this will be about 8:30 in the morning). But because our government doesn't care about these people and seems to have in their heads that daylight saving is always good just do it.

I am not against daylight saving but they are starting it earlier and stopping it later because it seems they don't really have a good understanding of how it works and are just doing it for the sake of it.

Anyway Imperial isa I meant what did he do in regards to V8's?

Are you guys old enough to know the daylight savings joke.

"Why don't Queenslanders have daylight saving?"
"Because Jo Bjelke Petersen thinks the sun shines out of his arse and he's not going to get up an hour early for anyone."

Are you guys old enough to know the daylight savings joke.

"Why don't Queenslanders have daylight saving?"
"Because Jo Bjelke Petersen thinks the sun shines out of his arse and he's not going to get up an hour early for anyone."

lol, and I'm not old enough. But shouldn't it be stay up an hour later?

Anyway Imperial isa I meant what did he do in regards to V8's?

oh....he said no on them caming back here,any how the new lot in power is thinking of having it back as a street race

oh....he said no on them caming back here,any how the new lot in power is thinking of having it back as a street race

Oh the Supercars. Yeah fair enough I thought he done something stupid like baning P-platers from driving them.

Oh the Supercars. Yeah fair enough I thought he done something stupid like baning P-platers from driving them.

he want to do that too

Years ago an American non hispanic friend of mine lived 2 years in Australia, he loved it, ate Kangaroo meat. Came back to the states with an Australian accent.

he want to do that too

Yeah pretty stupid but typical knee-jerk reaction we tend to see from politicians nowadays who think that just because Today Tonight is talking about it means we have to do something about this problem and so they just pick anything that pops into their head without thinking about it first.

Sorry I just thought that is you replaced "today tonight" with "government" I could actually follow what you are saying

I stopped watching today tonight and a current afair years ago as they are horribly bias and full of awful reporting

Sorry I just thought that is you replaced "today tonight" with "government" I could actually follow what you are saying

I stopped watching today tonight and a current afair years ago as they are horribly bias and full of awful reporting

Today Tonight is a term I use to mean all tabloids. As the current governments like to play tabloid politics and just seem to follow what the masses who watch this shit want without any real thinking behind it, leads to poor ill thought out policy.

The only time I watch those shows is if I want to have a good laugh. (Which may be once or twice a year)

yeah but thats what the public wants. They want to see people act that they are doing something not act by doing something

yeah but thats what the public wants. They want to see people act that they are doing something not act by doing something

Yes that is correct the people are happy and support those that are seen to be doing something to fix the problem rather than actually doing something to fix the problem.

The people piss me off sometimes, but it is why I know Rudd is a smart man (he may have idiotic ideas and notions but he is smart) he knows the people are fooled by this and will win him the votes and in the end that is all he is after, while he quietly slips through his other policies.

Not trying to wrench the topic over to whingeing about the media, rather than whingeing about the government, but I'm curious. Where do those of you who say they find this or that source biased go to get their unbiased news? Do you watch television at all, read a number of newspapers, check specific magazines, rely on radio, surf the net, what?

Relevance of this to our government: I've just been fascinated by watching America in election mode. They don't just rely on asserting "X source is biased". They've got enormous resources for finding information. Their journalism schools and some TV channels have "factcheck" websites. They have commercial polling organisations gathering statistics (as well as each party and many media organisations) and others analysing these polls. Blogs and talk-back radio tend to balance each other out for rumours and sheer lunacy.

We've got media organisations that either won't or can't do this. The Opposition is still recovering and hasn't yet moved on from the automatic "oh no you can't" stage to the policy-making "we've got a better idea" stage. The universities seem too cash-strapped to fund anything that's not a money-spinner. The blogosphere is still finding its feet.

How do Australians, these days, keep the bastards honest?

Darn good Q Ard! Get up has an adopt a senator scheme. I got Sen Fielding and his press sec replied to me.
Writing to the newspaper is something
Influencing people in your area, workplace, academic institution is useful.
Think globally; act locally is a great maxim.
In this thread, we can think locally and act globally as well - Hi the the Non-Aussie readers out there! Come visit us and we'll show you how to round up kangaroos and spot drop bears!

Not trying to wrench the topic over to whingeing about the media, rather than whingeing about the government, but I'm curious. Where do those of you who say they find this or that source biased go to get their unbiased news? Do you watch television at all, read a number of newspapers, check specific magazines, rely on radio, surf the net, what?

Relevance of this to our government: I've just been fascinated by watching America in election mode. They don't just rely on asserting "X source is biased". They've got enormous resources for finding information. Their journalism schools and some TV channels have "factcheck" websites. They have commercial polling organisations gathering statistics (as well as each party and many media organisations) and others analysing these polls. Blogs and talk-back radio tend to balance each other out for rumours and sheer lunacy.

Yes I read all of them :p

No but seriously I do read many different newspapers, news magazines (e.g The Economist), watch various news programs from various channels and read academic journals.

Now pretty much all of these do have a bias in them, but what you have to do is look past the bias, you can't just accept the way the news presents a story is the true view on the story. Which is what a lot of people seem to do without thinking about it properly.

We've got media organisations that either won't or can't do this. The Opposition is still recovering and hasn't yet moved on from the automatic "oh no you can't" stage to the policy-making "we've got a better idea" stage. The universities seem too cash-strapped to fund anything that's not a money-spinner. The blogosphere is still finding its feet.

How do Australians, these days, keep the bastards honest?

Yes from the amount of information coming from the US elections in the various ways you described is what certainly lacks here in Australia and may may give people some more information on what is really happening on instead of relying on what some editor with an agenda wants people to think.

Well Australians might have allowed the party who wanted to keep them honest to remain if they didn't decide to shoot themselves in the foot. But it is hard to keep them honest and the media doesn't do much either, not that I want them to I would rather they just present the facts rather than having to put a spin on it in an attempt to influence people.

i like opinion pieces. They are actually named for what they are and debate an issue a bit more than the normal story that pushes an idea

I once had a 20 minute political rant with my state member. The scary thing is that he agreed when I started talking smack about his party :S

That's not too surprising, qall the groups have their own factions (or people aligned just as part of a broad opposition), some even agree with their fellow people, just think they're idiots. What was his/her/your complaint?

Collectivity: I sort of wish that I took a politics subject, the extra topic I took ended up being downgraded :p.

Miami Shores: Kangaroo just tastes like watery beef to me, nothing that special.

Blouman Empire: Half the problem is that whenever somebody is honest (even with context) then people dislike them, even if their problems/mistakes weren't as bad as other people's.

Archdoille: Media agencies rely on their ability to sensationalise things and bury important, non-selling information in reams of pointless data.

Blouman Empire: Half the problem is that whenever somebody is honest (even with context) then people dislike them, even if their problems/mistakes weren't as bad as other people's.

I have a feeling I know where you are going with this and I think I agree. Do you mind clarifying it though?

Someone who remains devoid of meaning can not be attacked on their policies. Thats all he means and I agree as i have said before. There is no party like the ALP for doing that

Get up has an adopt a senator scheme. I got Sen Fielding and his press sec replied to me.
I might have known you'd be a fellow Getter-Upper. I know they're accused of lefty bias, but I think it's more a bias to opposition-ism -- whoever's in, they're agin', bless their organically grown cotton socks.

I tend to get my immediate news from the ABC, then hunt round the net for what I'm interested in (including the newspapers that have sense enough to have a respectable online presence). Plus the Beeb, NPR and the English programs from Deutsche Welle and Radio Nederlands.

The reason I go on a bit about news sources is that I don't think democracy should be all one way. The government should let the punters know what's going on, but -- whoever's in power -- the nature of the beast is to spin things. So it's the punters' obligation to get the full picture.

That's why this made my toes curl:

Someone who remains devoid of meaning can not be attacked on their policies.

Parties should be attacked on their policies, however "devoid of meaning" you may consider the person delivering them. Otherwise you're left with attacking them on whether their deputy leader's had a new haircut (Gillard) or on their leader's wardrobe (Turnbull). And the parties do have policies, obnoxious though some may be.

So if the various media bury stuff, as Soleichunn said, it's our obligation to hunt it out.

(BTW, if your kangaroo tastes like watery beef, ur doin it rong. Betcha you've overcooked it. And it takes a marinade better than anything else except lamb.)

Thanks Ardy for your sagatious ruminations. Yes boys, we need to show the world that we can whiinge THOUGHTFULLY about our governmnet. BURP! Now pass me another cold tinnie!

*bitterly* Dodging the question again, Collectivity? You haven't said a word about my point on marinades!!!111!! Could that be because you ... can't?

I win! I win the thread! Yay me! *gloats at length*

*flames Collectivity, just for the hell of it*

...

...

...

Sorry, guys. It's been a hard night tonight in the trenches of NSG, and I'm easily influenced. :D

Here is an amusing little website

http://www.ruddshop.com/

I already ordered the "Our Leader" pic I will hang it above my desk and pay homage to him everynight. :p

Seriously though I think it is an amusing little website and something original.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/A-deficit-of-political-talent-LRQVQ?OpenDocument&src=sph
A deficit of political talent

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull gets 10 out of 10 for politics and 1 out of 10 for economics. But that’s okay with him because he’s sitting a political exam.

[...]

As we all knew at the time, Australia’s budget surpluses during the Howard government years were a function of the commodities boom.

That is now over, and tax receipts will fall because of the lag between the reduction in prices and costs such as tyres and explosives.

Despite the inevitability of all this, the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Treasurer Wayne Swan, have first refused to verbalise the inevitable are now talking about “letting” the budget go into deficit. They have thus allowed themselves to be manoeuvred into a position where they can be blamed for an act of God.

The Opposition front bench must be doing high fives in the corridors. Australia might be wallowing in the most puerile economic debate in the world at the moment (which is really saying something), but it is a beautiful thing for Malcolm Turnbull and his team.

The collapse in resource company profits in 2009 will definitely mean the budget will, and should, go into deficit.

Yet because Rudd and Swan have fumbled the politics of the financial crisis from the start, and because Turnbull and his team have maintained a kind of “talk to the hand” disciplined vacuousness, the Opposition has got itself into a position to benefit hugely when the deficit is eventually announced.

No other political opposition in the world has managed to achieve this. In every other country, fiscal stimulus and widening deficits are seen as a necessary response to the crisis and a sign of a government that is doing something, with the opposition having to tag along.

So congratulations, Malcolm, for being an economic idiot but a political genius.

In response to Leon's post. I am surprised that Swan was talking about how he wants and needs it to keep in surplus for so long. When really what he should have been doing is talking how it needs to go into deficit in order to try and keep the economy afloat, a few mentions of "working families" would also go along way to helping them.

No other political opposition in the world has managed to achieve this. In every other country, fiscal stimulus and widening deficits are seen as a necessary response to the crisis and a sign of a government that is doing something, with the opposition having to tag along.

So congratulations, Malcolm, for being an economic idiot but a political genius.

It makes a good one-off conceit for an article, but I think it could only play out that way if we had an Opposition in full go-for-the-throat mode, ready on every single day to hammer the idea home.

For that you'd need an Opposition that was united and knew where it was going. There are signs Turnbull will be able to get it to that point, but I don't think he's got there yet. They're still finding out about the capabilities of what they've got left.

You'd also need an individual member of the opposition with that blind bulldog obstinacy that Howard used to do so well. Just like the Energiser bunny, Howard couldn't be diverted from hammering his (break-union-power) drum. Are there any Libs with a bone-deep fixation on proving the writer's scenario to be the case?

I think, by the time either of these necessities surface, Labor will have had time to cement the perception that "It's global, but Our Kev's protecting us from the worst." He's always got the comeback, if any lone economic snipers show up, of instantly raising the "healing, we're a community, not just an economy, all Australians together in the face of global adversity" shield.

And if Turnbull gets too aggressive, there's also "the market's soooo sensitive, poor dears, shame on your for upsetting them, you meanie" thing.

Sounds like a lovely battle of the spin-doctors. Which, while I have a professional appreciation of such events, is not what I'd really like to see from a grown-up government in a grown-up nation.

From the point of view of a Labor apparatchik, I would have said that the federal Liberals generally and Turnbull, in particular, had out-politicked Labor in recent times. But opinion polls suggest otherwise.

Perhaps fear of a recession is driving punters into the arms of the government, much the same way security fears benefitted the previous government.

Perhaps fear of a recession is driving punters into the arms of the government, much the same way security fears benefitted the previous government.

Where are you, Ben Chifley, eh?

He died from your marinade!

I have a feeling I know where you are going with this and I think I agree. Do you mind clarifying it though?

Erm... That was basically it.

Someone who comes out and says "My choice/group has been/made a mistake, and we hope to fix it" tends to get a lot more ire than a "My oppenent is a mistake" style dodging-the-issue statements.

Even if Person 1's mistake is relatively minor compared to someone else's blunder there will be many voters who side with Person 2 simply because he/she never admitted being wrong, even if there is proof that they're wrong.


(BTW, if your kangaroo tastes like watery beef, ur doin it rong. Betcha you've overcooked it. And it takes a marinade better than anything else except lamb.)

I dislike the taste of lamb. :p

Well try your lamb with roast potatoes, roast carrot,pumpin and carrots PLUS both mint sauce AND gravy.
MMMMMM!

Erm... That was basically it.

Someone who comes out and says "My choice/group has been/made a mistake, and we hope to fix it" tends to get a lot more ire than a "My oppenent is a mistake" style dodging-the-issue statements.

Even if Person 1's mistake is relatively minor compared to someone else's blunder there will be many voters who side with Person 2 simply because he/she never admitted being wrong, even if there is proof that they're wrong.

Well yeah that's what I thought you were saying. And that is a problem reminds me of a quote from Yes Minister. I will have to paraphrase; The people are happy provided they don't know about the problems, the moment the problems are sown to them they hate you for it. Basically what they don't know won't hurt them.

Well try your lamb with roast potatoes, roast carrot,pumpin and carrots PLUS both mint sauce AND gravy.
MMMMMM!

Now I know what I'm going to be making for dinner. *goes to shops*

BAAAAAACK from internet isolation -- thank you, Optus -- with a whole bunch of new potential whinges (which doesn't mean the economic one needs to be abandoned, of course).

The IR legislation; the national water resources scheme; the national curriculum (and tying it to the private schools' funding); in short, the latest session of Parliament -- whaddya reckon? Meeting the election promises, too much compromise, too little? How do you score the parties?

BAAAAAACK from internet isolation -- thank you, Optus -- with a whole bunch of new potential whinges (which doesn't mean the economic one needs to be abandoned, of course).

The IR legislation; the national water resources scheme; the national curriculum (and tying it to the private schools' funding); in short, the latest session of Parliament -- whaddya reckon? Meeting the election promises, too much compromise, too little? How do you score the parties?

IR legislation, well it was a promise to get rid of it about time they are even if I don't agree with all the changes, though they are still keeping some of the ways from Workchoices so much for Workchoices being evil, though the unions are still against it.

National Curriculum, this had to be one of the funniest things I heard during the election campaign the amount of crap the AEU was telling it's members how they would be told what to taught by other people and how it was bad so they better not vote for Howard, when Rudd had always said that he was going to be looking at putting one in anyway. Quite interesting to see the AEU weren't telling their members that. And from memory aren't the state governments still opposed to it?

But Ard what do you mean by "tying it to private schools funding"?

Listening to the Senate debating a bill for private schools' funding, I heard someone trying to remove references to the national curriculum from the wording, and someone else (presumably the Opp) saying they voted for the money, but not for having the words "national curriculum" in the bill, as that would mean that the money went only to those schools teaching the NC.

The argument somehow concerned schools teaching the International Baccalaureate; the Senator speaking said such schools would have to have two curriculums. I think the amendment (to untie) was defeated.

This is the result of trying to listen to the radio while driving a kid around trying to find an address. Please ignore me until I Google it enough to make sense.

I don't know if they will do much to private schools' funding until they have some sort of way of categorising schools. They're in for a fight if they try to axe funding for private schools altogether - and Rudd will leave the Catholic schools pretty much intact. The elite private schools will lose a lot once they adopt a new formula but they'll still get some.
State schools REALLY suffered under Howard's funding and private schools thrived - including Exclusive Bretheren schools. The Exlusive Bretheren loved Howard. I'm not opposed to some funding of private schools but it should be needs based. If you live in Toorak and Vaucluse and you're sending your kid to St Crumpet's do you really need to be subsidised? It's not as if you're poor or anything?
I have to blushingly admit that my three kids went to Wesley (but the firstborn won a full scholarship there, so the other two followed him.)
I won't bag private schools - they provide a good education BUT it's the state schools that desperately NEED the funding and they have been doing it tough for almost a generation now.
Aussie schools should be the best in the world.
As for Gillards (and what was Julie Bishop's schools' league tables plan, that is utter crap and I'm disgusted that the Rudd governmnet stooped to pinching this particularly smelly policy from the Libs). Rich schools will perform well; elite state schools will do well, the rest will be mediocre or bad. Schools in remote areas and in industrial suburbs will tend to do the worst (with some exceptions).
It is true that good teachers (especially those teaming up) can produce som egreat results but if Gillard ignores class and background as a vital determinant of academic success, then she knows nothing.

BAAAAAACK from internet isolation -- thank you, Optus -- with a whole bunch of new potential whinges (which doesn't mean the economic one needs to be abandoned, of course).
Welcome to the Post-II Club (faulty line connection for me).

The IR legislation; the national water resources scheme; the national curriculum (and tying it to the private schools' funding); in short, the latest session of Parliament -- whaddya reckon? Meeting the election promises, too much compromise, too little? How do you score the parties?
I'd say the final package will have comprimises in the wrong places.


State schools REALLY suffered under Howard's funding and private schools thrived - including Exclusive Bretheren schools. The Exlusive Bretheren loved Howard.
I found it odd that they didn't like voting yet pumped a lot of money to get other to vote...

I have to blushingly admit that my three kids went to Wesley (but the firstborn won a full scholarship there, so the other two followed him.)
I won't bag private schools - they provide a good education BUT it's the state schools that desperately NEED the funding and they have been doing it tough for almost a generation now.
I went to a private school and my experience tells me that there is a problem in many schools with internal biases, giving funds to specific (marketable) education areas, though I'm glad year 12 allowed us to drop religion in favour of study sessions.

It is true that good teachers (especially those teaming up) can produce some great results but if Gillard ignores class and background as a vital determinant of academic success, then she knows nothing.
It's not just that, there needs to be better planning and funding of the access (transport) needs for children going to school, along with working ways to promote school, prevent truancy and make sure the students there actively participate (well, pay attention) in their education. The needs of smaller classes, better training for teachers and support staff also tie into this.

The heart of the problem is that the education system needs to be comprehensive, not the mish-mash it is now.

If you live in Toorak and Vaucluse and you're sending your kid to St Crumpet's do you really need to be subsidised? It's not as if you're poor or anything?

So they shouldn't have to pay as much taxes since they will be paying the entire lot for their child's education?

I have to blushingly admit that my three kids went to Wesley (but the firstborn won a full scholarship there, so the other two followed him.)[/QUOTE]

Why would you have to blushingly admit to it? Nothing wrong with public schools as a whole

As for Gillards (and what was Julie Bishop's schools' league tables plan, that is utter crap and I'm disgusted that the Rudd governmnet stooped to pinching this particularly smelly policy from the Libs). Rich schools will perform well; elite state schools will do well, the rest will be mediocre or bad. Schools in remote areas and in industrial suburbs will tend to do the worst (with some exceptions).
It is true that good teachers (especially those teaming up) can produce som egreat results but if Gillard ignores class and background as a vital determinant of academic success, then she knows nothing.

Well we don't need Gillard to ignore it to know that. I am sort of against schools being forced to be ranked and graded on their performance, though I am glad that most state governments (except for Tas) is against it.

So they shouldn't have to pay as much taxes since they will be paying the entire lot for their child's education?


The taxes you pay aren't for your kids' education, though. They're for all Australian kids, because we're a society that has agreed, however grudgingly, that an educated country is a better place to live than an uneducated country.

So even if my kids never see a cent of the "education" taxes I pay, I should still pay them to make sure that the society in which those kids grow up is more educated than the society in which I grew up.

And if I don't have kids, and never intend to, I should still be paying taxes so the society in which I'll become old will be educated enough to see the folly of mistreating me.

The extra money you pay for private education is money you choose to pay. The nation pays for the KMart basics. If you want brand name frills, you pay for 'em. It should be the Government's job to use the education taxes to raise all schools' education standards to the highest possible level.

Declaration-of-interest time: four of my kids went to the State selective high school in our area and the fifth is going to the Uni-linked senior campus of an ordinary State high school.

The taxes you pay aren't for your kids' education, though. They're for all Australian kids, because we're a society that has agreed, however grudgingly, that an educated country is a better place to live than an uneducated country.

So even if my kids never see a cent of the "education" taxes I pay, I should still pay them to make sure that the society in which those kids grow up is more educated than the society in which I grew up.

And if I don't have kids, and never intend to, I should still be paying taxes so the society in which I'll become old will be educated enough to see the folly of mistreating me.

Yes I know and it was a poor argument at best and not one I personally subscribe to, and dare I say trolling?

The extra money you pay for private education is money you choose to pay. The nation pays for the KMart basics. If you want brand name frills, you pay for 'em. It should be the Government's job to use the education taxes to raise all schools' education standards to the highest possible level.

Declaration-of-interest time: four of my kids went to the State selective high school in our area and the fifth is going to the Uni-linked senior campus of an ordinary State high school.

Yes indeed which would be why people do pay more when sending their child to a private school and why private schools should still receive money from the government, basically to pay for the "K-Mart" basics. Though I do find it interesting when some state schools have great facilities (Rowing boat house and team, a gym and an area that has a stage area for example) while other state schools and some private schools have less than this, even in areas with similar socio-economic areas.

Do the State schools that have the goodies, have them because they're specialist schools?

For example, our region's got a State School of Performing Arts, a sports high school, a languages school and an IT-oriented school.

They're all your standard State high schools, but they get consideration for the extras their specialisations need and are allowed to take in more out-of-area kids who are after the specialist teaching.

They've all been let fall behind in the no-maintenance era, but they were at least equal to the private schools when first set up.

Do the State schools that have the goodies, have them because they're specialist schools?

For example, our region's got a State School of Performing Arts, a sports high school, a languages school and an IT-oriented school.

They're all your standard State high schools, but they get consideration for the extras their specialisations need and are allowed to take in more out-of-area kids who are after the specialist teaching.

They've all been let fall behind in the no-maintenance era, but they were at least equal to the private schools when first set up.

No I was referring to ordinary state schools that are not specialist schools. I can name a few off the bat in Adelaide and none of them are specialist schools. Something like a school of Performing Arts I could understand having some more money to run productions and even build a special stage.

There are a few state schools in canberra situated next to a lake and they have a boat rowing shed. I went to a private school where they didnt even have rowing at all.

Ah, here's the tale I was after:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=681835

To my surprise, I got most of the essentials in, but the story makes a lot more sense told that way.

I'm just admiring the sneakiness of it: to make the Libs even think about voting against a bill giving money to private schools.

Gillard is quacking too poudly. The essential point is that Labor and the Liberals are pretty much Tweedledum and Tweedledumber on Education. Labor had told the private schools they would be pretty much left alone and the only thing that could be divise between the poarties was the national curriculum. (Remember that it was the Howard Government that proposed it.) Labor wiggled a bit and so the Libs had little to oppose.

"Humiliating backflip" is an inappropriate phrase.

I just hope that the nation's educators get the National Curriculum right (There could be some really exciting developments here).

YEAH! I've been hearing the line that "It's just as bad as France's Academie, it'll freeze teaching at this particular stage and we'll never develop" -- which is dumb, because, after all, there is already a curriculum in each State that hasn't had that effect, and it's about content, not method.

I'd just like to see some solid nods toward comparability. At the moment, for example, when my newspaper hires a journo from Queensland, the copy subs know that they're probably going to have less trouble with his formal grammar and spelling than they do with NSW-trained interns.

It doesn't mean that they're better journos or better writers. It doesn't mean they'll have a clue about research. It's just that, when all other aspects seem equal, that generalisation could tip the balance. And that's not fair.

Actually Ard, it is the content that people (well at least the AEU) has been complaining about and why should students in SA be learning the same things as NSW when they live in different states.

It is a bit strange but then when different states already teach different things despite teachers saying that their training means they know what needs to be taught and then they can't decide it for themselves. Though I was never taught grammar at school may have had something to do with going to a NSW primary school, I know they used to teach it back in my parents day but it doesn't seem to be as important as now.

I know I said a question in the governors thread but after re-reading the article it actually makes sense now.

Hokay. On the content thing, my impression is that the National Curriculum idea is very general -- for example, and this is a wholly imaginary example, something like "You will teach at least 10 units of Australian history in Year 9, including no less than two of your State history and at least one of local history" -- with the States, and even individual schools, deciding how they implement that.

But I'm arguing from ignorance here. Collectivity, what's your take on it?

__________________________________________

On the governments thing, BE and I have been in the thread about the US governor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14291013#post14291013) caught auctioning what was formerly Obama's Senate seat, and this is more or less what we've been debating:

Bah, we've had it since the Rum Corps. We're as corrupt as anyone! I will not see my country denigrated!

lol, ok ok we do have corruption, but I would still maintain that is not to the extent as the US, how often do we see Premiers* being charged with corruption? Or even our PM's?

*With the exception of Joh Bejike-Peterson of course and Brian Burke.

What I didn't say in the US thread, because it would have distracted them from the topic, was that our system of electing governments, with its neutral body overseeing the mechanics of it all, eliminates one of the big opportunities for corruption that exist in the American system.

Secondly, our Prime Ministers have less chance for individual, unscrutinised political chicanery than their Presidents. Unlike a US president, the PM is just the leader of his party and can be kicked out of that spot at any time. Same with Premiers. Bjelke and Burke got away with it for so long by monstering/hoodwinking/bribing the folk who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the reputation of the party as a whole.

So the opportunities for corruption are more available to the party apparatchiks than the actual politicians (Errinunderra, why aren't you rich?:D). But if some party official is shown to have been accepting bribes for audiences with his pet political stable, it doesn't redound as directly on the pollies themselves. So we don't have as many high-level scandals.

When we get down to the places where corruption is easier, though, Australians form a scrum at the door. Local government and developers, anyone?

It just doesn't look as bad because the news that the Woop-Woop Shire Council has been dismissed for corruption doesn't have the same national and international impact as would the news that Kevin Rudd had been caught with his fingers in the till.

On the governments thing, BE and I have been in the thread about the US governor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14291013#post14291013) caught auctioning what was formerly Obama's Senate seat, and this is more or less what we've been debating:


What I didn't say in the US thread, because it would have distracted them from the topic, was that our system of electing governments, with its neutral body overseeing the mechanics of it all, eliminates one of the big opportunities for corruption that exist in the American system.

Well yes indeed, the AEC does indeed ensure that

Secondly, our Prime Ministers have less chance for individual, unscrutinised political chicanery than their Presidents. Unlike a US president, the PM is just the leader of his party and can be kicked out of that spot at any time. Same with Premiers. Bjelke and Burke got away with it for so long by monstering/hoodwinking/bribing the folk who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the reputation of the party as a whole.

So the opportunities for corruption are more available to the party apparatchiks than the actual politicians (Errinunderra, why aren't you rich?:D). But if some party official is shown to have been accepting bribes for audiences with his pet political stable, it doesn't redound as directly on the pollies themselves. So we don't have as many high-level scandals.

Of course, hence why I was saying that Australia doesn't have near as much corruption as in the US. Though I have always wondered why you can buy time with politicians such as pay $30,000 to have dinner with a minister and that is not considered as some form of corruption.

When we get down to the places where corruption is easier, though, Australians form a scrum at the door. Local government and developers, anyone?

It just doesn't look as bad because the news that the Woop-Woop Shire Council has been dismissed for corruption doesn't have the same national and international impact as would the news that Kevin Rudd had been caught with his fingers in the till.

Yeah, local councils do indeed have corruption running through it, and while exists and still is just as bad as the PM doing it, it doesn't mean it is as wide spread as in the US.

<snip>Of course, hence why I was saying that Australia doesn't have near as much corruption as in the US. Though I have always wondered why you can buy time with politicians such as pay $30,000 to have dinner with a minister and that is not considered as some form of corruption.<snip>.

Not quite what I was getting at. My point is that we do have as much corruption as in the US. Just that the actual politicians are one step removed from it, so you don't see it in the headlines as much and it seems less of a problem.

Sitting MPs get into front-page headlines, low-level party apparatchiks get into court reports or three paragraphs inside the paper, but the corruption's still there.

If there's a difference, it's more in the often miserable amount of money involved than in the number of corrupt officials per head of population.

*sigh* If anyone wants to bribe me, we're not talking until I hear $1million. :D

Yeah Ok fair enough I suppose that does make sense.