Bit of surly class warfare from Andrew Leigh on Radio National

Referring to kids as Johnny and Susan is rude? When did this happen?

Political correctness gone mad I tells ya!

I-filed said :

It’s a verbatim quote. You haven’t listened to the interview, clearly.

You haven’t got a single verbatim quote in your post, of the two phases you’ve put in quotes neither appear in the interview. At best what you’ve done is reported what you heard when you listened to the interview.

dungfungus said :

I notice Leigh hasn’t commented or defended himself so what does that tell you?

That he’s got better things to do.

c_c said :

Well, given his own colleagues at ANU are quite openly glad to see him gone, he was never going to be very popular with the elite anyway.

Innuendo and out the other, Uniboy. Pathetic gossip mongering.

‘Johnny and Susan’ are not names that scream wealthy to me, speaking from a working class point of view.

Yep, I reckon this is a trolling post too. Take something out of context, then put words into Andrew Leigh’s mouth. Typical righty tactic. Steer away from context and facts.

It’s a verbatim quote. You haven’t listened to the interview, clearly. If you want to call a post trolling, arm yourself with something with substance to counter it with. What “context and facts” are you referring to that differ from the OP? Leigh was claiming high moral ground for “one-degree families” by scorning and deriding “two and more degree families”. In other words, he was creating a phony “us & them” as some kind of weird classist point-scoring. He could have praised “first degree” families to the skies without using the opportunity to slur sandstone university graduates, in exactly the same tone that Wayne Swan et al use to slur (surprisingly often working-class) families who pay for private schooling. Cheap, unbecoming and misfired class-war tactic.

Yep, I reckon this is a trolling post too. Take something out of context, then put words into Andrew Leigh’s mouth. Typical righty tactic. Steer away from context and facts.

Another comment from an Andrew Leigh apologist. Are trying to say he didn’t say what is quoted?
I notice Leigh hasn’t commented or defended himself so what does that tell you?

I-filed said :

There is no other interpretation for the scathing and scornful tone of the “little johnny and susan” comment other than classism. What Leigh doesn’t appear to figure, is that those working-class folk who got degrees thanks to Gough Whitlam now have grown-up kids, who are now being awarded degrees. There is nothing privileged these days about multiple degrees in a family. Leigh should be saying, “good on them” – not ridiculing them.

What utter drivel – I just had a chance to listen to the piece (it’s only about 10 minutes long and worth a listen) and to take one comment (and not refer to the interview in the original post) then explode it out of context, applying some reaching interpretation to what was said (and apparently “how” it was said) is pathetic.

The whole interview was about social mobility, which Leigh appears to have spent a large part of his career studying (I’ll avoid comparisons to Nicola Murray in The Thick of It). As explained by another poster, regardless of the Whitlam reforms, there still exists a big chunk of the population for whom in their generations haven’t had one of their own achieve a degree, and it is a *huge* deal for them when one does, and it is an important indicator and reminder of social mobility.

And as for it being “classist” to make this observation – what in the hell do you think social mobility is all about?

pajs said :

Another trolling post. Either you aren’t bright enough to have understood the material, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it (see davo101’s post).

To spell it out, the point he was making wasn’t ‘classist’. It was that for families without histories of having members get into and through tertiary education, the breakthrough of having a child get a degree, or a higher degree, is a big deal. For families with established histories of tertiary education there is less of a ‘breakthrough’ kind of big deal to these achievements.

There is no other interpretation for the scathing and scornful tone of the “little johnny and susan” comment other than classism. What Leigh doesn’t appear to figure, is that those working-class folk who got degrees thanks to Gough Whitlam now have grown-up kids, who are now being awarded degrees. There is nothing privileged these days about multiple degrees in a family. Leigh should be saying, “good on them” – not ridiculing them.

pajs said :

Another trolling post. Either you aren’t bright enough to have understood the material, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it (see davo101’s post).

To spell it out, the point he was making wasn’t ‘classist’. It was that for families without histories of having members get into and through tertiary education, the breakthrough of having a child get a degree, or a higher degree, is a big deal. For families with established histories of tertiary education there is less of a ‘breakthrough’ kind of big deal to these achievements.

Oh I see, a bit like our prime minister being able to get a tertiary education in Adelaide but her parents not having that opportunity in Wales? What a “breakthrough” that was then. Surely you must have heard her “rabbit” on about it every second week?

dungfungus said :

The “sandstone” universities usually require a higher UAI (or whatever it is called these days) so they don’t discriminate the “westies” as Leigh suggests.
I wonder what Leigh’s UAI was?
Sounds like the politics of intelligence envy to me.

Clearly you didn’t bother to listen to the interview before commenting.

Another trolling post. Either you aren’t bright enough to have understood the material, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it (see davo101’s post).

To spell it out, the point he was making wasn’t ‘classist’. It was that for families without histories of having members get into and through tertiary education, the breakthrough of having a child get a degree, or a higher degree, is a big deal. For families with established histories of tertiary education there is less of a ‘breakthrough’ kind of big deal to these achievements.

The “sandstone” universities usually require a higher UAI (or whatever it is called these days) so they don’t discriminate the “westies” as Leigh suggests.
I wonder what Leigh’s UAI was?
Sounds like the politics of intelligence envy to me.

Well, given his own colleagues at ANU are quite openly glad to see him gone, he was never going to be very popular with the elite anyway.

I would suggest before commenting that people listen to the full interview so that they can hear the comment in the post in context.

Methinks the Member thinks himself on the path for higher office. Which, in this day and age, means sympathising with the ‘average’ Australian (whatever the hell that term means)