Tony Abbott's Acts of Bastardry Part I

Watson said :

The solution is not to give up on the public school system and treat it as free childcare for the poor.

I’m not responsible for the public school system.

Those who *are* responsible for it prefer to focus instead on lawyering-up for a fight with the Commonwealth over homosexual marriages.

They also spent an inordinate amount of our taxes unsuccessfully trying to enforce their ideological beliefs on Calvary Hospital, the net result of which was a large reduction in fertility treatment options for Canberrans (and increased Rates bills).

Join the dots…

Robertson said :

I would like a Public Education system that enforced discipline and strove to push its students to high levels of achievement.

Just as long as they don’t ask for more money to improve the system, right? Better training for teachers, more staff to deal with the “problem kids” that the private system merrily casts out, more money for IT and other education tools and materials…

You mention in an earlier post that private school kids cost the government $5000pa less. I think that’s about the amount you’d pay for the cheapest Catholic school here. And I’m not quite sure if that figure applies to those schools. Private schools have a lot more money per student to work with. And it is the major determining factor in the debate about outcomes. The solution is not to give up on the public school system and treat it as free childcare for the poor.

Robertson said :

I’ve seen this in action: some friends believed this guff that you should never say “no” to children. I watched their children get older and, lacking any stated boundaries, their behaviour became wilder and wilder.

I have seen similar examples and I’m quite confident that that is the likely outcome for most children at least. So I consider this PC stuff towards kids as a pretty moronic idea.

rhino said :

By the way, I heard from someone who works in childcare now that they are not allowed to say “good boy” or “good girl” to children. They aren’t allowed to say “don’t do that” even! They have to say “instead of bashing Timmy on the head, why not try…”. How silly is that? It’s certainly political correctness gone mad. They had other similar examples but that’s all I can currently recall. In an environment like that, I can really see children becoming brats.

I’ve seen this in action: some friends believed this guff that you should never say “no” to children. I watched their children get older and, lacking any stated boundaries, their behaviour became wilder and wilder.

By the way, I heard from someone who works in childcare now that they are not allowed to say “good boy” or “good girl” to children. They aren’t allowed to say “don’t do that” even! They have to say “instead of bashing Timmy on the head, why not try…”. How silly is that? It’s certainly political correctness gone mad. They had other similar examples but that’s all I can currently recall. In an environment like that, I can really see children becoming brats.

I don’t think anybody has much of a response for Robertson because what he says is pretty bang on accurate.

miz said :

Robertson, when in doubt, I always go to Rawl’s theory of justice. Picture yourself in a society, any society. Now imagine that you have no idea whether you are rich or poor, male or female, young or old, or what your class or financial situation is. This is called the ‘veil of ignorance’.

NOW, given you have no idea about any of those aspects, what sort of education policies would you like? A very different sort from what you are spouting on this website, I’ll wager. If only our Commonwealth government politicians considered this, and acted accordingly.

I would like a Public Education system that enforced discipline and strove to push its students to high levels of achievement.

Now, I look at the reality and I discover a system that is completely dysfunctional and panders to the lowest common denominator at the expense of those who try hard.

I look further and I discover that many, many others have noticed the same as I have, and we have decided to protect our children from the public education system by sending them to schools that have actual standards of behaviour that are enforced so that education can actually proceed.

The failure of the public education system means I demand my taxes be spent on outsourced education providers, for two reasons:
1/ So my children can get a better chance at an education
and
2/ To save taxpayers’ money: the public system is highly inefficient and wasteful – every child funded through a non-government school saves about 30% of the cost of its education.

howeph said :

6. Broken promise of support for Gonski education funding reforms:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/governments-double-gonski-backflip-an-act-of-brazen-politicking-20131126-2y6zx.html

Well I guess thanks to Abbott and Pyne’s backflip, on their backflip, on their backflip we should remove this act of bastardry… for now.

But let’s see how they can deliberately screw up the implementation.

IrishPete said :

please provide the evidence. And I mean, research of academic standard.

If you can admit private roads and healthcare are scams, but you won’t admit the same for schooling, then I suggest you are not being objective.

To be fair, your standard here seems slightly inconsistent. You’re demanding peer reviewed academic research from others, but you are basically making the opposite claim and aren’t providing similar research to back up your claim. From past discussions on this topic, I have found academic articles with statistical detailed data to back them up and quite sound arguments to support the private schooling benefits but then someone claims that they are funded by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the research. I have not been able to find research that hasn’t in some way involved either governments who wish to support their own positions or private think tanks who generally support privatisation. Nobody else has much motivation to conduct this research.

miz said :

Robertson, when in doubt, I always go to Rawl’s theory of justice. Picture yourself in a society, any society. Now imagine that you have no idea whether you are rich or poor, male or female, young or old, or what your class or financial situation is. This is called the ‘veil of ignorance’.

NOW, given you have no idea about any of those aspects, what sort of education policies would you like? A very different sort from what you are spouting on this website, I’ll wager. If only our Commonwealth government politicians considered this, and acted accordingly.

If Robertson is like me, he’d want education policies which resulted in his children (and children generally) learning as much as possible, in a positive environment. That is the only way in which any sane parent would evaluate an education policy.

CraigT said :

Simnply not true.

Every time a government department enters into an outsourcing or service contract, that is an example of the government declinging to provide a service and passing taxpayer’s mnoney onto the private sector to provide that service.

If I’m in Epping, and I’m driving to Kirribili, I can decide whether to either,
a/ Use the public road, paid for with my taxes
b/ Use the private road, pay a toll, and claim that back on my tax.

In fact, in the case of roads, the private/toll model is a complete scam.

Same with private healthcare – it’s a scam that reduces provision of health services.

However, with schools, it is demonstrably true that private schools achieve more at lesser expense to the taxpayer. That being the case, and until the public education system is fixed, private schooling is both necessary and beneficial

Gonna have to call you on that statement “it is demonstrably true that private schools achieve more at lesser expense to the taxpayer.” – please provide the evidence. And I mean, research of academic standard.

It is very easy, and cheap, to achieve good results by choosing the kids with the best prospects (either by testing or by proxies such as parental income, or even just parental self-selection), and by not having in the first place, or expelling, the difficult kids, and those with special needs, to be picked up at greater expense by the public system.

You are right about outsourcing, which is why it needs to be done very carefully, much more carefully than it currently is. Government is not outsourcing education – that would mean handing public schools over to private organisations, which they are not doing. Perhaps the politicians don’t want their kids going to school with the indigenous kids and the poor kids, and the kids with special needs.

Even private prisons are a bit of a scam, because almost nowhere are they required to take and keep the most difficult prisoners – they get dumped back on the public system and then, magically, the private prisons appear cheaper!

If you can admit private roads and healthcare are scams, but you won’t admit the same for schooling, then I suggest you are not being objective.

IP

2604 said :

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

IP

Your examples are all “absurd” because – with the exception of healthcare – they are monopolies. The reason people can’t take their “financial contribution” and give it to another army or police force or road is because those alternatives don’t exist. The ADF, police and highways are all examples of natural monopolies, where it makes sense for the government either to provide the service itself as a monopoly, or outsource it to a single provider.

In the case of healthcare, people can either get treated at a public hospital (notionally at no cost) or take their business to their choice of GP or private hospital, where the taxpayer subsidises their treatment through health insurance rebates or Medicare.

There are plenty of other situations where people have a choice about where and how government subsidies are spent. They can choose which child care centre to “spend” their childcare rebate at. They can choose which GP to attend to “spend” their Medicare rebate at. They get a “schoolkids bonus” from the government which they can spend wherever and however they like. They can choose which university they want to attend to undertake their taxpayer-subsidised study at. Why should school education not involve the same degree of choice about where government subsidies are spent?

They are only monopolies because the government allows them to be. At the stroke of a pen, they can be opened to competition.

Please don’t put child care into the same category as health care, education, policing and defence. It’s nice to have, but it’s not an essential government service. Child care subsidies, and schoolkids bonuses are electoral bribes, not essential government services.

This debate is about public vs private education – don’t get me started on health care, with the highest tax-paying professions all being varieties of doctor. (I have to give them credit for at least paying taxes).

IP

Robertson, when in doubt, I always go to Rawl’s theory of justice. Picture yourself in a society, any society. Now imagine that you have no idea whether you are rich or poor, male or female, young or old, or what your class or financial situation is. This is called the ‘veil of ignorance’.

NOW, given you have no idea about any of those aspects, what sort of education policies would you like? A very different sort from what you are spouting on this website, I’ll wager. If only our Commonwealth government politicians considered this, and acted accordingly.

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

Simnply not true.

Every time a government department enters into an outsourcing or service contract, that is an example of the government declinging to provide a service and passing taxpayer’s mnoney onto the private sector to provide that service.

If I’m in Epping, and I’m driving to Kirribili, I can decide whether to either,
a/ Use the public road, paid for with my taxes
b/ Use the private road, pay a toll, and claim that back on my tax.

In fact, in the case of roads, the private/toll model is a complete scam.

Same with private healthcare – it’s a scam that reduces provision of health services.

However, with schools, it is demonstrably true that private schools achieve more at lesser expense to the taxpayer. That being the case, and until the public education system is fixed, private schooling is both necessary and beneficial

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

IP

Your examples are all “absurd” because – with the exception of healthcare – they are monopolies. The reason people can’t take their “financial contribution” and give it to another army or police force or road is because those alternatives don’t exist. The ADF, police and highways are all examples of natural monopolies, where it makes sense for the government either to provide the service itself as a monopoly, or outsource it to a single provider.

In the case of healthcare, people can either get treated at a public hospital (notionally at no cost) or take their business to their choice of GP or private hospital, where the taxpayer subsidises their treatment through health insurance rebates or Medicare.

There are plenty of other situations where people have a choice about where and how government subsidies are spent. They can choose which child care centre to “spend” their childcare rebate at. They can choose which GP to attend to “spend” their Medicare rebate at. They get a “schoolkids bonus” from the government which they can spend wherever and however they like. They can choose which university they want to attend to undertake their taxpayer-subsidised study at. Why should school education not involve the same degree of choice about where government subsidies are spent?

IrishPete said :

rhino said :

I don’t think pretending that anybody is arguing for anarchy is productive. Each type of service is different. Education and defence are clearly very different in how they operate and are funded and in practical considerations. Perhaps stick to the education part? The obvious reason is that if we had 100 children born, our defence requirements would be not altered at all. Whereas 100 extra students can be directly linked to a certain number of extra teachers and buildings required. Each individual student requires individual services. There is much less of a blanket effect that can be said for roads and defence and your other examples that are clearly different.

That’s very simplistic. Are you saying a populous country should have the same size of army as one with a small population? That the number of police should not be related to the size of the population? That the number and size of roads is unrelated to population?

Health is probably a better analogy, especially given that there is substantial government support for private hospitals. We don’t have private police or army, yet. And private roads are few and far between.

What it boils down to is equity, genuine equity. It is not equitable to say “some people can send their kids to private schools by paying thousands of dollars in fees, partly supported by taxpayer funds and partly by their charitable tax status, where those children will get better results, and the rest of you can go rot”. The idea that private schools are open to all kids (i.e poor kids) is a fiction put about by people who don’t know what being poor really means.

IP

I don’t think arguing about roads is really relevant. I certainly never said that population was not a factor to costs for those, if you read my comment and take not of the particular words used that describe how there is not “as much” of a blanket effect and how the costs are not “as directly attributable” etc, there is a clear difference in the scale of this effect and how the funding is organised per user. Back to schools.

Read my post on the last page about what affects outcomes for students. Dollars spent by government on the school is definitely not the one big factor. I’d argue that the geographic limitations of where you are permitted to enrol your students would have a larger effect in the ACT than the public vs private issue. I went to a private school and my parents were certainly not wealthy since only one of them worked, they had a mortgage and my dad had a shit kicker job. Very few in my entire year level had parents earning over 100k. Maybe a couple. The rest struggled to try and provide quality education to give their kids the best help they could, regardless of how useful that actually was. Many did poorly in my year level and didn’t go to university. Which I believe mostly comes down to the other factors that are unrelated to the school. So I don’t share your view that there is some upper tier of education where parents earning half a million a year send their kids to some place that hands out UAI/ATAR (or whatever they are called these days) scores of 99.9 to everybody who can afford to pay the price for it and then they rip off the poor tax payers as well.

The reality is that the public schools in the inner south with wealthy, highly educated parents living in a stress free environment fostering the importance of education will do exceedingly well and outperform the opposite people even if they were at grammar school. And those who do dig deep into their pockets to make the sacrifice to attempt to send their kids to an environment that might suit their children (some may be incorrect, but the intent is noble) then save all of the other tax payers a large amount of money. I really can’t see why this is a bad thing. You either pay the 5k in taxes for these people to send their kids to school or you pay 15k in taxes for them to go to another school. 5 is less than 15, so I don’t see why you would complain about them saving you that much money. Perhaps it would make sense if “private school” was code for “bribe the government for a higher UAI/ATAR” but that is certainly not the case.

rhino said :

I don’t think pretending that anybody is arguing for anarchy is productive. Each type of service is different. Education and defence are clearly very different in how they operate and are funded and in practical considerations. Perhaps stick to the education part? The obvious reason is that if we had 100 children born, our defence requirements would be not altered at all. Whereas 100 extra students can be directly linked to a certain number of extra teachers and buildings required. Each individual student requires individual services. There is much less of a blanket effect that can be said for roads and defence and your other examples that are clearly different.

That’s very simplistic. Are you saying a populous country should have the same size of army as one with a small population? That the number of police should not be related to the size of the population? That the number and size of roads is unrelated to population?

Health is probably a better analogy, especially given that there is substantial government support for private hospitals. We don’t have private police or army, yet. And private roads are few and far between.

What it boils down to is equity, genuine equity. It is not equitable to say “some people can send their kids to private schools by paying thousands of dollars in fees, partly supported by taxpayer funds and partly by their charitable tax status, where those children will get better results, and the rest of you can go rot”. The idea that private schools are open to all kids (i.e poor kids) is a fiction put about by people who don’t know what being poor really means.

IP

IrishPete said :

rhino said :

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

Private health cover? We seem to have the best balance around for that and we have an opt out option for that. Clearly building a road that everyone uses the same way and that everyone has the same requirements for and that duplication creates inefficiency for…is not the same as education where each student requires a portion of resources. You can’t just build one school and lump in all 20,000 students there. The more people use it, the more buildings and teachers etc are required.

Straw-clutching.

Not at all sure what “balance” you are talking about in health care (and I didn’t save private health cover, I said health care). Nor the opt out you refer to.

I’d like to opt out of policing and defence thank you. Can I have my taxes back? Or can they at least be diverted to the private company that I am going to contract to protect me?

IP

I don’t think pretending that anybody is arguing for anarchy is productive. Each type of service is different. Education and defence are clearly very different in how they operate and are funded and in practical considerations. Perhaps stick to the education part? The obvious reason is that if we had 100 children born, our defence requirements would be not altered at all. Whereas 100 extra students can be directly linked to a certain number of extra teachers and buildings required. Each individual student requires individual services. There is much less of a blanket effect that can be said for roads and defence and your other examples that are clearly different.

rhino said :

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

Private health cover? We seem to have the best balance around for that and we have an opt out option for that. Clearly building a road that everyone uses the same way and that everyone has the same requirements for and that duplication creates inefficiency for…is not the same as education where each student requires a portion of resources. You can’t just build one school and lump in all 20,000 students there. The more people use it, the more buildings and teachers etc are required.

Straw-clutching.

Not at all sure what “balance” you are talking about in health care (and I didn’t save private health cover, I said health care). Nor the opt out you refer to.

I’d like to opt out of policing and defence thank you. Can I have my taxes back? Or can they at least be diverted to the private company that I am going to contract to protect me?

IP

IrishPete said :

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

Private health cover? We seem to have the best balance around for that and we have an opt out option for that. Clearly building a road that everyone uses the same way and that everyone has the same requirements for and that duplication creates inefficiency for…is not the same as education where each student requires a portion of resources. You can’t just build one school and lump in all 20,000 students there. The more people use it, the more buildings and teachers etc are required.

Robertson said :

miz said :

If they phased out the subsidisation of private schools, you wouldn’t get the problem, oft-cited, that ‘the public system couldn’t cope’.

Why not? How do you justify that statement? Clearly, the public system would need to increase its supply of places, buildings and teachers by over 40%, and education funding would leap up by almost 20%.

miz said :

It is far more efficient, in economic and management terms as well as educationally, to have one education system for all,

Private schools are demonstrably more efficient than public schools in economic terms.
Are you advocating that the Catholic Education Office be given the management for 100% of schools in the ACT?
That would be the most efficient, surely?

miz said :

instead of the daft hotch potch of inequitable funding we have now.

Correct. Some schools get much less funding per child than others. It’s inequitable. Our tax$ should be redirected to provide private schoolchildren with a more level playing field.

miz said :

If people want to opt out, that’s their right of course, but why should everyone pay for the opt-outs when there’s already a perfectly good school system provided.

We’ve just established that the people who choose non-government schools save the government $5,000pa per child.
As a taxpayer, it would benefit me if more parents made this choice.

As for this “perfectly good school system”!!!! Erindale College can’t even get 50% of its students to achieve a Year12 Certificate. Why would anybody send their children there? What choice does that leave people?

miz said :

I find it amazing how people who see themselves as ‘true liberals’ tie themselves in knots in their efforts to justify why private schools should get public money that should otherwise go into the system that is there for everyone.

Private schools are there for everyone. Many of us pay tax. Taxes are spent funding education. Taxes spent on private schools represent far better value-for-money than taxes spent on public schools.
40%+ of Canberra parents expect their taxes to support their choice of education system.

Replace the word school/education with any other service, and you will see the absurdity of this position – roads, health care, policing, defence. What other government provided services should people be allowed to opt out of, and take their financial contribution with them? I am not exaggerating when I say that is a slippery slope towards anarchy (an absence of government).

IP

miz said :

If they phased out the subsidisation of private schools, you wouldn’t get the problem, oft-cited, that ‘the public system couldn’t cope’.

Why not? How do you justify that statement? Clearly, the public system would need to increase its supply of places, buildings and teachers by over 40%, and education funding would leap up by almost 20%.

miz said :

It is far more efficient, in economic and management terms as well as educationally, to have one education system for all,

Private schools are demonstrably more efficient than public schools in economic terms.
Are you advocating that the Catholic Education Office be given the management for 100% of schools in the ACT?
That would be the most efficient, surely?

miz said :

instead of the daft hotch potch of inequitable funding we have now.

Correct. Some schools get much less funding per child than others. It’s inequitable. Our tax$ should be redirected to provide private schoolchildren with a more level playing field.

miz said :

If people want to opt out, that’s their right of course, but why should everyone pay for the opt-outs when there’s already a perfectly good school system provided.

We’ve just established that the people who choose non-government schools save the government $5,000pa per child.
As a taxpayer, it would benefit me if more parents made this choice.

As for this “perfectly good school system”!!!! Erindale College can’t even get 50% of its students to achieve a Year12 Certificate. Why would anybody send their children there? What choice does that leave people?

miz said :

I find it amazing how people who see themselves as ‘true liberals’ tie themselves in knots in their efforts to justify why private schools should get public money that should otherwise go into the system that is there for everyone.

Private schools are there for everyone. Many of us pay tax. Taxes are spent funding education. Taxes spent on private schools represent far better value-for-money than taxes spent on public schools.
40%+ of Canberra parents expect their taxes to support their choice of education system.

IrishPete said :

Didn’t I already say that Namadji is not operating at capacity because it is new? It’s website lists its capacity as 900. The myschools data related to 2011 when Namadji had about 450 students.

Interestingly, I believe almost every single one of Canberra’s Independent schools is operating at or beyond its capacity.

Namadji would be more efficient if it were full. (And if they hadn’t wasted $million$ frigging around with Mt Neighbour school).
But it isn’t.
Wanniassa High was virtually deserted before Namadji was even opened, so the government should have known that it had a credibility problem within that catchment area in relation to the provision of effective education services.

miz said :

It is far more efficient, in economic and management terms as well as educationally, to have one education system for all, instead of the daft hotch potch of inequitable funding we have now.

A government-run, unionised monopoly will never, ever be the most efficient way to get anything done.

54-11 said :

Now that is more than an act of just bastardry, it is an act of aiding and abetting the dispossession of a nation.

As much as I might agree with you that it impedes the already microscopic chance of a 2-state solution… you need to remember that Israel occupies a tiny fraction of the ME. Granted, not all the ME are arabs, but the majority are, and they occupy a lot of land. All this fighting over a tiny strip of land that you can see nearly all of from an airliner seems daft, when you look at what’s around.

All this blaming the Israelis gets old. Yes, they’re not helping their cause and the settlements are a stupid idea. But why aren’t the arab nations copping it? Why can’t they create a new nation out of their own borders, rather than where the UN decreed Israel had a right to exist? There’s no blameless parties there.

I’ll give you act of bastardry 7.4, not 8.

If they phased out the subsidisation of private schools, you wouldn’t get the problem, oft-cited, that ‘the public system couldn’t cope’.
It is far more efficient, in economic and management terms as well as educationally, to have one education system for all, instead of the daft hotch potch of inequitable funding we have now. If people want to opt out, that’s their right of course, but why should everyone pay for the opt-outs when there’s already a perfectly good school system provided.
I find it amazing how people who see themselves as ‘true liberals’ tie themselves in knots in their efforts to justify why private schools should get public money that should otherwise go into the system that is there for everyone.

cry us river

8. Abbott has now, by stealth, supported Israel’s settlement activity in Palestinian territory. Bishop, she of the Julie variety, has instructed Australia’s UN representatives to now support Israel in its land grab.

As a result, any chance of a 2-state solution, which used to be Australia’s bi-partisan policy, is now in tatters.

Now that is more than an act of just bastardry, it is an act of aiding and abetting the dispossession of a nation. And again, the way in which it has been done, without any announcement or consultation, shows what a corrupted leader Abbott is and what a corrupted party he leads.

rhino said :

dtc said :

Well, on the assumption that each of those students (public or private) will receive an equivalent education rather than one group receiving a ‘better’ education. If that is the case, then you are totally correct – same outcome but cheaper for the govt.

Of course, we can argue over why Radford, for example, does well academically. Is it the teachers, the resources, the parents, the other students or a combination of all. But not all private schools get the same results, so??

If you took away one element (say resources), what would be the consequence – why do inner North and South public primary schools do the best on NAPLAN with no greater resources than other public primary schools? Can’t be the resources then, must be something else, at least sometimes.

Anyway, the whole public/private school debate essentially comes down to: all children should receive the same (and exactly) the same education and opportunities regardless of their wealth? Or is it acceptable for wealthier people to seek to obtain a better result (or what they consider is a better result) by spending some of their own money. And how far do you go – banning out of school tutors? Trips to Questacon? More than 2 books for Christmas?

I think there are many factors that influence academic outcome. One of which, i’ve read recently, is about the parents at home. People from the inner south and inner north are fairly wealthy and probably live in a fairly low-stress environment at home with well educated parents who can help with their homework, pay for tutoring and constantly foster the importance of education in their children. I’d suggest that this is a larger influence than the school itself, although that does play a part. Why do asians do so well at school? It’s not because they all go to grammar school. It’s because the parents encourage academic excellence at home. I think often people talk about “resources” at schools as if having slightly better or a larger quantity of computers helps children learn. I don’t think it does. The quality of teaching staff and the school spirit and culture does certainly have an effect in my view though. I went to a private school in Canberra in the 90s and early 2000s and I’ve recently had a look at the public school in Harrison and it has far more resources than my school did. Does that mean that these kids are smarter than me? I doubt it. The quality of the public schools these days seems very high. I honestly struggle to believe that my own private school has improved as rapidly as these public schools these days in terms of resources. But I haven’t been back there to check for myself. I think the kids being given laptops to use in the class room probably has no positive impact on their learning other than teaching them how to use a computer if they didn’t have one at home that they used every day (which they probably almost all do in Canberra).

So on the whole, everyone wins really with providing some funding to private schools. From my understanding, it seems like your only hesitation for it not being the obviously superior option, is that you don’t like the idea of some people getting better educations than others. I think to some extent it’s impossible for every school to have the same outcomes. And I think the current public school policy of having regions where you are only allowed to apply to enrol your students in the geographical area around your house probably discriminates far more than this public/private aspect. The public schools in the inner south, filled with students with parents who are supportive of their education, probably do better than many of the private schools and the way the scaling is set up by the government, (particularly for college) having other well achieving students in your school is an advantage in terms of scaling your raw score.

Good post, well summed up. Home life and parental encouragement are huge factors in academic success.

IrishPete said :

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Yes, it is fairly obvious that taxpayer money is employed more efficiently by private schools that it is by the public system.
Another reason private schools are a good deal for the taxpayer.

Are you being sarcastic?

Didn’t I already say that Namadji is not operating at capacity because it is new? It’s website lists its capacity as 900. The myschools data related to 2011 when Namadji had about 450 students. It would be a better comparisons to a) find an established government b) one with a similar number of enrolments and c) one that takes the same ages of children and d) take into account the socio-demographic difference.

The last is much harder, but let’s start with a b and c and see where we end up; I don’t know ACT schools well enough to suggest a comparison school.

This is getting hilariously off topic. But anyway, the ACT Government (Andrew Barr and all his acts) clearly have worked out the economic benefits to the ACT Government of replacing public schools with private schools:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fight-for-flynn-is-on-again-20130509-2jb53.html.

So the argument about who costs the ACT Government more has been lost: it’s those pesky public school kids. Not the Radfords and Grammars. But surprisingly, and contrary to popular belief, these schools get fairly heavy subsidies from the Commonwealth (happy to find the reference if anyone wants to know). It’s just that they are less of a drain on the ACT’s budget. Along with this, Andrew Barr must be loving Joy Burch right now.

This brings it back to the topic at hand – Gonski was never great (Gonski-lite is a term I’ve heard). Pyne abolishing it does not make it better. But the Liberal’s promise was to keep Gonski in all its ragged glory, so reneging on Gonski is at least a broken promise.

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Yes, it is fairly obvious that taxpayer money is employed more efficiently by private schools that it is by the public system.
Another reason private schools are a good deal for the taxpayer.

Are you being sarcastic?

Didn’t I already say that Namadji is not operating at capacity because it is new? It’s website lists its capacity as 900. The myschools data related to 2011 when Namadji had about 450 students. It would be a better comparisons to a) find an established government b) one with a similar number of enrolments and c) one that takes the same ages of children and d) take into account the socio-demographic difference.

The last is much harder, but let’s start with a b and c and see where we end up; I don’t know ACT schools well enough to suggest a comparison school.

dtc said :

Well, on the assumption that each of those students (public or private) will receive an equivalent education rather than one group receiving a ‘better’ education. If that is the case, then you are totally correct – same outcome but cheaper for the govt.

Of course, we can argue over why Radford, for example, does well academically. Is it the teachers, the resources, the parents, the other students or a combination of all. But not all private schools get the same results, so??

If you took away one element (say resources), what would be the consequence – why do inner North and South public primary schools do the best on NAPLAN with no greater resources than other public primary schools? Can’t be the resources then, must be something else, at least sometimes.

Anyway, the whole public/private school debate essentially comes down to: all children should receive the same (and exactly) the same education and opportunities regardless of their wealth? Or is it acceptable for wealthier people to seek to obtain a better result (or what they consider is a better result) by spending some of their own money. And how far do you go – banning out of school tutors? Trips to Questacon? More than 2 books for Christmas?

I think there are many factors that influence academic outcome. One of which, i’ve read recently, is about the parents at home. People from the inner south and inner north are fairly wealthy and probably live in a fairly low-stress environment at home with well educated parents who can help with their homework, pay for tutoring and constantly foster the importance of education in their children. I’d suggest that this is a larger influence than the school itself, although that does play a part. Why do asians do so well at school? It’s not because they all go to grammar school. It’s because the parents encourage academic excellence at home. I think often people talk about “resources” at schools as if having slightly better or a larger quantity of computers helps children learn. I don’t think it does. The quality of teaching staff and the school spirit and culture does certainly have an effect in my view though. I went to a private school in Canberra in the 90s and early 2000s and I’ve recently had a look at the public school in Harrison and it has far more resources than my school did. Does that mean that these kids are smarter than me? I doubt it. The quality of the public schools these days seems very high. I honestly struggle to believe that my own private school has improved as rapidly as these public schools these days in terms of resources. But I haven’t been back there to check for myself. I think the kids being given laptops to use in the class room probably has no positive impact on their learning other than teaching them how to use a computer if they didn’t have one at home that they used every day (which they probably almost all do in Canberra).

So on the whole, everyone wins really with providing some funding to private schools. From my understanding, it seems like your only hesitation for it not being the obviously superior option, is that you don’t like the idea of some people getting better educations than others. I think to some extent it’s impossible for every school to have the same outcomes. And I think the current public school policy of having regions where you are only allowed to apply to enrol your students in the geographical area around your house probably discriminates far more than this public/private aspect. The public schools in the inner south, filled with students with parents who are supportive of their education, probably do better than many of the private schools and the way the scaling is set up by the government, (particularly for college) having other well achieving students in your school is an advantage in terms of scaling your raw score.

rhino said :

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Yes, it is fairly obvious that taxpayer money is employed more efficiently by private schools that it is by the public system.
Another reason private schools are a good deal for the taxpayer.

Yeah I’d agree. This is the way I see it. Imagine you are the government and you have to pay 15k per student to educate them per year. So if you have 100 new places you have to create for students, you can either tax everyone more and pay 15k per student or you can tax them less and pay 5k per student, encouraging those who can afford to, to pay the 10k themselves. This means the poor are no longer paying 15k for the education of those who can afford it. I really can’t see any problems there, it’s better for everyone really.

Well, on the assumption that each of those students (public or private) will receive an equivalent education rather than one group receiving a ‘better’ education. If that is the case, then you are totally correct – same outcome but cheaper for the govt.

Of course, we can argue over why Radford, for example, does well academically. Is it the teachers, the resources, the parents, the other students or a combination of all. But not all private schools get the same results, so??

If you took away one element (say resources), what would be the consequence – why do inner North and South public primary schools do the best on NAPLAN with no greater resources than other public primary schools? Can’t be the resources then, must be something else, at least sometimes.

Anyway, the whole public/private school debate essentially comes down to: all children should receive the same (and exactly) the same education and opportunities regardless of their wealth? Or is it acceptable for wealthier people to seek to obtain a better result (or what they consider is a better result) by spending some of their own money. And how far do you go – banning out of school tutors? Trips to Questacon? More than 2 books for Christmas?

davo101 said :

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

So if we cut the funding to Radford to $0 then the savings to taxpayers will go up to $16,500 per student. Sounds like an excellent plan to me.

There are a few things you don’t understand.

The posh private schools that charge mega-$ get virtually no government funding.

The private schools that charge moderate fees get government funding which is per-capita less expensive than funding a public education.

If you cut all government funding to non-government schools, then all non-government schools would have to charge mega-$ to stay open.

The current (low) demand for mega-$-charging school places demonstrates that the vast majority of parents can’t or won’t pay that sort of money.

So defunding 1600 students will result in the vast majority of them moving to the public sector, thus increasing the total cost to the taxpayer of education funding.

And for those who are reluctant to learn the lessons of history, here is what happens to unacceptable policies promoted by ideologues of your ilk:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/the-genesis-of-state-aid-20120713-2212s.html

“If nothing else, the Goulburn strike showed that if we didn’t have non-government schools, paid for largely by families, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would be phenomenal.”

More to the point, 1962 demonstrated that a party cannot get away with promoting policies that deleteriously affect a significant proportion of their voter base. With over 40% of ACT schoolchildren in non-government schools, ideological positions such as yours will lead to electoral impotence.

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Yes, it is fairly obvious that taxpayer money is employed more efficiently by private schools that it is by the public system.
Another reason private schools are a good deal for the taxpayer.

Yeah I’d agree. This is the way I see it. Imagine you are the government and you have to pay 15k per student to educate them per year. So if you have 100 new places you have to create for students, you can either tax everyone more and pay 15k per student or you can tax them less and pay 5k per student, encouraging those who can afford to, to pay the 10k themselves. This means the poor are no longer paying 15k for the education of those who can afford it. I really can’t see any problems there, it’s better for everyone really.

I find there are a fair few people on the left, like the OP seems to be, who seem to think of people in fairy tale terms. People are either good or evil. In reality, all the politicians are trying to do the right thing generally. They just have to balance staying in power with doing what they think is the best outcome for the country. Many disagree on what the best thing to do is and some are wrong. Nobody is right 100% of the time and nobody never makes mistakes. You just choose the party that makes the least mistakes and does things with the most efficiency and consistency so that you know what you’re getting. None of the OP issues raised are really that big of an issue regardless of how you look at it. Therefore I think we have it pretty good.

Robertson said :

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

So if we cut the funding to Radford to $0 then the savings to taxpayers will go up to $16,500 per student. Sounds like an excellent plan to me.

2604 said :

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

In other words, every child that Radford enrols saves the taxpayer $11,000pa.

So it’s a very good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Yes, it is fairly obvious that taxpayer money is employed more efficiently by private schools that it is by the public system.
Another reason private schools are a good deal for the taxpayer.

IrishPete said :

Actually your information is incorrect. You should have read the myschool website more carefully. You have included capital costs and interest payments in the Radford figures. Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

That was quite intentional. I wanted to compare apples with apples, by comparing only those costs given for both schools.

IrishPete said :

I am guessing Namadji school has not yet reached capacity yet, which would probably be affecting its per capita running costs. Also it only appears to go to Y10 and has 10% indigenous students.

Fair enough on the capacity issue, although there are some factors which work against Radford in this comparison – for example, higher numbers of NESB (international students?) and it has yrs 11&12, which tend to get taught in smaller class groups.

Do you think that indigenous students always come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have greater learning needs?

IrishPete said :

But don’t let me spoil your story that private schools are better just because they are, rather than because of all the advantages they have and the free money they get given by governments, their charitable tax status and so on.

IP

I never said that “private schools are better”. The fact is that sometimes they’re better, and sometimes they’re worse. The OP was querying whether Radford provided a sound education and also moaning about the amount of government money it got – which is actually quite modest.

2604 said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

I was using figures for whatever Kambah High is called now. Namadgi or whatever. Yes, Radford has more students, but I think it’s fairly ludicrous that they aren’t able to provide a sound education with the $19 million they get parents to provide each year.

You need to stop channeling the AEU and start comparing apples with apples.

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

Total income per student (including fees) was $18,617 per student at Radford, and $16,844 per student at Namadgi – just over ten per cent less.

As for whether the education is “sound”, Radford consistently ranks first or second in median UAI in the ACT. The fees are $11,000-plus per year per child and the school is fully enrolled and doesn’t need to advertise. There are 7000 kids on the waiting list to go there. Enough said.

Actually your information is incorrect. You should have read the myschool website more carefully. You have included capital costs and interest payments in the Radford figures. Myschool shows Namadji as being more expensive per capita than Radford.

Of far more interest is the ICSEA figures, with Radford having 80% of its students in the top quarter.

I am guessing Namadji school has not yet reached capacity yet, which would probably be affecting its per capita running costs. Also it only appears to go to Y10 and has 10% indigenous students. Given the higher proportions of NESB kids at Radford I am going to guess it has quite a lot of diplomatic kids.

Kids with higher needs may well be more expensive to teach than kids from wealthier backgrounds.

But don’t let me spoil your story that private schools are better just because they are, rather than because of all the advantages they have and the free money they get given by governments, their charitable tax status and so on.

IP

CrocodileGandhi said :

I was using figures for whatever Kambah High is called now. Namadgi or whatever. Yes, Radford has more students, but I think it’s fairly ludicrous that they aren’t able to provide a sound education with the $19 million they get parents to provide each year.

You need to stop channeling the AEU and start comparing apples with apples.

In 2011, Radford got $5629 in government funding per student. Namadgi got $16,543 per student.

Total income per student (including fees) was $18,617 per student at Radford, and $16,844 per student at Namadgi – just over ten per cent less.

As for whether the education is “sound”, Radford consistently ranks first or second in median UAI in the ACT. The fees are $11,000-plus per year per child and the school is fully enrolled and doesn’t need to advertise. There are 7000 kids on the waiting list to go there. Enough said.

7. He’s just de-funded the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) after saying he wouldn’t. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-27/alcohol-and-other-drugs-council-adca-administration-funding-cut/5119744.

And his reason? ADCA has provided evidence-based research that supports harm minimisation, the prevention of harm, whereas the Libs have a law and order approach. This includes the criminalisation of all drug use and harsher policing practices.

There are several acts of bastardry here – the manner of the de-funding; the ideologically driven approach to drug and alcohol policy; and the complete aversion to evidence-based approaches.

The interesting thing here is that the ever-decent Dr Mal Washer, a former Liberal MP, was the chair of ADCA and he’s apparently gutted by this decision.

rosscoact said :

As they blunder from one stuff up to another, it certainly appears as if this government is shaping up to be the most incompetent ever, and that is a huge call

The problem is that the current bunch of idiots are likely better than the alternative we could have had.

The last election was a choice between idiots and stupid people.

As they blunder from one stuff up to another, it certainly appears as if this government is shaping up to be the most incompetent ever, and that is a huge call

dtc said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

Pyne will go toward whatever funding model most disproportionately favours private schools. The Libs have fine form in that tact. The fact that Radford currently recieves over $8 million in territory and federal funding on top of the $19 million(!) it sources privately, while Kambah High receives a bit over $7 million from territory and federal funding, is an absolute joke.

Well, given that Kambah High has, I believe, no students, it is an absolute joke…

Noting that Radford has over 1600 students, so any comparison of funding needs to look at schools also with 1600 students. Not many public schools (maybe some of the super schools)

I was using figures for whatever Kambah High is called now. Namadgi or whatever. Yes, Radford has more students, but I think it’s fairly ludicrous that they aren’t able to provide a sound education with the $19 million they get parents to provide each year.

CrocodileGandhi said :

Pyne will go toward whatever funding model most disproportionately favours private schools. The Libs have fine form in that tact. The fact that Radford currently recieves over $8 million in territory and federal funding on top of the $19 million(!) it sources privately, while Kambah High receives a bit over $7 million from territory and federal funding, is an absolute joke.

Well, given that Kambah High has, I believe, no students, it is an absolute joke…

Noting that Radford has over 1600 students, so any comparison of funding needs to look at schools also with 1600 students. Not many public schools (maybe some of the super schools)

HiddenDragon said :

Who needs Shorten & Co when we’ve got the ABC – which is obviously having terrific fun in keeping (or trying to) the bastards honest. I thought last night’s effort with Pyne on Lateline was particularly entertaining – the deadly earnest, the righteous indignation, gotcha question after gotcha question – great stuff!

To be fair Leigh Sales gave Shorten quite a hiding on the 7.30 report.

Missed that, but it’s good to know Leigh’s earning that nice salary of hers.

Who needs Shorten & Co when we’ve got the ABC – which is obviously having terrific fun in keeping (or trying to) the bastards honest. I thought last night’s effort with Pyne on Lateline was particularly entertaining – the deadly earnest, the righteous indignation, gotcha question after gotcha question – great stuff!

Pyne will go toward whatever funding model most disproportionately favours private schools. The Libs have fine form in that tact. The fact that Radford currently recieves over $8 million in territory and federal funding on top of the $19 million(!) it sources privately, while Kambah High receives a bit over $7 million from territory and federal funding, is an absolute joke.

A great, easy to understand, explainer on what Lying Pyne’s backflip on education funding means:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/caro-gonski-funding/5117260

miz said :

Who chose Pyne, a first class drongo, to be Education Minister? That choice was clearly an act of bastardry on all the school children of Australia, and their parents. Just ask the Liberal Premiers and Kathryn Greiner who was wife of the NSW Liberal Premier.

Prior to the last election, in several acts of extreme desperation, the Federal Labor government negotiated different Gonski deals with different states. I hope the current government will revisit the mess and adopt a more uniform approach.

Who chose Pyne, a first class drongo, to be Education Minister? That choice was clearly an act of bastardry on all the school children of Australia, and their parents. Just ask the Liberal Premiers and Kathryn Greiner who was wife of the NSW Liberal Premier.

Canberrans: Limited by 3 highways and the ABC; perfect squares.

Deref said :

There isn’t enough room on the Internet to list Abbott’s acts of bastardry.

It’s almost like he’s nasty enough to join the Labor party.

There isn’t enough room on the Internet to list Abbott’s acts of bastardry.

6. Broken promise of support for Gonski education funding reforms:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/governments-double-gonski-backflip-an-act-of-brazen-politicking-20131126-2y6zx.html

This could be “interesting” – although I’m not sure whether it would be more bastardry or idiocy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/australia-post-plan-to-takeover-centrelink-operations/5049336

wildturkeycanoe said :

[ Maybe it’s because there were no other choices that would have made any difference, seeing it’s a two horse race in the end.
Politics – who needs it?

The majors are both pretty poor right now, but who else do you vote for? The Greens are worse than both (by a mile), and many of the others are even loopier.

I consider our current government to be the least worst of the options available at the last election.

housebound said :

You do realise that it was Labor who sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank in the late 1980s? NSW labor who started the NSW electricity sell off, and Anna Bligh’s Queensland Labor government that sold off (or started the sell-off?) of Qld rail?

I think you’ll find that selling off public assets is an evil that all sides seem to manage.

But just because they did it first, doesn’t make it right either. I’m totally over everything to do with politics. In the end, nobody wins except the politicians and their rich mates.
All you read in the news is just another cut to people who need it. We are going backwards every day and more and more people are suffering, whilst the pigs at the trough keep gorging themselves on our entitlments. Why anyone ever voted for either major party is beyond me. Maybe it’s because there were no other choices that would have made any difference, seeing it’s a two horse race in the end.
Politics – who needs it?

Mitch Fifield confirmed that Disabilitycare is not being rolled out after the regions in the Intergovernmental agreement is completed.

So Brisbane, Townsville, Western Sydney and Bendigo are now excluded.

If that isn’t bastardry in cutting help from those that need it most, I don’t know what is.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Here’s another Tony act of bastardry.
Sell off HECS debts to a privateer. Well, how is anyone going to be able to access money in the future when it isn’t allocated by the government, rather, a greedy finance company who will chase you down until you are broke.
Sell off Australia Post – every time the Liberals get into to power, in order to fix the budget they make a quick buck by selling all their assets. Then, when Labor gets re-elected, they find they have nothing with which to make money from. If the government of the day – John Howard – had kept Telstra, they would be making money from it, but they lost that asset. Same for our power systems. All the government has left is us taxpayers, who bear the brunt of their poor decision making.
Meanwhile, the QLD pollies get a 9% pay rise. How appropriate in a time of tightening the budget and Hockey screaming that we have to “live within our means”.

You do realise that it was Labor who sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank in the late 1980s? NSW labor who started the NSW electricity sell off, and Anna Bligh’s Queensland Labor government that sold off (or started the sell-off?) of Qld rail?

I think you’ll find that selling off public assets is an evil that all sides seem to manage.

Kropotkin said :

Tony4PM said :

This is the worst part of essentially every Liberal voter I see, they don’t seem to give a single **** about policy or science or economics or anything, but only seem to give a rats arse to gloat about their team “winning”.

.

Sounds almost like the year long party in 2007 after Rudd was elected. Short memories… wasn’t that a Midnight Oil song?

Pork Hunt said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

Having worked as a media adviser to the former government in the boats field, can I just say that every time a boat was on the horizon, every reporter worth their salt knew about it. So I don’t think Labor was trying to make fanfare for every arrival. In fact, I think that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on this site – and that is saying a lot.

So stupid you had say it twice?

Did I post twice? Apologies.
I am a journo, not a techie.

spades said :

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.

They weren’t Liberal voters, they were Labor voters who wanted a different Labor leader. As far as I remember the posters that were around in that time were mainly about Julia backstabbing Kevin. I don’t think Liberal voters care about Labor backstabbing Labor politicians.

All this hatred is coming from Labor. Plain and simple.

It’s late – but I call bullshit. Ditch the Witch was totally carbon tax related.

I didn’t know that Alan Jones was a Labor person…

Here’s another Tony act of bastardry.
Sell off HECS debts to a privateer. Well, how is anyone going to be able to access money in the future when it isn’t allocated by the government, rather, a greedy finance company who will chase you down until you are broke.
Sell off Australia Post – every time the Liberals get into to power, in order to fix the budget they make a quick buck by selling all their assets. Then, when Labor gets re-elected, they find they have nothing with which to make money from. If the government of the day – John Howard – had kept Telstra, they would be making money from it, but they lost that asset. Same for our power systems. All the government has left is us taxpayers, who bear the brunt of their poor decision making.
Meanwhile, the QLD pollies get a 9% pay rise. How appropriate in a time of tightening the budget and Hockey screaming that we have to “live within our means”.

Tony4PM said :

The best thing about Tony Abbott being PM is seeing all the writhing and gnashing of teeth of the lefties who loudly proclaimed that he would never be PM and was unelectable. You have brightened my day with your empty nonsense. Good stuff. And an even better brightener was hearing that the blow in Sheikh has conceded. Happy days. Hope he goes straight back to wherever it is he blew in from.

Good to know that the destruction of profit making assets, the destruction of Australia’s greatest infrastructure project, the destruction of the environment, massive cuts to social benefits and a massive increase in socially authoritarian laws, is all worth it so you can wave your e-peen on the Internet.

This is the worst part of essentially every Liberal voter I see, they don’t seem to give a single **** about policy or science or economics or anything, but only seem to give a rats arse to gloat about their team “winning”.

Please, explain how the Coalition policies are good for anyone aside from the rich mining elite?
How is destroying the CEFC, which actually returns profit and increases investment in the worlds fastest growing sector, good policy?
Explain how getting rid of the “Carbon Tax” a good policy when there is not a shred of evidence that it actually caused economic harm (actually the opposite)?
Explain how pushing austerity in a country with a AAA credit rating is good policy?
Explain how pushing for “surplus” through austerity is good policy?
Explain how surplus is anything other than dickwaving and why should a Government be producing profit, at the cost of services?
Explain how only funding roads, while ripping funding away from green tech, is good policy?

Explain all of this, in fact, go ahead and explain most of the Liberals policies, because they seem like most of them are done out of spite for the left and are not based around any practical or sound reasoning.

The best thing about Tony Abbott being PM is seeing all the writhing and gnashing of teeth of the lefties who loudly proclaimed that he would never be PM and was unelectable. You have brightened my day with your empty nonsense. Good stuff. And an even better brightener was hearing that the blow in Sheikh has conceded. Happy days. Hope he goes straight back to wherever it is he blew in from.

johnboy said :

Given that the Liberals have shown they very much know how to run a marginal seat strategy, and tony abbott got pretty much the parliamentary majority he wanted (anymore freshmen backbenchers would have been trouble) one has to wonder if they didn’t pull their punches at the end of the campaign.

Keeping the rudd legacy alive in labor does the liberals no harm at all.

I doubt your suggestion of an underlying intelligence has any basis in reality.
The swing in NSW was only 2.7%.
VIC was 3.1%
SA was 4.7%.
TAS was 6.7%
In QLD & WA the swing was negative. Not enough there to play silly buggers with.

I think there was something like eleven seats now held by Coalition members that were decided by margins of less than 4000 votes, so disregarding TPP and other fudgings of the actual election grain for political purposes, the Coalition aren’t really in as secure a position electorally as they’re acting in parliament.

(Or is it rude to point this out, as it takes the shine off their Strong Mandate rhetoric?)

Act of bastardry 6: Winning the election by a huge margin.

Did you follow the same election I did? A swing of between 1% and 2% towards the Liberals and their fellow travelers is a huge margin? Yes, there’s a big margin in the House of Representatives, but that’s an artifice of the election system. The election result was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Liberals’ policy-free campaign. Right wingers have always had a belief that they were born to rule – democracy seems to be an irritation to them.

And yes, it was a fairly ringing disendorsement of the ALP and also the Greens. The latter which I put down to “if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas” – it seemed like a good idea at the time to cooperate with the establishment of a ALP-led government, but it very quickly turned out the couldn’t be trusted, and the Greens should ahve high-tailed it for the hills, even if it risked bringing the government down.It may be a long time before the Greens can regain the trust of the voters.

IP

Diggety said :

howeph said :

5. Plans to enable the prosecution of environmental groups that use boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535

Conservatives – looking after big business not the people.

I think this will be the Coalitian’s first major mistake, even the IPA are against it.

I read that article and I didn’t see it as an argument against the boycott ban. It’s just the usual IPA propaganda disfavouring regulation.

Meconium said :

Diggety said :

Do the logical thing and substitute my choice of word ‘tact’ with it’s definition:

Its.

I think that this correction was a touch too subtle for poor old Diggety. At least he’s stopped digging himself further into a hole with tact/tack.

howeph said :

5. Plans to enable the prosecution of environmental groups that use boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535

Conservatives – looking after big business not the people.

That isn’t the worst thing they are doing. Look up about the aptly named Abbot Point Port on QLDs coast. The Liberal government is looking to “fast track” approvals for mining companies and the like, to encroach on previously protected areas of our environment. This particular area looks to be affecting the Great Barrier Reef, with more bulk shipping and dredging operations to come, if the current Federal protective powers are stripped away. But I guess for $70 odd billion dollars, they can build another reef somewhere else or re-locate the one we have.
Tony Abbot – Environmental rapist and crusher of our freedom of speech. How do you like it now Liberal supporters? Coal mine coming to your door soon…..

davo101 said :

IrishPete said :

re: tack.

I withdraw.

Boo…

IrishPete said :

But a few wrote “affect” when they meant “effect”.

At least they tried; they could have just gone with “impacted”.

They’re psychology students. They need to know what “affect” means.

IP

housebound said :

That means the the new Victorian senator Ricky Muir – he of the kangaroo poo – is supported by the electorate with less than 1% of the primary vote – thanks to preference flows; whichever senator he ‘replaced’ was rejected.

You could well view it that way, though one point of order you are now comparing the house of reps to the Senate. You do realise that in the Senate the MAJORITY of people vote above the line, which is for a party or a grouping AND the whole counting method is quite different. In which case it is a lot harder to say that the senator that was replaced was actually rejected as such.

But in reality that is besides the point as we were talking about the house of reps in particular the seat of Indi, which if I recall was the ONLY seat the liberals lost with quite a swing, due in no small part to the arrogance the sitting member showed to her own constituents.

howeph said :

5. Plans to enable the prosecution of environmental groups that use boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535

Conservatives – looking after big business not the people.

I think this will be the Coalitian’s first major mistake, even the IPA are against it.

cry me river ………..you can’t even put a name up to this. Grow some balls

5. Plans to enable the prosecution of environmental groups that use boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535

Conservatives – looking after big business not the people.

p1 said :

To be fair though, Kevin Rudd proved pretty comprehensively that he is a psychopath.

Yeap, just like everyone else in parliament.

Masquara said :

54-11 said :

What do you call “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch”?

As this thread seems to be turning into a race to the bottom, let me remind everyone of the “psychopath” invective aimed at Kevin Rudd – by his own party. By Anthony Albanese. Kate Ellis. Tanya Plibersek. Craig Emerson. Tony Burke. By “educated” people. Not the rather sad oppressed rural types who made up the Convoy of No Confidence and created the “ditch the witch” posters. Kevin did a pretty comprehensive “ditch the witch” of his own, on Julia. And the slash & burn on Rudd was promoted by Julia Gillard herself, remember? Julia has form when it comes to low blows. I’d say in fact that “ditch the witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch” look like pretty pale invective by comparison with those self-mutilators in the ALP.

To be fair though, Kevin Rudd proved pretty comprehensively that he is a psychopath.

IrishPete said :

re: tack.

I withdraw.

Boo…

IrishPete said :

But a few wrote “affect” when they meant “effect”.

At least they tried; they could have just gone with “impacted”.

Diggety said :

Looks like I’ve taught a few people a new word today: ‘tact’.

You’re welcome.

Actually, what stands out here is your inability to learn the error of your ways.

Your use of the word “tact” was incorrect. There is no such thing as “a tact”, any more than there is any such thing as “a purple” or “a diplomacy”.

Diggety said :

Looks like I’ve taught a few people a new word today: ‘tact’.

You’re welcome.

And then shown everyone how not to use it.

We know it, you know it. Come on, man-up and admit you were wrong and move on.

how can you change tact when it is a noun?

JC said :

housebound said :

JC said :

Masquara said :

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

She was a disgrace, especially towards her own constituents who eventually voted her out. Don’t know what I am talking about, well google the 11 minute meeting, the meeting where at the conclusion Cathy McGowan decided/was urged to run against her.

Mirabella got around 44.67% of the Indi first preference vote. Cathy McGowan got 31.18% (see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-218.htm). McGowan’s advantage was preference deals from the Greens and Labor, and probably other minor parties. I think breaking the power of the big three parties is great, we should have more of it.

By way of comparison, in Fraser Andrew Leigh managed 44.66% of first preferences, and Elizabeth Lee 31.63 %. I don’t think we can say a first preference vote of around 44% is an electorate rejecting anybody, even if we like one person or another.

Two points. For one she didn’t win the seat, so as the incumbent that is rejection. Point two comparing to another electorate is pretty pointless. Want to compare then compare Mirabella with herself. She lost 7.18% of her vote compared to 2010, so rejection number two.

That means the the new Victorian senator Ricky Muir – he of the kangaroo poo – is supported by the electorate with less than 1% of the primary vote – thanks to preference flows; whichever senator he ‘replaced’ was rejected.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

Having worked as a media adviser to the former government in the boats field, can I just say that every time a boat was on the horizon, every reporter worth their salt knew about it. So I don’t think Labor was trying to make fanfare for every arrival. In fact, I think that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on this site – and that is saying a lot.

So stupid you had say it twice?

JC said :

spades said :

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.

They weren’t Liberal voters, they were Labor voters who wanted a different Labor leader. As far as I remember the posters that were around in that time were mainly about Julia backstabbing Kevin. I don’t think Liberal voters care about Labor backstabbing Labor politicians.

All this hatred is coming from Labor. Plain and simple.

I think your recollection is wrong. Ditch the witch came from an an anti carbon tax protest with Alan Jones, with Tony Maggott quite happily standing in front of a sign saying that, and sign saying Juliar was Bob Browns bitch.

I say quite happily because the lib sympathisers say it was co-incidence, but the fact he was there and held a press conference with said signs neatly set up behind him speaks volumes.

Don’t believe me just do a google images search for “ditch the witch”. The whole first line shows said signs with Tony front and centre (as well as Mirrabella and co), the rest show ditch witches!

Yeah coalition voters shouldn’t be throwing stones. They didn’t need to resort to a negative campaign this time, but they’ve done plenty. Hell the coalition had plenty of negativity in the ACT election.

And lets remember, Tony abbott was elected to lead the party when no body wanted the job other than Turnbull, the coalition was absolutely floundering in the polls. It was a given he was going to lose the next election and someone like Hockey or Turnbull would take over again to win this election. Instead Labor helped them out, with some stupidity.

Barcham said :

The “Abbot won so get over it” argument is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

No.

No I won’t, and nor should anyone else.

You don’t have to get over it but you also shouldn’t have an irrational fear of what Abbott might do or that he’s somehow the devil incarnate before he’s really done anything.

I think this thread shows that some people are overreacting to an election where one set of bland imbeciles lost to another set of bland imbeciles whose policies were extremely similar.
Would you have expected a similar reaction from the same people if Labor had won even though on the main issues there wasn’t much between them.

If anything Tony Abbott has shown over the last few years that he’s willing to backflip on supposed ideological positions to fit the mood of the electorate. How about some people actually wait til he does something outrageous before frothing at the mouth?

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Double dissolution halves the senate quota.

You think we have weirdoes now?

+1.

I’d love to see how Abbott would deal with the Senate after that.

Yes Abbott won’t be after a double dissolution this time around. In opposition there is always a chance you’ll win, which is what he was after. But he’ll need to work with a senate that will have its own ideas. They were quick to attack the independants siding with labor, but they are going to have to do the same thing in the senate. Sure a few might be no brainers like the Family First, and some issues like mining tax will get palmer united support. but its not going to be easy to push through reforms, particularly with all the “promises” he made. And Yes Labor made a lot of “promises also”.

IrishPete said :

re: tack.

I withdraw. I had had a few beers and was feeling intolerant of misuse of the English language, after marking a whole lot of university student assignment in which they made similar errors, and my least favourite, using the word “incidence” in place of “incident”, which looks even worse when you make it plural “incidences”. At least no-one wrote “should of”. But a few wrote “affect” when they meant “effect”.

Diggety is entitled to use “tact” instead of “tack” if he/she/it/they wish, it just shows there’s a problem with high school education, and it’s not Diggety’s fault.

IP

Don’t you dare jibe! (Which some people will define as jive.)

54-11 said :

What do you call “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch”?

As this thread seems to be turning into a race to the bottom, let me remind everyone of the “psychopath” invective aimed at Kevin Rudd – by his own party. By Anthony Albanese. Kate Ellis. Tanya Plibersek. Craig Emerson. Tony Burke. By “educated” people. Not the rather sad oppressed rural types who made up the Convoy of No Confidence and created the “ditch the witch” posters. Kevin did a pretty comprehensive “ditch the witch” of his own, on Julia. And the slash & burn on Rudd was promoted by Julia Gillard herself, remember? Julia has form when it comes to low blows. I’d say in fact that “ditch the witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch” look like pretty pale invective by comparison with those self-mutilators in the ALP.

Tomorrow’s headline: Government plans new tact on APS cuts!

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

johnboy said :

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.

Having worked as a media adviser to the former government in the boats field, can I just say that every time a boat was on the horizon, every reporter worth their salt knew about it. So I don’t think Labor was trying to make fanfare for every arrival. In fact, I think that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on this site – and that is saying a lot.

re: tack.

I withdraw. I had had a few beers and was feeling intolerant of misuse of the English language, after marking a whole lot of university student assignment in which they made similar errors, and my least favourite, using the word “incidence” in place of “incident”, which looks even worse when you make it plural “incidences”. At least no-one wrote “should of”. But a few wrote “affect” when they meant “effect”.

Diggety is entitled to use “tact” instead of “tack” if he/she/it/they wish, it just shows there’s a problem with high school education, and it’s not Diggety’s fault.

IP

Looks like I’ve taught a few people a new word today: ‘tact’.

You’re welcome.

How did I miss the tact/tack thing?

Some people around here would insist that a pilliwinks is something you sleep on.

The “Abbot won so get over it” argument is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

No.

No I won’t, and nor should anyone else.

If in several years someone I like and you don’t gets in you shouldn’t get over it either.

We’re suppose to point out the flaws in our leadership, especially to those responsible for voting them in. An idea untested and all that…

We have a responsibility to make our leaders and those that support them defend themselves and their actions.

We need to let our opinions be heard, so that nobody forgets that just because someone is in power, that does not mean the majority want them there.

This is kind of important.

So no, nobody should “get over it”, not the people upset about it, nor the people pleased about it either.

We should all continue to give a crap about what’s going on.

Also Diggety, it’s okay to get something wrong. I do it all the time, it’s how we learn. Don’t fight it.

Diggety said :

Do the logical thing and substitute my choice of word ‘tact’ with it’s definition:

Its.

If you’ve ever been sailing, Diggety, you’ll know that if you want to travel in the direction the wind is blowing from, you’ll need to tack, or change course slightly so that your sail can catch the wind. You end up having to change direction frequently, so your course ends up looking approximately like a zig-zag. This is what is meant by ‘change tack’ or ‘you guys need another tack’.

Tact comes from the same root as tactile – it means an ability to touch, or metaphorically an ability to be sensitive to a situation, to ‘feel’ the right way to talk or behave, as if you can feel it in a tactile sense. This word doesn’t apply in the context you used in your original post.

Points for standing your ground despite ignorance though, and I love what this thread has become and that we’re not whinging about Abbott any more.

Diggety said :

‘Tact’ is what I said, and what I meant.

End of story.

Oh, I believe you said it, and meant it.

Your also rong for all intensive purposes.

‘Tact’ is what I said, and what I meant.

End of story.

spades said :

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.

They weren’t Liberal voters, they were Labor voters who wanted a different Labor leader. As far as I remember the posters that were around in that time were mainly about Julia backstabbing Kevin. I don’t think Liberal voters care about Labor backstabbing Labor politicians.

All this hatred is coming from Labor. Plain and simple.

I think your recollection is wrong. Ditch the witch came from an an anti carbon tax protest with Alan Jones, with Tony Maggott quite happily standing in front of a sign saying that, and sign saying Juliar was Bob Browns bitch.

I say quite happily because the lib sympathisers say it was co-incidence, but the fact he was there and held a press conference with said signs neatly set up behind him speaks volumes.

Don’t believe me just do a google images search for “ditch the witch”. The whole first line shows said signs with Tony front and centre (as well as Mirrabella and co), the rest show ditch witches!

housebound said :

JC said :

Masquara said :

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

She was a disgrace, especially towards her own constituents who eventually voted her out. Don’t know what I am talking about, well google the 11 minute meeting, the meeting where at the conclusion Cathy McGowan decided/was urged to run against her.

Mirabella got around 44.67% of the Indi first preference vote. Cathy McGowan got 31.18% (see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-218.htm). McGowan’s advantage was preference deals from the Greens and Labor, and probably other minor parties. I think breaking the power of the big three parties is great, we should have more of it.

By way of comparison, in Fraser Andrew Leigh managed 44.66% of first preferences, and Elizabeth Lee 31.63 %. I don’t think we can say a first preference vote of around 44% is an electorate rejecting anybody, even if we like one person or another.

Two points. For one she didn’t win the seat, so as the incumbent that is rejection. Point two comparing to another electorate is pretty pointless. Want to compare then compare Mirabella with herself. She lost 7.18% of her vote compared to 2010, so rejection number two.

johnboy said :

I think diggety just needs to admit error so we can all move on.

But can he tactfully change tack?

johnboy said :

I think diggety just needs to admit error so we can all move on.

No! Stay the course.

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

“Tact” is most usually spoken of as a plural (or at least no singular) , so referring to it in the singular sounds wrong. On the other hand, the very common expression “another tack” (a sailing reference) makes perfect sense here, and would appear, to the casual observer, to be what was intended.

Good thing you were here to clarify what your post actually meant.

Robertson said :

Diggety said :

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I think you’ll find IP is correct on this one.

Nope, ‘tact’ is correct, as per the dictionary definition I shared. I wasn’t talking about changing direction, I was talking about changing diplomacy.

Give it a rest guys.

There is no meaning in your expression, “You guys need another tact”.

The closest meaningful interpretation of what you wrote would be, “You guys need another tack”.

Your statement that you meant to convey a “changing diplomacy” tallies with this interpretation.

No, you can’t wrap your head around the meaning or interpretation. Do the logical thing and substitute my choice of word ‘tact’ with it’s definition:

“You guys need another Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.” [Modify tense accordingly]

I shouldn’t have to waste my time with this, you all have a dictionary on hand, and the above substitution method is taught in high school English.

Diggety said :

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I think you’ll find IP is correct on this one.

Nope, ‘tact’ is correct, as per the dictionary definition I shared. I wasn’t talking about changing direction, I was talking about changing diplomacy.

Give it a rest guys.

There is no meaning in your expression, “You guys need another tact”.

The closest meaningful interpretation of what you wrote would be, “You guys need another tack”.

Your statement that you meant to convey a “changing diplomacy” tallies with this interpretation.

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I think you’ll find IP is correct on this one.

Although, Diggety may have meant this,
Tack – a. A course of action meant to minimize opposition to the attainment of a goal.
b. An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches.

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I think you’ll find IP is correct on this one.

Nope, ‘tact’ is correct, as per the dictionary definition I shared. I wasn’t talking about changing direction, I was talking about changing diplomacy.

Give it a rest guys.

JessP said :

FFS!

3 years is a long time to be bitter and twisted. Get over it.

I dunno about that.

Considering how many Labor supporters are still bitter and twisted about the arse-kicking Whitlam received in the election of 1975, three years might not seem that long at all to some of them.

FFS!

3 years is a long time to be bitter and twisted. Get over it.

johnboy said :

Double dissolution halves the senate quota.

You think we have weirdoes now?

+1.

I’d love to see how Abbott would deal with the Senate after that.

spades said :

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.
.

Yeah, just look at all those Labor supporters…
http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AbbottDitchWitch.jpg

spades said :

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.

They weren’t Liberal voters, they were Labor voters who wanted a different Labor leader. As far as I remember the posters that were around in that time were mainly about Julia backstabbing Kevin. I don’t think Liberal voters care about Labor backstabbing Labor politicians.

All this hatred is coming from Labor. Plain and simple.

The convoy of no consequence were mostly Labor voters now? Wow, learn something new every day.

Can’t we just all agree that there’s a large proportion of the population that are massive hypocrites? They span the entirety of the political spectrum.

Re: Mandate (point 3) – It’s just blustery prelude to goad the opposition into blocking bills, giving him the trigger for a double-dissolution, which would more than likely unseat some of the weirder Senators.

The “Ditch the Witch” comments, if people actually bothered to remember, came mostly from Labor voters who supported Kevin Rudd.

They weren’t Liberal voters, they were Labor voters who wanted a different Labor leader. As far as I remember the posters that were around in that time were mainly about Julia backstabbing Kevin. I don’t think Liberal voters care about Labor backstabbing Labor politicians.

All this hatred is coming from Labor. Plain and simple.

JC said :

Masquara said :

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

She was a disgrace, especially towards her own constituents who eventually voted her out. Don’t know what I am talking about, well google the 11 minute meeting, the meeting where at the conclusion Cathy McGowan decided/was urged to run against her.

Mirabella got around 44.67% of the Indi first preference vote. Cathy McGowan got 31.18% (see http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-218.htm). McGowan’s advantage was preference deals from the Greens and Labor, and probably other minor parties. I think breaking the power of the big three parties is great, we should have more of it.

By way of comparison, in Fraser Andrew Leigh managed 44.66% of first preferences, and Elizabeth Lee 31.63 %. I don’t think we can say a first preference vote of around 44% is an electorate rejecting anybody, even if we like one person or another.

Diggety said :

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

I think you’ll find IP is correct on this one.

Masquara said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Masquara, please read – “Mr Bracks was appointed to the role in May and was due to start work in the US financial capital this week.” source – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/bracks-stripped-of-ny-post-by-incoming-abbott-government/4947454
Where do you get your information from?

How about focusing on the real issues. Bracks was still in Australia and had not taken up the position. He had not left Australia. Now, back to the issue of non-representation by women, and leave the very privileged and eminently employable Steve Bracks to find another job (which should take his network about half a day).

let go of it Masquara.
Who is to say that the people that vote and elect all members in all elections want to vote for women. Maybe the men get in because they are who gets voted for. Are you trying to say people must vote for a woman because she can do the job just as well?
Maybe a campaign should be launched Australia wide to let the voting public know that women can do the job too, for awareness.
Gender shouldn’t come into it in my opinion, either way. I would be happy if all women or all men were voted in.

Got to admit, I’m surprised at the lack of people threatenijg to move to Canada/ New Zealand/ Swaziland/ Whatever Utopia.

When Howard won his last election it seemed that 45% of Australia was going to be left uninhabited.

Australia is safe, wealthy and has fantastic opportunities. And Canberra is the best educated, wealthiest and most comfortable part of Australia.

It’s easy to complain, but when push comes to shove most people realise just how incredibly good they have it here. Far easier to have a whinge on the interwebs.

spades said :

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

What do you call “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Brown’s bitch”? I am still appalled that Abbott, Bishop, Mirabella et al would stand in front of such venomous hatred directed at our then sitting Prime Minister.

That Libs now complain that people are already disappointed in Abbott’s actions, yet ignore the vitriol that Abbott and Co poured non-stop while they were in opposition.

Now the worm will turn but it will be done based on actions and policies, not gender. It is just like the underlying racism in the US directed at Obama.

wildturkeycanoe said :

As for advertising, please, all I saw on TV prior to the election was Liberal Party dribble. I did not once see an ad by Labor, let alone one that said anything about Coalition policies.

You might find this article interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/ad-spending-claims-pure-campaign-spin/4966426

I found it quite interesting that with spending on advertising, Labor spent 74% of their money on negative advertising and 26% on positive, while for the coalition, it was 44% negative and 56% positive.

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

tact (tkt)
n.
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

Masquara said :

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

She was a disgrace, especially towards her own constituents who eventually voted her out. Don’t know what I am talking about, well google the 11 minute meeting, the meeting where at the conclusion Cathy McGowan decided/was urged to run against her.

spades said :

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

Are you for real? For the past 6 years the Liberals on this forum and the news paper blogs have been doing EXACTLY the same, for no reason other than ideology. At least with Tony Maggot there is actually a reason to dislike him, and your post says it too “This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians”. Note the 4th word in the quite.

Masquara said :

spades said :

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

Yep. Disgusting. Saying she should be killed, calling her a witch, saying that her partner is gay, calling her a liar at every given opportunity, implying that she’s the ‘bitch’ of other politicians, stating that her dead father ‘died of shame’ … oh, hang on.

WillowJim said :

milkman said :

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

Um, he didn’t?

I must have some crossed wires…

spades said :

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

No one can hate like the left hate. The shear bile and childish rubbish you see on twitter and comments on blogs is terrible. But pretty well matches the childish people we had in government over the last 6 years and its great to see the adults back in charge but they have one huge mess to clean up and they will still be at 10 years from now.

Masquara said :

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

having just read the Crikey article, she 20 something hooked up with 60 something at law school, way to break the glass ceiling.

Dear oh dear Mr Abbott has certainly upset the reds and the green tinged reds in this town haha.

You survived Whitlam, you survived Fraser, you survived Hawke, you survived Keating, you survived Howard, you survived Rudd, you survived Gillard, you will surely survuve Abbott.

spades said :

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

The venom they directed at Mirabella was a disgrace.

WillowJim said :

milkman said :

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

Um, he didn’t?

That Julie Bishop was placed on the far edge of the photo didn’t help.Foreign Minister is surely sufficiently uber to be prioritised, if they wanted to.

milkman said :

LSWCHP said :

Masquara said :

Interesting that you haven’t raised the REAL issue with Abbott: where are the women in Cabinet? Where are the next-generation women, who should be learning as Cabinet secretaries? THAT is the disgrace of the Abbott Government. (And why isn’t everyone’s darling, Malcolm Turnbull, commenting on that issue?)

OK, there’s been a lot of bloviation about this, and I never thought I’d be defending Tony Abbott, but…

The guy has to work with the Liberal members who are elected by the people. And those who are elected are those who have received preselection from the Liberal party apparatus. So is the problem Mr Abbott, or is it the Liberal preselection process that is providing him with unsatisfactory female ministerial options?

I don’t know much about the Liberals who’ve been recently elected. So…serious question…are there a bunch of really bright and capable potential female cabinet members who’ve been jerked around by the boss, or is the scarcity of females in Cabinet caused by a scarcity of female talent across the board in the government benches?

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

Errrr, he didn’t !

milkman said :

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

Um, he didn’t?

Diggety said :

You guys need another tact.

FFS the word is TACK.

IP

I am also going to stand up for Tony Abbott.

What’s with the incessant Tony bashing in forums? When Julia was around, it was pretty much just the media and the Liberal party making all the noise. This time around Liberal voters are making more noise than Labor politicians.

It appears to me that Labor voters are simply sore losers.

The amount of hatred coming out of Labor voters is surprising me. I don’t remember Liberal voters being this petty. Maybe just the type of people who vote Labor?

WTF is this “LaborGreens” crap? The only formal coalition in Australian federal politics is between the Liberals and the Nationals. Consequently the Liberal Party actually got fewer first preference votes than the ALP. It was the Nationals and the LNP that got them over the line. And only just, on a two-party preferred basis.

In any case the Greens ended their agreement with Labor earlier this year http://theconversation.com/milne-dumps-gillard-in-preparation-for-an-abbott-government-12305 a bit too late, in my opinion. Should have jumped off the train a lot earlier, to avoid the inevitable crash resulting in federal Labor hurtling to the Right. They were never going to beat the right-wingers by trying to look like them (corruption, flogging asylum seekers, promoting mining, cutting benefits to single mums and so on).

IP

LSWCHP said :

[
There you go. Reduced criminal influence, less corruption of those in power, less property crime, a reduction in drug related deaths and improved health outcomes for users.

What’s not to like?

Government drug policy is not and never was about reducing crime or helping addicts. It was always about control. The “war on drugs” enables a never-ending expansion of government powers.

milkman said :

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

To make him tea?

IP

LSWCHP said :

Roundhead89 said :

For example in the early 2000s the Carnell government actually wanted to bring in a scheme where free heroin would be distributed by ACT Health. Thankfully the Howard government said they would not change the Customs Act to allow the importation of heroin, and they would immediately overturn any proposal for a heroin trial.

Free heroin would be a bloody great idea.

It would totally bust the dealers business model so their vast profits would disappear overnight thus eliminating a huge source of corruption of cops, politicians etc. Meanwhile, the users would no longer need to constantly break into houses and steal peoples stuff to pay the vastly inflated prices caused by the current situation. As an added benefit, the smack could be regulated and pure, rather than of uncertain quality and strength so deaths by OD would be reduced. As icing on the cake, users would be known to the health system, and could be offered treatment for their addiction.

There you go. Reduced criminal influence, less corruption of those in power, less property crime, a reduction in drug related deaths and improved health outcomes for users.

What’s not to like?

Somebody pat this man!

Seriously, you and I can see this, why can not the pollies?

Masquara said :

Interesting that you haven’t raised the REAL issue with Abbott: where are the women in Cabinet?

Why is that a real issue?

What matters are their policies. Not the bits between their legs.

Roundhead89 said :

3. Claiming a mandate. Unlike Gillard who announced during the 2010 campaign that there would be no carbon tax then introduced one to please The Greens, all the Coalition policies were up front for all to see. The reason they were not announced earlier was due to the viciously negative and nasty ad campaign run by Labor and the unions and the fear that the Coalition policies would be misrepresented in more scare campaigning.

The policies might be upfront, but unfortunately they don’t have to stick to them.
As for advertising, please, all I saw on TV prior to the election was Liberal Party dribble. I did not once see an ad by Labor, let alone one that said anything about Coalition policies.

Are you saying that Coalition policies are as transparent as in Howard’s day
– No GST under a Liberal government, then introduced the next year
– Children were thrown overboard, but evidence says they weren’t
– No forced redundancies in the public service, then over 30,000 gone.

You only have to look at Wikipedia to see the Liberal party’s track record, now we are stuck with them again. Fear for your lives….

LSWCHP said :

Masquara said :

Interesting that you haven’t raised the REAL issue with Abbott: where are the women in Cabinet? Where are the next-generation women, who should be learning as Cabinet secretaries? THAT is the disgrace of the Abbott Government. (And why isn’t everyone’s darling, Malcolm Turnbull, commenting on that issue?)

OK, there’s been a lot of bloviation about this, and I never thought I’d be defending Tony Abbott, but…

The guy has to work with the Liberal members who are elected by the people. And those who are elected are those who have received preselection from the Liberal party apparatus. So is the problem Mr Abbott, or is it the Liberal preselection process that is providing him with unsatisfactory female ministerial options?

I don’t know much about the Liberals who’ve been recently elected. So…serious question…are there a bunch of really bright and capable potential female cabinet members who’ve been jerked around by the boss, or is the scarcity of females in Cabinet caused by a scarcity of female talent across the board in the government benches?

If Abbott really did dislike women, why would he appoint one to run PM&C?

Roundhead89 said :

For example in the early 2000s the Carnell government actually wanted to bring in a scheme where free heroin would be distributed by ACT Health. Thankfully the Howard government said they would not change the Customs Act to allow the importation of heroin, and they would immediately overturn any proposal for a heroin trial.

Free heroin would be a bloody great idea.

It would totally bust the dealers business model so their vast profits would disappear overnight thus eliminating a huge source of corruption of cops, politicians etc. Meanwhile, the users would no longer need to constantly break into houses and steal peoples stuff to pay the vastly inflated prices caused by the current situation. As an added benefit, the smack could be regulated and pure, rather than of uncertain quality and strength so deaths by OD would be reduced. As icing on the cake, users would be known to the health system, and could be offered treatment for their addiction.

There you go. Reduced criminal influence, less corruption of those in power, less property crime, a reduction in drug related deaths and improved health outcomes for users.

What’s not to like?

Please spare us anymore of your pointless bitching about Tony Abbott. The few people who still buy The Canberra Times get their fill of this nonsense from the paper’s writers and correspondents. The last thing we need is for RA to be infected with this nonsense.

To go thru your rant in point form:
1. Steve Bracks. Typical Labor jobs for the boys. He had to go. Same for those four union bosses who were appointed to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and signed to five year contracts two days before Rudd called the election. The new government has had to pay out their contracts at great expense to the taxpayer.
2. Hiding of boat arrivals. I’ve often thought that the people smugglers thought they were scoring a huge victory every time Ray Hadley played the ship’s horn on his show announcing another boat had arrived. By being more discreet about it the government will have more influence in stopping the boats arriving and a huge propaganda weapon will be taken off the people smugglers.
3. Claiming a mandate. Unlike Gillard who announced during the 2010 campaign that there would be no carbon tax then introduced one to please The Greens, all the Coalition policies were up front for all to see. The reason they were not announced earlier was due to the viciously negative and nasty ad campaign run by Labor and the unions and the fear that the Coalition policies would be misrepresented in more scare campaigning.
4. Gay marriage. In the Franklin River Dam case (1983), the High Court ruled that the Federal Government could overturn state government laws and policies. The self government acts for both the ACT and NT also states that the Federal parliament can overturn territory laws. These powers have saved the ACT from potential disaster in the past. For example in the early 2000s the Carnell government actually wanted to bring in a scheme where free heroin would be distributed by ACT Health. Thankfully the Howard government said they would not change the Customs Act to allow the importation of heroin, and they would immediately overturn any proposal for a heroin trial.

Masquara said :

Interesting that you haven’t raised the REAL issue with Abbott: where are the women in Cabinet? Where are the next-generation women, who should be learning as Cabinet secretaries? THAT is the disgrace of the Abbott Government. (And why isn’t everyone’s darling, Malcolm Turnbull, commenting on that issue?)

OK, there’s been a lot of bloviation about this, and I never thought I’d be defending Tony Abbott, but…

The guy has to work with the Liberal members who are elected by the people. And those who are elected are those who have received preselection from the Liberal party apparatus. So is the problem Mr Abbott, or is it the Liberal preselection process that is providing him with unsatisfactory female ministerial options?

I don’t know much about the Liberals who’ve been recently elected. So…serious question…are there a bunch of really bright and capable potential female cabinet members who’ve been jerked around by the boss, or is the scarcity of females in Cabinet caused by a scarcity of female talent across the board in the government benches?

Blen_Carmichael said :

>> Like Abbott’s hero, John Howard, who overturned the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory in 1996, five months after it came into force.<<

Just a few corrections. First, it was repealed in 1997, not 1996. Second, it was the Federal Parliament, not John Howard, that overturned the legislation. Third, it resulted from a private member's bill, although no doubt it had Howard's blessing. Fourth, various members of Labor and LNP voted for and against the Andrews bill.

Careful. You’re dealing with a dedicated GreensLabor voter, they can only handle so many facts at once (nominally, zero).

Masquara said :

Re 3: Labor released their economic policies the evening before two elections – 24 hours LATER than the coalition.

You may be right on points 1 and 2 (and I confess I don’t think much about point 4) but I think you’re confused about “economic policies”. You may be being a little misleading, too.

Did you mean costings? If so, yes, Labor did not release all of its costings before the election. However, the Liberals released no costings. Their very brief document does not count: it contains neither costings under the Charter of Budget Honesty, nor costings by the Parliamentary Budget Office (which the Libs helped to create), nor does it contain any hints as to the methodologies used. It is a useless document, because it cannot be used to hold the government to account.

Labor’s costings that were published (some weeks before the Coalition’s document was released) at least had some details. Also, we can judge Labor by its budget documents (the May budget and the Economic Statement).

If you meant economic policies, we know all about Labor’s approach: see the budget papers and the positions taken by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

We have no idea what the Coalition’s economic policies are. It heavily criticised Labor’s “debt crisis” and “budget crisis” but apparently wishes to worsen the government’s fiscal situation by removing revenue (carbon and mining taxes). I don’t expect much from oppositions, but the problem with the Coalition’s evasion of a fair and transparent costings process is we now have no means of holding it to account for breaching its stated policies, because it didn’t detail them.

Clearly, 54-11’s leftard brain is melting. Too much spare time on his/her CSS super to ingest crazed Labor/Green propaganda.

I’m surprised he/she forgot sacking the Climate Commission, which was headed by Tim Flannery who espouses a strange environmental religion/enviro-socialist new world order: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c&feature=player_embedded

Or Abbott’s announcement that Dr Parkinson would no longer head Treasury, despite Dr Parkinson (apolitical public servant) said that he would walk if his pet scheme, the carbon tax, was repealed: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/09/20/martin-parkinson-signalled-that-he-would-resign/

I too thought Mr Bracks’s sacking was ‘not cricket’.

On the subject of Mr Abbott’s penchants, Samantha Maiden’s Sunday Tele article, ‘Abbott and Costello’s battle of young turks’ is interesting – it states that Mr Costello thought Mr Abbott to be ‘a DLP stooge and an economic illiterate.’
The next few years will be interesting times. Probably, for Canberra, in the Chinese curse sense.
BTW I was bequeathed the Tele from a departing guest . . . I would never willingly contribute to Mr Murdoch’s cred-free empire!

Labor and the Greens had 6 years to get some goood stuff done, and yeah they did a few good things but they also wasted an enormous amount of resources on BS, and this is why they were kicked unceremoniously out of government.

Oh goody more Tony Abbott bashing – YAWN

wildturkeycanoe said :

Masquara, please read – “Mr Bracks was appointed to the role in May and was due to start work in the US financial capital this week.” source – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/bracks-stripped-of-ny-post-by-incoming-abbott-government/4947454
Where do you get your information from?

How about focusing on the real issues. Bracks was still in Australia and had not taken up the position. He had not left Australia. Now, back to the issue of non-representation by women, and leave the very privileged and eminently employable Steve Bracks to find another job (which should take his network about half a day).

Masquara, please read – “Mr Bracks was appointed to the role in May and was due to start work in the US financial capital this week.” source – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/bracks-stripped-of-ny-post-by-incoming-abbott-government/4947454
Where do you get your information from?

>> Like Abbott’s hero, John Howard, who overturned the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory in 1996, five months after it came into force.<<

Just a few corrections. First, it was repealed in 1997, not 1996. Second, it was the Federal Parliament, not John Howard, that overturned the legislation. Third, it resulted from a private member's bill, although no doubt it had Howard's blessing. Fourth, various members of Labor and LNP voted for and against the Andrews bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJVa8mo8bI

Because someone has to.

Best take some stress leave then.

But seriously, the Left have banging on about how evil Tony Abbott is for years now, and most of it has turned out to be exaggerated bullshit, or just bullshit.

The Libs got my No. 1 in the HoR partly because there wasn’t much choice, and partly because I realised he Abbott isn’t the devil incarnate.

You guys need another tact.

The very early signs are that TA is going to disappoint the more rabid right-wingers, so this list might not be quite as long as expected, even if his tenure proves to be more enduring than you fear.

Libs are in, Abbott is Australia’s PM.
Labor/Greens will get their turn again.
Why not just get over it and live your life.

Re 1: I wouldn’t put Steve Brack’s disappointment up as a major issue. He hadn’t yet taken up the job.

Re 2: It’s quite possible that Labor announcing “successful arrivals” one by one was playing into people-smugglers’ hands all along.

Re 3: Labor released their economic policies the evening before two elections – 24 hours LATER than the coalition.

Re 4: Julia Gillard was anti gay marriage, remember? Abbott has not ruled out a conscience vote. See my earlier response re the ACT Govt and gay marriage – Katie is playing into Abbott’s hands, he would like nothing more than to see the issue off the table and where it belongs – in the liberal “don’t interfere in people’s private lives” arena, and legal.

Interesting that you haven’t raised the REAL issue with Abbott: where are the women in Cabinet? Where are the next-generation women, who should be learning as Cabinet secretaries? THAT is the disgrace of the Abbott Government. (And why isn’t everyone’s darling, Malcolm Turnbull, commenting on that issue?)

Typical Canberra greens voter.

I always thought a media release on every single boat arrival was bad policy and created a sense of crisis where none was needed.

We don’t announce every backpacker overstaying their visa.

If Labor had made less fanfare for every boat the issue could have been handled with a lot more human decency IMHO.