Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

What Joy Burch should really be apologising for

By johnboy 8 December 2013 48

tweet

Anyone who cares what anyone else re-tweets is, inherently, an oxygen thief who would improve the world by their passing from it.

So despite numerous people trying to egg us on about Joy Burch ill advisedly retweeting a crude character assessment of the Peter Pan of Young Liberals, Christopher Pyne, we decided to prove our fitness for continued life by not giving a crap.

Sadly oxygen thieves are in no short supply in the ACT and before long it was all over all sorts of media and the Canberra Liberals were working themselves into some confected outrage.

Bear in mind that Joy Burch’s inept staff have, in the past, lead her to directly call everyone reading her tweets a Mother F***er.

By contrast merely amplifying someone else describing Minister Pyne as a female sexual organ seems tame.

The greatest sin is that this incompetence has allowed Miranda Devine in the Sunday Telegraph to make a victim of out the former teenage toecutter, before going on to canonise him for his many, in her eyes, sterling virtues.

I’d quite like to see a media release apologising for this. But while still active on Twitter we seem to have stopped make media releases available.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
48 Responses to
What Joy Burch should really be apologising for
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Thumper 10:03 am 10 Dec 13

howeph said :

Thumper said :

How many times do I need to say this?

The previous government dumped most of Gonski’s recommendation. In the end Gonski was nothing more than throwing a bucket of money at the states, no real progress, just a crap load of money. It really is that simple.

Gonski was already dead under Labor.

You just saying so doesn’t make it so.

I gave a link to a well researched article justifying my position. Give me a reason to change my opinion.

No, you’re right. You win.

Yay for you.

housebound 10:02 am 10 Dec 13

Here’s some reading for you all:

Is Gillard Preparing to Dump Gonski?


Gillard Turns Her Back on the Disadvantaged

The Gillard School Funding Plan is a Watershed But is Not the Full Gonski

You’ll have to do your own searching for anything about Rudd’s abandoning of Gonski.

howeph 9:05 am 10 Dec 13

Thumper said :

How many times do I need to say this?

The previous government dumped most of Gonski’s recommendation. In the end Gonski was nothing more than throwing a bucket of money at the states, no real progress, just a crap load of money. It really is that simple.

Gonski was already dead under Labor.

You just saying so doesn’t make it so.

I gave a link to a well researched article justifying my position. Give me a reason to change my opinion.

Thumper 8:19 am 10 Dec 13

howeph said :

Thumper said :

Yawn…. No.

Again you conveniently gloss over what I previously said. And I don’t need to voice opinion on Pyne because I already have.

Let’s see, and believe me, I do know a bit about this subject. Gillard panicked with Gonski and started making promises that she could never keep. Rudd dumped the brand because it was associated with Gillard. The ALP were the ones who removed the brand Gonski. Rudd couldn’t give a toss about it as really, everything was about him. The ALP rejected most of Gonski’s recommendations and Gonski himself no longer wanted his name connected to it. The ALP were never going to implement Gonski as Gonski intended. In the end it became a political football.

Fair summary?

It is, believe me.

As for Pyne and his handling of the funding issue, I agree with you. Pity you are so one eyed you can’t admit to the abject failures of the previous government.

I don’t see that we are in much disagreement.

You think that I’m glossing over Labor failings. But from what I read (like http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715) Labor’s policy got the core of the reforms right. Certainly a significant improvement on the status quo; and a set of reforms that could be built on by successive governments.

Sure I could wish that they got the changes bedded down sooner so that they had a better chance of withstanding the Abbott recking ball, but it does take time to reach consensus. And I might also wish that more of the Gonski recommendations could have been implemented but I also recognise that “politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best”.

In short: Labor offered progress. The Libs, apparently out of spite, are giving us nothing.

If you can’t see that what Labor had on offer was at least better than what Pyne is delivering then I think that it is you who is the one eyed cynic.

How many times do I need to say this?

The previous government dumped most of Gonski’s recommendation. In the end Gonski was nothing more than throwing a bucket of money at the states, no real progress, just a crap load of money. It really is that simple.

Gonski was already dead under Labor.

howeph 10:43 pm 09 Dec 13

Thumper said :

Yawn…. No.

Again you conveniently gloss over what I previously said. And I don’t need to voice opinion on Pyne because I already have.

Let’s see, and believe me, I do know a bit about this subject. Gillard panicked with Gonski and started making promises that she could never keep. Rudd dumped the brand because it was associated with Gillard. The ALP were the ones who removed the brand Gonski. Rudd couldn’t give a toss about it as really, everything was about him. The ALP rejected most of Gonski’s recommendations and Gonski himself no longer wanted his name connected to it. The ALP were never going to implement Gonski as Gonski intended. In the end it became a political football.

Fair summary?

It is, believe me.

As for Pyne and his handling of the funding issue, I agree with you. Pity you are so one eyed you can’t admit to the abject failures of the previous government.

I don’t see that we are in much disagreement.

You think that I’m glossing over Labor failings. But from what I read (like http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715) Labor’s policy got the core of the reforms right. Certainly a significant improvement on the status quo; and a set of reforms that could be built on by successive governments.

Sure I could wish that they got the changes bedded down sooner so that they had a better chance of withstanding the Abbott recking ball, but it does take time to reach consensus. And I might also wish that more of the Gonski recommendations could have been implemented but I also recognise that “politics is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best”.

In short: Labor offered progress. The Libs, apparently out of spite, are giving us nothing.

If you can’t see that what Labor had on offer was at least better than what Pyne is delivering then I think that it is you who is the one eyed cynic.

Thumper 7:07 pm 09 Dec 13

howeph said :

Thumper said :

howeph said :

Affirmative Action Man said :

Pyne has a point. All the Gonski $$ in the world won’t necesarrily improve things.

The point is that Pyne doesn’t have any coherent point to make. He’s had four different positions on Education funding in as many months.

Gonski was not about more money alone. It was a detailed reform of the mechanisms and rules by which the existing and extra money was distributed to schools. These reforms have been completely bypassed by Pyne and Abbott in their latest policy position.

You’re right, the way to improve education is not just more $$$. Unfortunately under this government all the hard won, debated and negotiated reforms agreed under Gonski, that were about things other than the money, have just been tossed out of the window. All Pyne has achieved is to give the states more money with no conditions attached. The states now don’t even have to spend the extra money on education.

Pyne’s failings aside…

So you agree then? Otherwise, why should I put Pyne’s failings aside? He is the education minister.

Thumper said :

… you seem to be ignoring the fact that Gonski himself withdrew his name from the report and that the previous government chose to overlook most of the recommendations. Indeed, so much so that the word ‘Gonski’ was purged from the record by Rudd himself, mainly because he considered that it linked him GIllard and would hinder his popularity in the run to the previous election.

I understand his name strictly belongs to the report not Labor’s policy, but let’s get real. The history is basically that the Gonski Report found that Australia has a big, widening gap between high and low performing students – the more disadvantaged the students’ backgrounds the worse the child’s outcomes – and that the current funding models were making this situation worse.

(Pyen at this time said that there wasn’t a problem – and that if it wasn’t broke don’t fix it)

The Labor government introduced reforms to address these issues – maybe not exactly the same way as recommended by Gonski but significant reforms none the less that had broad community and expert support.

(Pyne opposed Labor’s policy reforms. Then he supported them on a “unity ticket” for the election.)

And now under this Liberal government we have NO reforms (no Gonski recommendations in any form whatsoever) – just some extra money been given to the states for them to use in any way they choose.

(Pyne “first” dumped the reforms including the extra funding and then backflipped once again to deliver the funding but none of the reforms)

Is this a fair summary?

Yawn…. No.

Again you conveniently gloss over what I previously said. And I don’t need to voice opinion on Pyne because I already have.

Let’s see, and believe me, I do know a bit about this subject. Gillard panicked with Gonski and started making promises that she could never keep. Rudd dumped the brand because it was associated with Gillard. The ALP were the ones who removed the brand Gonski. Rudd couldn’t give a toss about it as really, everything was about him. The ALP rejected most of Gonski’s recommendations and Gonski himself no longer wanted his name connected to it. The ALP were never going to implement Gonski as Gonski intended. In the end it became a political football.

Fair summary?

It is, believe me.

As for Pyne and his handling of the funding issue, I agree with you. Pity you are so one eyed you can’t admit to the abject failures of the previous government.

howeph 5:42 pm 09 Dec 13

Affirmative Action Man said :

Get good motivated teachers & principals…

Good motivated teachers are going to be harder and harder to find given recent governments’ approach to education

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-09/job-blind-ideology-putting-australian-education-at-risk/5144008

Affirmative Action Man said :

… get them to listen to Parents (instead of the Teachers Union) …

Do all parents agree then? Seems to me a better approach would be that we trusted and supported teachers’ professional judgement (if we did this would also help motivate and keep those good teaches).

Affirmative Action Man said :

& give schools the tools to get rid of ar$ehole kids & their families …

How do you propose to do that in a public education system?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site