A Note To Mark Kenny

You know full well the Nielsen Poll was fabricated and the Morgan Poll contradicts it. There were admitted ‘margins of error’ in it, up to 9 percent in some states, that make nonsense of it.

Morgan says, correctly, that Gillard picked up 290,000 votes last week.

Please report this.

Do not make me think, after my admiration for you in the past two months, that you are as corrupt as the others.

As Oakes, Murray, Van Onselen, Akerman, and, especially, Hartcher.

Leave a comment ?


  1. When are all these trash polls going to go? I can’t get over how these polls are now treated as gospel. Absolute nonsense!

  2. It just gets worse for Gillard. Nothing she does in terms of politics (as opposed to policy) works. To think the ALP will go over the cliff with her, taking the party into oblivion is astounding.

    • Where does the msm media dig up all these Gillard haters from? Nobody hates Gillard in my neck of the woods. Everyone I talk to think she is OK. Facebook thinks she is ok. At least 4 times more likes than Abbott or krudd.

      I, like Bob, do not think the younger generation have been asked by the msm polling what they think of her.

      • And young people vote. I don’t think they read msm much.

      • Don’t worry about facebook ‘likes’ as an indicator, because a like means access to the page in those cases, not that those clicking the button are head over heels smitten with the person/organisation.
        there are footy clubs and rock groups with far more ‘likes’.

        • No, you have to click the like button. More that 4 times moe people have accessed the Gillard facebook page than the Abbott page, and bothered to click like. Sure there is a large margin of error if you want to use this as a poll, but it needs to be a really large margin for Abbott to catch up.

          • I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
            Just because someone has clicked the like button doesnt mean they are a fan. Hundreds of thousands may have looked at the pages for all of your nominated and not clicked like. But if you want to comment you have to ‘like’ the page. Read the comments and come back and tell me there are no trolls accessing the pages.

            • @chris. Sorry to disagree, but you DON”T have to click like to comment. You can click ‘comment’ without having to click like, so your basis for your comments is wrong.

          • Yeah, people do “like” so they can troll or keep a hostile watchful eye but usually “like” means what it says….no I don’y have surveys to back this up but this would be the facebook norm. Because when you “like” a page you are giving it credibility….hence the phenomenon of the “likewhore” who will do anything to get extra likes.

            I don’t use twitter but I think it is pretty much the same story.

            • Not to labour the point but ‘the norm’ is a big guess on your part, as you say with zilch to back that statement.

              • Not exactly with zilch, Chris. “With
                little empirical data but an understanding of the principles” would be more accurate.

                And much of life is like that, we have to make decisions on that kind of basis all the time.

      • deadboofy then there is the young persons social media of twitter of course;

        K.Rudd 1,237,520 Followers
        Gillard 398,246
        Abbott 130,971
        Turnbull 170,023
        Hockey 74,980
        Swan 43,167

        Tell us anything? No?

        • tells me there is something very strange going on

          does not tell me that krudd is competent to be Prime Minister, especially when his colleagues threw him out and refused to take him back

          in short, bullshit for bullshitters

        • Mmm. Don’t use twitter. Does twitter have a like button?
          Is there a way to tell if krudd twitter followers actually like him, how many?

          • No, no like button as such but the followers have to click to follow whatever is posted from the source-same story, you can’t say with any accuracy that they are all gooey eyed.

            • obviously twitter followers tells very little about anything, the biggest in the world is Justin Beiber, (is he Kev’s love child by any chance?)

              for a more technical explanation:


              • Tommy T? Laughing here.
                There’s nothing drastically technical, it just illustrates what I have been saying viz; likes and followers can be discounted as gospel.

                • I am a bit bemused by this apparent fascination with whether or not Facebook or Twitter is recognised enough as a guide of some sort to the voting intentions of the entire voting public, yet no questions are raised about just how representative the whole social media demographic is, let alone Twitter and Facebook treated on their own.

                  • Indeed Rootin’ we agree at last.

                    If facebook is a guide, Rihanna is the most liked human being with 64m likes, followed closely by eminem also 64m

                    Perhaps they should be President or Prime Minister?
                    Bananas in Pajamas are leading human(?) likes in Australia, though perhaps Peter Andre should take the PMship with 364,000 fan pages . . .

        • It says there are a lot of twits.

          • reply is to Chris : “Tell us anything? No?”

          • Not so slow on the uptake after all DQ, I take it all back!

            Facebook and twitter don’t cut it. And those MP’s of all persuasions that use it just to make pronouncements haven’t twigged that truly social media is a two way thing.
            If someone, say a young voter, asks a question on it an answer is what’s expected.

    • oblivion? my god, it is worse than i thought. will the whole world burst into flames and fiery swords appear in the sky as signs for the unrighteous who refused to sack Gillard?

      There are worse things than losing an election, and one of them is losing your collective head and acting like a gutless rabble who think the Australian public won’t respond to good policy clearly presented

      get your head out of your arse and talk about policy, policy, not pretty faces being sold to you by your enemies

      quick fix jerks

      • The ‘Labor’ Party policy on refugees is a quick fix jerk. It’s a world problem, needing world solutions. Socialism is a world-wide movement, under Gillard it’s a toy. Gillard is not a true socialist, hence reductions in foreign aid. The Labor party has had its intrinsic agenda hijacked, even the reborn lefty Malcom Fraser has infinitely more heart, more soul, more awareness than the narrow minded Gillard Party. Gonski, what, we brilliantly educate our children to grow up heartless, calculating, self-satisfied? Give over. Gillard let the miners off the hook (assets that belong primarily to the first nation), just when Rudd had them sorted, remember what Fergusson said? “They (miners) were within an inch of signing”. That’s when the knife came out, and Gillard let them off the hook to grab personal power. I’m not brainwashed by Gillard, that’s all. I’m a proud Labor supporter, a socialist, I’m deliberately not financially wealthy, yet I’m rich beyond my means. Gillard is a Liberal.

        • Sadly, chris hunter, it is a long time since anyone on the ALP leadership even pretended to be a socialist. Of any sort, let alone a “true” one….

    • To think that she is so selfish that she would take the party with her over that cliff is even more astounding when the answer to retaining Government for the party is staring from the mirror, right into everyone’s mush.

      Time for a bit of ripening of self to un-self methinks

      • No Chris…I don’t like her either (she cut me pension the bitch etc) but she is not being selfish. The ALP can’t afford to be blown about by the press. If it changed leaders now the press would be boosting a a new challenge within a few weeks. She is showing much courage and fortitude, credit where it is due.

        Its not all about the leader. The ALP has to take of its big red boxing gloves and get out there and metaphorically smash teeth. As a simple test, we need Liberals who have children at school to complain that their kids come home crying every night. Until that starts happening the ALP isn’t going in hard enough.

        • We’ll agree to disagree.
          Far too late to shilly shally about the place worrying about what the press might say.
          Elections are won on a leader-just go to 2007.
          The choice is a chance at retaining government or oblivion.

          • Too much emphasis on the leader builds problems for the future….as we are seeing.

            It is possible to talk over the heads of the press to the people but that takes time.

    • Malcolm Kukura

      The constitution of the new republic must be designed to ensure that the head of government and head of state are elected by all the people eligible to vote and not only a majority of the coupla hundred senators and honorable members bought and paid for by the highest bidders.

      This corrupt interference in the original Whig Westminster system to install illegitimate stooges at the top by the 4th estate and their parasitic plutocratic puppeteers guarantees that a tiny minority chooses the heads of government and state. The public be damned. Letem eat cake.

      What good is this fifth estate if not to organize to take back public control of who leads?

  3. When will all those so called journalists who are predicting or baying for a krudd return look in the mirror and see a ‘dork’ reflected.
    When no challenge happens, because at this stage it is not an option, Bob has already explained why, will any of these dorks say sorry, i got it wrong?

    • It’s not really like that deadboofy. Think of the whole Rudd/Gillard saga as The Wind in the Willows. The well-meaning Toad Rudd, but at times a little foolish, somewhat inexperienced in the harsh realities of life, semi-self destructive, repeatedly crashing cars etc, takes his eye off the ball, goes on a wild ride with his somewhat alarmed friends, non of whom can tell him a great deal, but nevertheless stick with him, because he’s ultimately knowable, and despite his eccentric behavior, reasonably predictable. But when it’s time to return to Toad Hall, his rightful place bestowed on him,
      Weasel Gillard, accompanied by the sharp eyed, ambitious stoats and ferrets, have cunningly ensconced themselves in Toad Hall. At this point in time Toad recognizes the error of his ways and humbly changes for the better. Luckily for Toad, he knows of a secret tunnel and with his good friends, Rat, Mole and Badger, drive away the intruders and live happily ever after. You see deadboofy, it’s all about justice, the right outcome, that’s what the public are clamoring for, they want Toad to go home, to his rightful place, the place they trustingly installed him, all those years ago.

      • Of curse in that story the weasels and stoats are the working class, I think Disney even put them in cloth caps.

        Toad and Badger are respectively wealthy and reduced members of the squirearchy while Ratty and Mole are more humble members of the gentry.

        So yeah, there is an element of restoring the rightful king in pro-Rudd sentiment but I don’t think it is very healthy or suitable for anything pretending to be a Labour party.

        Its not about Rudd.

        • Well measured, thoughtful, I like your take on it. The only problem I have is with those cloth capped weasels, stoats and ferrets. Call me old fashioned, I’m more from the Whitlam era of chivalry (not necessarily poverty), but to me the genuine working class is heroic, honorable, and would never take over a person’s house when they are out of town, let alone break into an office to gain cheap political advantage, or embezzle the trusted funds of the hard working, as has been happening, and is going through the legal system as we speak. Those sort of people deserve to be outed. Enough is enough.

  4. I think they have all been pissing in their shoes perhaps.

  5. How about this for a strategy for all labor MP’s when asked to comment on polls.
    The standard response should be
    ‘I will answer your poll question only if you ask me a policy question first’.

  6. Gillard is great; unsurpassed in the area of policy, she just does not have that quality (due to lack of charisma, bad luck or ineptitude) to lead the ALP and she will lead it to a very heavy loss if not replaced. If Shorten is a compromise candidate then so be it. Rudd although a nerd (perhaps being the era of Gates) has a common popular touch (which 20-30% vote on). There is very little worse than losing an election, especially a heavy defeat. Very little worse.

    • the only problem yu mention with krudd is nerdiness; how about hated by most IN THE PARTY who worked with him? bit of a drawback?

      this is just taking oxygen from the party’s communication of its policies, you are helping Abbs

      • On and on you go, with the unsubstantiated crap in the party et al when you really have no idea, do you.
        Where do you stand on the party?
        An ‘almost’ member like some of the other great wafflers on here?
        Or Mr Popularity at the branch meetings?

    • BUT, if krudd had won the first challenge about a year ago, would we now have a NDIS, worth a million votes I would have thought? Or Gonski? ….etc. etc…
      I doubt it. He didn’have even the guts on climate change.
      If she loses, that is if, she will leave a huge legacy of important legislation.

      • Why do you doubt it? And on climate change mmm… who was the team that convinced him to change. Clue, their initials were JG and WS.

        • She has the legislative runs on the board.
          As they say in football. Look at the scoreboard.

          • Legislation is in the pipe line for major stuff for some time.Cant comment on the education one( unlike some I prefer to know something about it before waxing lyrical) but the NDIS was well down the track before last year.
            All of the stuff that has been passed by the Government is great.

            • Yep
              “All the stuff that has been passed by the Government is great”

              Like pulling teath to get that admission.

            • ‘Under the proposal the Government will create a school resource standard - an amount of money the Government says is required to educate a child.

              ‘Ms Gillard said the base amount of funding in the school resource standard for primary students is $9,271 per child and $12,193 for secondary pupils.

              ‘ “The school resource standard will be fully publicly funded in state schools,” Ms Gillard said.
              ‘ “Non- government schools will get a proportion of the amount per student, which is adjusted according to the capacity of those school communities to make private contributions, as is currently the case.” ‘

              What’s not to understand about the VITAL core concept of EQUALITY of educational opportunity which Gonski enshrines in law.


            • One.eye.for.a.kingdom

              why don’t you know what’s in the Gonski legislation Chris, why haven’t you read up on it?

              • Gosh your majesty, I was unaware that reading every detail was compulsory in your kingdom.
                Of course you will have and also on the other major ones like the NDIS.
                I have read the basics for Gonski but as I have expressed elsewhere haven’t felt the need to burst into print on every thing. So much to do, so little time.
                It is worth noting that my State is not signatory ans despite the ‘whats not to understand’ line from the resident opinionator its worth reminding yourselves that it isn’t yet passed.

          • Daniel Jenkins

            Yeah, but you’ve got to win elections to nail down the legislation.

    • This is why I say Gillard must challenge Abbott for debates with him and his shadow ministers weekly up until the next election. SHE WILL DESTROY HIM and restore her authority. He wld be forced to reveal his “policies”.

    • This is why I say Gillard must challenge Abbott for debates with him and his shadow ministers weekly up until the next election. SHE WILL DESTROY HIM and restore her authority. He wld be forced to reveal his “policies”.

      • Wombat old pal, Gillard has no authority over the voters, that’s the problem not wiping the floor with Abbott.

  7. To paraphrase Jefferson re government/newspapers - which would be preferable?
    Politics without policy or policy without politics?
    Charisma without competence or competence without charisma?
    Abbott or Gillard?

  8. Ruddites and assorted clowns on the loose today it seems. I wonder why they bother.

    Gillard will win and win well, if the naysayers all STFU.

    • It must be lovely on planet DQ.

    • I don’t really get this. Where do you Gillard lovers get off?

      Just because some of us see a Labor victory through another leader does not make us naysayers, idiots, insincere or any other epithet you can drag out of your collective arses.

      There is not a scintilla, a skerrick, nada, no proof Rudd is any of the things he is supposed to be. Is all we have is the words of a few disgruntled members of the government, who should have kept their fucking opinions to themselves.

      Fuck heads like Latham should shut the fuck up. This pillock is the problem with the party. He should be on a building site pushing a fucking wheelbarrow, not on Q&A giving his worldly wise view of the world.

      The public for better or worse love this nerd called Rudd, he if put back can win the election. Or is Robert Mann a wanker as well?

  9. would be more than happy for Gillard to stay if there was the remotest possibility she could win. Unfortunately there isn’t. Labor has to change now. This is kamikaze stuff at the moment.

    • What has led you to that conclusion? The polls? Shaky ground indeed.

    • In the old days, magic low numbers, low inflation, low tax rates, low unemployment, low interst rates was enough to return goverments. We have all this, plus tripple A credit ratings.

      Why is this not enough any more?

      Why is is a popularity contest?

      • Deadboofy, I think these days you just have to be likeable, popular like some silly Bieber, folksy, shake hands and tell jokes and have millions of followers…what do those followers actually do..
        Policies do not matter, it’s better not have any, just like Abbott.

        • Not really, educated people look at policy.

          Which is why pouring money and resources into the eduction system is such a VISIONARY policy, and the libs are scared of it because if the voters were educated and looked at policy… well..

          • vision: education, climate, internet, bringing disability care into the 21st century. . .

          • Deadboofy, I was joking, of course policies matter, but obviously not to everybody…why are people flocking to Abbott.
            I’m writing endlessly on the Drum about Labor’s achievements, but all I get is twenty or so Liberal posters shouting: Gillard is a disaster.
            I’m getting mighty fed up with Australian politics; why change governments when country is doing well, they would not do it in my native country…even they did not PERSONALLY like the leader.

            • Helvi, one of the points you make is what drives a lot of discussion in the party.
              Why change Governments when(generally)
              the country is doing so well.
              The government has to remain there if the work is to continue.
              It won’t stay there under the current leader.
              That’s the problem from a party perspective.
              So do we give up the chance to continue whats been started by putting fingers in ears la-la-la
              and ignoring the inevitable?

              • If someone asks me who I like among Labor politicians, I’d say: Penny Wong, Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Alabanese, Dreyfuss…

                If someone asks me who will get us over the line, I have to say; I don’t know…

                I don’t know what and whom to believe anymore.

            • It’s a long and winding road Helvi. Australia is its own special basket case. Some of the dudes on this site are mad to the eyeballs, but they mean well. I’m not sure what’s causing it, possibly the ozone hole, and if Tony Abbott has his way the hole is gonna get bigger, We might yet all have to beg Doug Quixote for a seat on his horse, perhaps do a runner for Afghanistan, but will they let us in after all the nasty things we’ve said about their refugees?

              • ch, I’m ready to say yes to anything that prevents Abbott becoming our PM, I could not handle Howard’s second coming.

                I’m even thinking that if it were ONLY Howard, but bloody Abbott…

  10. the policy of attack divide and rule with able support of rats and the right wing bosses toy boys over an electorate that might not question and doubt everything, just wanting to be one of the in-crowd too, has been very successful these past few years and still is - too bad

  11. Chris is a silly sausage rotten the whole way through. Gillard is destined to slot Abbott a new grin and he feels it in his bones. Rudd is trying to split the party for Abbott and his Lions Forum mates. Rudd is the ultimate scumbag.

    • Who is Silven? what is she,

      That DQ commend her?

      Holy, fair, and wise is she?

      The heaven such grace did lend her,

      That she might admirèd be.

      Is she kind as she is fair?

      For beauty lives with kindness.

      Love doth to her eyes repair,

      To help him of his blindness,

      And, being helped, inhabits there.

      Then to Silven let us sing,

      That Silven is excelling;

      She excels each mortal thing

      Upon the dull earth dwelling:

      To her let us garlands bring.

      Sorry William.

      • Silven - nice name, some great ones on this blog: deadboofy, One.eye.for.a.kingdom
        and DQ
        to choose at random

        The force that through the green fuse drives the flower has infiltrated the ‘net?

        and anyone who calls Chris a silly sausage and krudd a scumbag has talent to go with the pretty face

      • Very cute, Chris. I do not see you as “a silly sausage rotten the whole way through” but as a genuine supporter of the Labor side of politics. Our point of difference is over Rudd’s merits or lack of them, and over Gillard and her merits.

        The difficulty I see is that we are a few months from an election and the Prime Minister, a proven performer both in and out of Parliament, is being undermined by a constant whispering campaign from those who should be her own side, whilst the other side are having a laugh at the whisperers’ expense, hoping that Rudd gets back in; all the easier to tear down.

        I don’t know how we can possibly resolve this matter without an electoral disaster unless Rudd announces that he will not contest the next election. No other denial has been believed so far.

        If we fail to resolve this issue we face a Liberal government for 3 years with or without Abbott (for I can’t see him being a satisfactory prime minister).

        Three years in which much of Labor’s good work and work in progress could be delayed undone or destroyed.


  12. Will Abbott close down Federal pedophile inquiry?

    What do you recken Kwis?

  13. Oh…Mal Brough is a hairdresser and therefore he must be gay right…Chris?

  14. bottom line: all krudd has to offer, according to those who worked with him and rejected him and coninue to reject him, is popularity

    and how long would that popularity last once all the guns were on him, with all the ammunition he has given them?

    krudd is a joke

    • Yes folks you read all this from the pen of jsa- every one a gem even if totally unsubstantiated.

      It’s said that if a thing is repeated often enough it becomes what is believed.
      Hasn’t worked so far.

      • Yes it has, The NSM have repeatedly said krudd is popular and Julia is unpopular, and now everone ( well many )believes it.

        What if the MSM had repeadedly said the reverse?

        • The polls at least are more legit showing popularity with figures than opinion written by whoever without anything to back it up.
          jsa writes his plaintive stuff as above but never backs it up.
          It’s the same whichever side or individual is the victim, just opinion not fact if there’s nothing but strident wailings behind it.

          • What if the MSM had repeadedly said the reverse?

            Speculate please.

            • Read again
              ‘It’s the same whichever side or individual is the victim, just opinion not fact if there’s nothing but strident wailings behind it.’

              The polls as I said, at least deal with a figure.
              So if you are trying to get me to say the chant would be Julia, Julia it wouldn’t based on polls.

              PS you haven’t answered the question I asked further up this thread about your statement

              Remember Krudd is MOST popular with liberal voters

              • sorry didn’t see you reply above. I has been suggested that Rudd is popular with liberal voters by ‘pundits’ on TV. cannot quote who exactly. I have heard people saying it many times.

                My point about polls and populatity is that popularity can be maunfactured, and frequently is, Beiber for example. Hence numbers for who is more popular, rudd vs julia vs Abbott is really stupid,

                Political polls should be about policy. Ask and publish important questions, NBN vs fraudband, Gonski vs no gonski… etc. Then poll numbers would tell people something useful.

  15. On the subject of political popularity polls.
    For years now we have had this story published. Rudd was knifed, Rudd was knifed… repeatedly in the media… by that bad woman and the faceless men…
    repeatedly said.
    He was knifed… he didn’t fall on his sward like Ted did, he was knifed… those nasty faceless men and that bad woman…
    That is the story repeated in print and on TV..

    Then we have polls, Rudd vs Julia.

    Polls are telling us Rudd is more popular,

    surprise surprise…

    • But the polls are taken from real people db.
      You can argue the methodology but it s more realistic than someone ‘telling’ a story.

      True some some of the writers in the MSM are campaigners more than journalists, they should be filing their stories under Opinion rather than News.

      • My point re popularity is that the ‘story’ is told, repeatedly, and THEN,the question is asked.
        My spouse taught research methods to psychology students. If you had tried this in her course you would have failed.
        The questions need to be un biased.. Biased questions give you predictable results.

        • I might well have failed, it depends on who was doing the marking and their own bias.
          Taking your argument to the end conclusion we better have no papers, radio, TV or media of any kind.
          No blogs, newsletters or similar or any infrmation of any kind as it may influence us.
          Then we can make up our minds, if we are allowed a mind, and make our own choice from the available information.

        • I readily accept the professionalism of your spouse.

          I feel, though, that as an expert on psychological research methods and a fair marker, I think that if you gave her your opinion of your Facebook and Twitter ideas on voting intentions of the populace, that on ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ a big F would be the response.

  16. Think about how much of the Gillard ‘Gonski plan’ is the actual “Gonski Report”. Judith Sloan had an interesting article in the Australian the other day (don’t worry, you can look up the details of the Gonski report’s actual wording and the words of the Gillard amendments themselves in the various official publications, but the Sloan URL is http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/educations-ominous-national-plan-destined-for-failure/story-fnbkvnk7-1226663950847).

    In case there are a handful of posters who can’t access The Oz, here are some titbits….

    According to the Gonski report, “the panel recognises that the states and territories have constitutional responsibilities for the delivery and management of schooling. They require a strong degree of autonomy to meet the needs of their state or territory school communities and student population.”

    In the week before last, the government rammed a large number of amendments to the Australian Education Bill through the House of Representatives. There are 71 pages of amendments, compared with the 11 pages in the original bill

    At least the federal government has been quite frank about its intended takeover of school education. In the Prime Minister’s words, “The funding flows to states, territories and Catholic and independent schools who agree to the actions, targets and reporting for improvement which we agree under the national plan.”

    Bronwyn Hinz and Brian Galligan, of the University of Melbourne……”Gonski and the High Court both stated that the commonwealth should retreat from schooling, the former on practical grounds, the latter on constitutional grounds. The commonwealth rejected both their conclusions.”

    • I would ask you, our resident Liberal party hack propagandist, to cease and desist your shameless and transparent white anting of every bloody labor policy!!!
      The only people who dislike Gonski are Liberals who sat back during the Howard years and let government spending on education fall behind other OECD countries and the Catholic/Privite school lobby who think that their extra tennis courts are more important than public school books, libraries and air conditioners.
      The people that DO like Gonski are the parents of the kids. But they don’t really matter to those with rabid fucked up selfish ideologies of greed and privilege, do they Ryutin?

      You should be fucking ashamed of yourself quoting that IPA ideological flunkey Sloan as if her word meant anything at all.
      How much do they pay you to prostitute for them?
      Rent Boy Ryutin.
      you”re a fucking disgrace.

      • Judith Sloan? Another another Nikki Savva, can’t stand either of them..

        • …those two women make me stutter.. :mrgreen:

        • Yes, you read right Helvi, “Judith Bloody Sloan” telling us all why Gonski is awful.
          Geee, that’s credible, another Libertarian free marketeer telling us that government money is only good when there are no strings attached!
          A bit like Berg putting some distance between “polling” and the Romney fiasco. I think he used the line “Republicans had to torture opinion poll data”!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
          Torture? Fucking waterboard, fingernail removal, foot whipping, keelhauling, and I swear I saw an Iron Maiden situated behind Megyn Kelly over at Fox!!
          Fucking gutless imbeciles.

      • You haven’t been watching, that’s your problem. I am totally against the Direct Action approach as much as I am against a carbon tax or the ETS scam by the banks and the usual exploiters, although I can see Greg Hunt’s point that the inelasticity of the price of electricity fails to change electricity use unless extraordinarily high (it is to vital for society to function) makes it a ‘better’ prospect than the Gillard govts plans. I am also dead against the RET scam, subsidising the rich while not doing anything except making money for the renewable energy mob who can’t get their projects to pay any other way.

        I am also against pandering to the private schools of the rich (and far left elites) above a nominal level but I realise that with Whitlam having to lay the State Aid bogey to rest by going along with more of it, this policy cannot be easily be changed, nor should it be totally excluded for poor schools. BUT I am even more keen on doing it the West Australian way, and that is by doing the OPPOSITE of what this “Fake Gonski plan” does: Creating more school autonomy (and thus breaking the shackles of the teachers unions) thereby WA being THE ONLY STATE SINCE THE 1970’S WHERE THE MOVE IS FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

        Gillard has pandered to teachers as she has to every other union which comes knocking. THAT is why this lack of autonomy and independence to the States is so bad and why the rushed “policy” is such a crock.

        • Unlike many posters here I do not (and never have) accepted the IPA as any sort of ‘voice’ for all opposition to the dangerous or bad Rudd/ Gillard policies.

          Their very strict ideology fails to see why there should be a minimum wage, why there should even have been a No Disadvantage test for Workchoices (except on popularity grounds in hindsight) etc.
          The fact that their ideological bent at times does coincide with really important principles (free speech and great opposition to the Gillard plans to restrict it in a way not seen for centuries) should not fool people from either side to the ‘What is the IPA’ question. Or, while I am stressing this point, to claim for it the blind following or actual representative nature of their line, which is similar to the Gillard is Right No Matter What mob does and writes. Whilst not as bad because the link is coincidental and not targeted, it is similar in effect to what the “Fellow Travellers” have been doing on the left for generations.
          The (to me) fatal flaw is better seen with an example such as the statement that as the NDIS is a far more important social benefit, it was not only more important than unemployment relief but that one should actually suffer FOR the other. If you didn’t have blinkers on you MIGHT see what I mean. When the so-called citizen group ‘CanDo’ is as much concocted astroturf posing as ‘concerned citizens” as Getup always has been I will (and have) called them on it using very blunt terms.

          So save your own ideological stereotyping for your leisure. Like the current ALP love you all have, I am prepared to argue detail. I am a bit amused to see the knee jerk opposition to the name of an author based on what organisation they belong to rather than the words they write.

          • And how could I forget to add this: the ‘words’ were not even those of Judith Sloan anyway!!

          • There you go again, how many times have posters said this to you? You say you’re against Direct Action but I’ve never seen a post from you attacking it as the single brain cell conception that it is. So I’m offering the opportunity NOW - Hunt’s laughable comment was attacked by his own people when it came out and the Electr. Heads murmured something like “umm, no Greg”.
            So let’s all hear about your problems with the Direct Action Plan, the Plan that no -one will utter on the Liberal side. And I mean, NO-ONE.

            I’m against private school funding. You say you support a nominal level. What’s that level? Expand please.
            Unions are an essential aspect of the labour force. Anyone that argues against them really is in the backpocket of the plutocracy. Also, fuck the states!! You sound like as Redneck Secessionist with that kind of talk! If the States want FEDERAL money, then they’ll have to ACCEPT a certain degree of FEDERAL policy. Fuck the greedy mongrels for example who think that the fortunes of WA should translate ONLY into the pockets of WA residents.
            Gonski, whilst not perfect, is the BEST redress of education issues for a long, long time. The Liberals have NOTHING to match it.

            Once you point forward a IPA voice, that is uncannily like your very own ideological position, as worthy of attention you are implicitly supporting that view. No amount of laughable backtracking will change that. So despite your constant craving for that beloved middle ground I see you as an ideological warrior of the most disgusting kind - you don’t acknowledge you true position and always try and fight it out from some ideological grassy knoll where you can, as you’ve done here, pot shot at large generalities and disappear into 500 word posts.
            Fuck you and Cowardice you rode in on.

            • To say that I am unimpressed by your ‘points’, spare on both fact and detail, is an understatement. I wonder if any disinterested third party observer/reader could possibly infer much knowledge by you of the Gonski Plan itself or the fake, adulterated Gillard ”Gonski plan”. That’s okay, many others are in the same position but they usually have the common sense (or innate caution) not to shoot their mouths off and make that ignorance certain to all who read them.

              I don’t know everything but are prepared to read and find out and that was why, as I said in an earlier post on this blog, I was holding back on my opinion of the O’Farrell agreement until I saw whether federal plans would limit the discretion of O’Farrell to proceed with his very welcome reforms. This was especially important to me because the reforms such as more autonomy for principals, more parent involvement and, most importantly, improved standards for both entry to teaching and ongoing assessment of teachers, all such reforms bitterly and savagely opposed by the NSW teachers unions.

              I posted the link to the actual agreement and if you – unlikely -or anybody else had read it, you would have been struck by the airy fairy non-detail in it, the only, wishy-washy (laughable, really) ‘outcomes’ were rubbish like ‘in 5 years X% of students will be in the top y% of standards in the region’ blah blah blah. Ludicrous. Now the amendments are in, raising even more questions about the supposed merits of the seriousness of Gillard, including constitutional ones where non-detailed federal ‘standards/practices will be followed or States will be denuded of funds. There are constitutional restrictions on this and a challenge is possible to this plan. It actually says, “The commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one state or any part thereof over another state or any part thereof.”

              Your supposed ”response”? ”the BEST redress of education issues for a long, long time ‘ That’s it!

              Direct Action seems beyond you if you need it to be explained. Just Google it, will you? Oh, my major opposition is that it is unnecessary. As I have said numerous times, along with saying that the carbon tax/ETS are unnecessary, but in their cases they are also rorts and ineffective - also enriching the banks for paper shuffling, inapplicable to reducing emissions in the major producing countries and the European example is that at a cost of 267 BILLION EUROS so far, emissions have not been reduced anyway, apart from slight reductions in industrial activity due to the economic downturn.

              Unions are okay, I worked for one, was a job delegate for one of the major ones and have been a union member all my life (as has the rest of my family for generations. My difference to the johnny-come-latelys is that we know what real unions were like and that the current “leaders”: wouldn’t get a feed in the industries that they are paid to look after.

              Anyway, I (and a lot of readers no doubt – of there are any) are getting quite sick of all this. You have nothing to say and are a waste of time talking to. Only when you (again, no doubt) misrepresent my views or post your usual tosh I MIGHT be tempted to respond. And I will try and make it shorter and sweeter, although I will not descend to mere abuse devoid of facts which is your bent.

              • Ah Ryutin off and running as usual. I cant believe what I have just read.

                Ryutin if you were ever a member of a union, I will personally visit you, drop to my knees and suck your dick.

                You are an ultra conservative, the nuance is there in every comment you make.

                You are full of it, as per usual.

              • Jeez you can write some shit!!
                All in the service of NOT actually answering the question, where have you written to CRITICISE the Liberals Direct Action Plan?
                That’s right, nowhere.
                Gonski detail we both know very well, so I DINT need to play YOUR game of catchup.
                What I will do, any day of the week, is DEBATE you on the facts and details of Gonski versus the Liberal plan which is, ummm, which is…..umm, which is….which is what EXACTLY Ryutin????
                I mean you criticise Gonski but offer FUCK ALL by way of alternative.
                PROVE ME WRONG!

                go on Ryutin, prove me wrong by espousing the benefits, AS FAR YOU SEE THEM, of the Liberals alternative education policy.
                I’ve read it many times and am prepared to listen to ANY arguments.
                Have you got any????

                I give you the same challenge for the policy that dare not speak its name- Direct Action. What a stunning example of Liberal garbage. I doubt there’s ever been a more ridiculous proposal put before parliament or an electorate.
                If you disagree say why, if you agree say why.

                There you go Ryutin, 2 challenges. Will you have a go or are you like Frank who ONLY criticises WITHOUT offering alternatives????

                Abuse? It’s only because I think you’re a slimy arsehole whose only purpose here is to flame or obfuscate or thump the Liberal drum. Yu KEEP talking about detail and fact yet you NEVER detail or fact the Liberal policy trainwreck.

                Finally, you keep taking about innocents as if you’re appealing to them to listen. Who are these innocents Ryutin? You mention them in nearly every post, who are they? Do you actually think such people exist?
                You must be a bigger fool than I thought.

                Anyway, over to you, Liberal Education minister. Lets start the debate. Lets have that SPECIFIC DETAIL you keep talking about.

              • Come on Ryutin!
                Or will you only appear in a few days time, with your over used line “Oh, I just saw this now”?

                Come on Ryutin, it’s YOUR fight, let’s go.

    • If only it were true!

      Education must be free, compulsory and secular. The only way that will happen is with government control, considering the interference of the Roman Catholic Church in particular, though it also applies to Muslim and other religious ventures into influencing and controlling the minds of the young.

      Regrettably, the Labor government seems as securely wedded to the current scheme of things as is the coalition.

      • Orwell wanted Labour in UK to abolish private schools when elected after the war; later realised it was too hard

        But Gillard’s promotion of a standard for all kids is a great step toward the desired goal by other means - that’s what I’d expect from a SMART, aggressive and sharp person. (Like easing up on climate after Rudd had stuffed up; climate is the most important issue of all for me, but I know unlike some on this blog that we have a democracy here, adn that means compromise)

        • btw, make that free, compulsory, secular and well (much weller than now) and equally funded

        • They obviously can’t be abolished. The wealthy however should be made to pay for private education; end all open and hidden subsidies. Phase them out if needs be, and take over schools as and when they fail.

          The catholic system would fail soon enough; they would be taken over and compensation paid.

          Probably the very best private schools would succeed; let them.

          (I am a veteran of dozens of Drum articles on this subject, duelling with Kevin Donnelly; BTW has he gone away?)

    • Don’t know why so much hostility to Ryutin, its nice to have an intelligent well-informed conservative on the blog.

      Please people don’t keep telling him to go away or he might.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>