A Question

How can Tony Abbott any more accept Cory Bernardi’s vote?

Leave a comment ?


  1. Because they are both Animals!?

  2. Just another nail in TA’s coffin if we jointly take him in class action to court immediately for his four years of targeted abuse in the government workplace and targeted abuse to its leaders. For the past four years he has been the most effective abuser of all our decent politicians. Every day I pray he will be ousted so he never becomes PM- As PM he would be exceptionally effective in targeting abuse at ALL Australians- except of course his fellow abusers and those duped by him. CLASS COURT ACTION NOW!

  3. Well that’s easy. Tony has zero scruples. Or ethics. Or honesty. Or honour. Der!

  4. Projection is a key principle of the conservatives.

    They project the sins they would like to commit, or do in fact commit, onto their opponents or those they see as lesser human beings.

    Thus they would like to legislate or regulate the activities of everyone else.

  5. Redress 1.
    Reasons For Gonski - Evidence of the Liberal Governments Track Record Of Neglect - Reasons for Ryutin’s Cowardice

    ‘In 1996, student-teacher ratios across Australian universities were 14:1. By the end of the Howard government in 2007, this figure had ballooned to 21:1. The 2008 Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education Report found these ratios “unacceptably high”.

    • Reasons For Gonski - Further evidence of Liberal Neglect.

      ‘To fill their government funding gap, between 1997 and 2007 universities increased their intake of full-fee paying international students by 230 percent. Effectively the Howard government made up for its cuts by allowing in more of these foreign students – students’.

    • Got anything on schools? Hello?

      The only thing the REAL Gonski Plan (not the pretend “Gillard’s Gonski”) covered in the Gillard sham about university funding was NOT to cut it. Glad to see you support that (”the BEST redress of education issues for a long, long time”). Not to say that you even mention anything about the real staffing scandal in the university sector, the growth of bureaucrats smothering all attention to teaching funding at all or even the recent controversy about teaching/research academics or the strange proof that actual ‘teaching’ was so unpopular as a preference that teaching only posts were not even wanted!

      But if you want to discuss universities, let us all know and drop the stupid and irrelevant reference to “Gonski”, the real OR Gillard version.

      • Regarding Universities, I would have thought the small reduction there was a matter of fiscal responsibility - a matter dear to the conservative heart - so that expenditure on education does not in too short a time balloon to unsustainable levels.

        • I only mentioned universities at all because of the ludicrous linking of the (apparent) funding changes under Howard with the Real Gonski Report, when the real Gonski was adamantly against the funding cut which was actually made by Julia Gillard as part of her fake gonski.

          As to money wasted, savings/efficiencies possible, standards reviewed etc in the tertiary sector there are very many things which can be debated fully. And that is why the “Gillard gonski” reductions (relatively minor in the tertiary education sector as it may be), are not only not addressing ANY of these, but are really damaging to the overall aims of BOTH Gonskis.

          In the supposed proposal to compare with Asian and other education standards we aim to equal them (a main stated outcome) AND assist Australia in future to be better prepared as a partner with Asia, by over-( I say) stressing the teaching of Asian languages in schools, I read today that these “minor” cuts in university funding will first hit – yes – Asian language teaching!

  6. Lines for Leigh Sales (1): I confess, I am a disgrace to my profession. An absolute disgrace. Why do I continue to hold this prominent position of influence? My looks? Personality? Intelligence? Doubtful on all counts. There’s no good reason I can think of. Can someone please explain this ? Anybody?

      • Minister: What I’m here to talk about Leigh, if you’ll give me the opportunity, are the policy issues facing Australia

        Leigh Sales: Well, hang on, but excuse me, Minister. I think our viewers are more interested in knowing why we’re constantly having to talk about the Labor leadership.

        Minister: Well, as I say Leigh, if we had the opportunity to …

        Leigh Sales: I’m sorry Minister, but you’re not answering the question. Why is it that we’re constantly having to talk about the Labor leadership ? I think our viewers would be very interested to know.

        Minister: Leigh, I understand the fascination on people’s part with the drama that is constantly being played out in the media ..

        Leigh Sales: Oh, so it’s our fault ? It’s the media’s fault that we’re constantly having to talk about the Labor leadership, when you have reassured us time and time again that this matter is settled?

        Minister: As I was trying to say Leigh, before you interrupted me, I unders…

        Leigh Sales: Oh, so it’s my fault for interrupting you when you’re not answering a direct question ?

        Minister: Leigh, if I could just answer the question

        Leigh Sale: Please, I’d love to hear an answer

        Minister: What we are trying to do, Leigh, is talk to the Australian people about the very important issues that are facing us in the decades ahead …

        Leigh Sales: Excuse me, Minister, but you’re not answering the question. Why is it we’re constantly having to talk about the Labor leadership ? I think our viewers are very interested in this, I think our viewers have a right to know why this is?

        Minister: Well, Leigh, I think you’re viewers might also be interested to know about the kind of …

        Leigh Sales: Oh, so, now you’re in a position to say what our viewers are and are not interested in ? Why do you think it is Labor continues to behave in this kind of arrogant, condescending manner, when that is exactly what alienates so many voters ?

        Minister: Well, Leigh, I don’t accept your proposition that I am being …

        Leigh Sales: What, are you saying that our viewers are stupid ?

        Minister: Ah, no Leigh, I am not ..

        Leigh Sales: I’m sorry, Minister, that’s all we have time for. Thankyou very much for joining us tonight.

      • I will give you an example.Last night when Emerson wanted to talk policy all shecwanted to do was talk leadership personalities Bob.

    • Her interview with Emerson last night was a disgrace, badgering a decent, polite minister with all the nonsense recently spewed forth regarding polls.

      She should address the issues and not the fluff.

      For his part Emerson should have told her that he did not accept her premise that Gillard was not capable of winning the election.

      It is still there to be won.

      In the meantime, discuss the issues.

      • Dangerous Doug……Sales is shit scared Abbott will sell the ABC and replace her with Bolt Jones and Hadley.

        • That’s what I thought, Wombat…ABC has been changing, not so unbiased anymore..

          • HELVI;Not only that….I can tell you EXACTLY when the change began…when she destroyed Abbott a few months ago in that Richard Carlton type interview!

            • One.eye.for.a.kingdom

              sadly that was last August, Wombat, now, more than just a few months ago. But so many irate comments put on the 7.30 Reports FB page, dozens of them, so Leigh Sales was wrong and her viewers did not wannt to hear about leadership spill or polls, Craig Emerson was right, her viewers did want to hear about policy. The big question is will we get an apology from the ABC?

              • “her viewers” are not the only ones who do did not want “to hear about leadership spill or polls”.

        • Had another thought on this, perhaps because these journalists have had so much time and effort dedicated to the leadership spill, and now that it will not happen, they are all looking like complete ‘twats’.
          Hence the dummy spit at Emerson, … ‘Give me the scoop you bastard!!!’

    • Labor needs to make it a rule to say in interviews
      ‘Sure, happy to answer your leadership question, ONLY, if you ask me and allow me to answer a policy question FIRST.’
      Interview over…

  7. There’s something I don’t understand about this Cory Bernardi business, and maybe someone here can explain it for me.

    Apparently Bernardi suggests that changing the marriage laws in any way is dangerous because there are crazy leftists who will eventually want to legalise bestiality.

    On the other hand, there is Peter Singer, popular with leftists, a respectable philosopher with an animal rights agenda, who seems to suggest exactly that. Singer seems to suggest that humans could have meaningful sexual relationships with animals.

    Now, if Bernardi is beyond the pale, why not Singer? And doesn’t Singer prove that Bernardi is right? Or does it just prove that there are lunatics on both sides?

    • there is a difference between philosophy and politics. The difference entirely accounts for the discrepancy you see. Does someone really need to explain this to you? Only one of the right’s cancerous clowns like Jones would seriously claim to confuse the two after a moment’s thought

      As a sort of parallel, can I point out that Jesus, who Abbs among others claims to follow, said to turn the other cheek, yet last time I looked, Abbs was gung-ho for illegal invasions of impoverished third world states by our military

      • Singer stood as a Greens candidate for the Senate, served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University, founded its Centre for Human Bioethics, was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year, was named a Companion of the Order of Australia, was voted one of Australia’s ten most influential public intellectuals in 2006 and is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

        • complex world isn’t it

          yet, still it is the case that philosophy is one thing, and politics another. Even when a philosopher is also a politician… makes your head whirl, it really does

          For instance, a politician who so confused the two as to propose legalising marriage with cattle as his first platform plank would not do very well at the polls. Yet a philosopher who’s thoughts on that subject were along those lines might make very interesting reading, and give liberal-minded, freedom-loving people food for thought.

    • Singer has always been a ratbag.

      • no, he hasn’t, and anyone who thought so would be a leftist only in their wet dreams; actually s/he would be a proto-fascist or Lib

    • And he’s never been popular with this “leftist”.

  8. The key to their very catholic projection is the fixation with the control over other peoples physicality. They legislate to control ‘uppity people who have wombs, vaginas and Hymens! And want to peep into the lives of gay people. So their problem is they want to be in it , up it or around it, in that order. Just in case they miss something. Such an ordered life. Bernardis maternal Grandfather was a Business man and a staunch Labor supporter apparently. He missed out on that gene.

  9. What’s he gone & done now? Apart from just being barking Bernadi. Anything especially egregious (bearing in mind that we are talking about … Bernadi)?

  10. They are both perverts.

  11. Abbott and his would be front bench…graceless…to a person.

    • add in lacking in competence, charisma, compassion and intelligence (except for Mal).

      They are the dregs of the last Howard ministry.

      • They have been referred to on other blogs as Howard’s Retreads and the bestcdescription I have seen…..wait for it…..THE TAMPA CREW

  12. Ryutin,

    *Yep, the best redress. Do you know of another one which is better?
    Do the Liberals have a better plan? Lets hear it.
    Come on you maggot, let’s hear it!!

    *Is that the same ‘non cut’ that the Liberals are going to go with when in office? You know, we hate Gonski, BUT we’ll keep the cuts in place AND NOT offer the same money as Labor has on the table AND budgeted for RIGHT NOW??
    Do you mean those ‘non cuts’??
    Or have you got some others in mind?
    Or is the FACT that ABBOTT has kept some of Gonski on the table that bothers you??
    Hypocrisy much??

    But that’s enough about Labor. Lets talk Liberal policy.
    Can you say ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, about that??

    *Reasons for Gonski: Howard’s first budget took approx. 5 billion from education funding.
    5 billion.

    Reasons for Gonski: during the Howard tenure other OECD countries had increased their tertiary spending by approx 30%. Howard reduced ours.

    Reasons for Gonski: the staffing scandal/research is the DIRECT result of liberal funding cuts

    Reasons for Gonski (or whatever name you wish to call it):
    EVERYONE - educators, teachers, parents, politicians, academics, say there is a problem with school funding and that a policy/reform is necessary to make the process transparent and to establish a base funding level (plus additional loading for the disadvantaged) commensurate with other OECD countries, and to redress the funding program that was left to starve during the Howard years.

    Pyne’s response? “There is no problem”.

    The Gonski Report says, clearly (page 34) that we need a world class system, because,
    ‘… research shows a clear relationship between the socioeconomic backgrounds of students and their school performance … In line with their levels of need, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students, and underperforming schools will require additional support (both financial and non-financial resources).’

    Pyne says: we’ve ALREADY got such a system in place.

    Reason? The Liberal ideology that despises federal intervention, thank you Ted Ballieu for not even trying to sugar coat it.

    Bottom line: concerns over Federal intervention are more important than Australian schoolchildren.
    Those libertarian fuckwits over at IPA even called public funded education ‘middle class welfare’?!?
    Can you believe this shit?

    Ideology trumps education Ryutin, and YOU’RE part of those goosesteppers and for that I’ll despise you and fight your ideology till doomsday.

    I see education as a right.
    You don’t.
    That’s what this argument is about. This is an argument over ideology. The opponents of Gonski have made that very clear.

    You remind me of the wizard from oz,
    All pompous, grandiose, authoritative declarations but pull the curtain back and all we have is a feeble old man peddling furiously, crashing cymbals and tooting horns.
    That’s you Rytuin.
    Did you think, did you really think that saying ‘watered down Gonski’ 100 times actually meant anything???? Is that your version of ‘detail’????
    Fuck off you ridiculous hack.
    You got nothing.
    Never had, never will.
    Rent boy only. Maybe if I toss you a dollar you can come and speak for me.
    Nahhh, you wouldn’t be worth a dollar.
    and maybe someone out there might call it ‘welfare’.
    Can’t have that now, can we?


  13. Ryutin Pt 2.

    Let me preface first briefly,





    As the Australian Council for Educational Research’s professor Geoff Masters said of PISA:
    “International studies are able to give us a better understanding of how our students are performing and also an opportunity to try to understand practices, effective practices, effective policies internationally.”

    2012 PIRLS: “The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study has revealed that a quarter of Australia’s year 4 students failed to meet the minimum standard in reading for their age.

  14. I can’t seem to post any links. Is anyone else having this trouble and could any tech heads offer an old pen and paper guy a few tips?

  15. That may be why we have had difficulty posting!

  16. Oh for fucks sake Bob!!!! All BUT the 6.09 one!!

    Well I guess .Ryutin can’t say he didn’t see the links.

  17. Heh.Very good. Thanks for that Judd. I have had that frustration before on this blog so I clearly understand.
    I have now seen them and have some child-like arguments for you. Had to make it in a couple of parts just in case.

  18. Ah, a good meal and a cool drink does wonders for you. Calm, reason. “Start again”.
    I will answer your points shortly but will state the context of this ‘discussion’ of mine first (an indulgence I am just taking because education is too serous a subject to be smothered in this nonsense).
    After a time, a person can understand your angst, but education practice and funding is too important to be reduced to base political points and answered in similarly abusive terms. Hopefully the hysteria about the ALP leadership will be gone after a week or so and perhaps, just PERHAPS there can be a serious discussion about policy instead of this stuff from behind the political barricades.

    Trying to answer a post with irrelevant, fact-free abuse does not make for ‘knowledge’ or ‘policy’ blogs, gets tiresome, turns people off and, in fact, ruins a blog. I do not intend to engage in flame wars but stick to facts and policy as much as possible.

    I have tried on a number of occasions to inject some serious discussion of the issues as I see them in education and hardly ever has the response been a serious one, but usually expressed in purely party-political terms. I only claim to have very detailed knowledge of the situation all through NSW over some years and never claim to know in detail about other states, apart from published sources in their cases (the recent explanation of the great (and bi-partisan for years) position of WA being typical of such a case.

    To say again, for the last time, I hope. Education is busted in Australia. Vast increases in funding have seen lowered standards and falling outcomes. Teachers unions’ domination and bad policy from all sides have dealt it serious blows and this newly announced, rushed (as it often is) “Gillard Gonski” scheme will not, and is not even “designed” to (in my view), redress the balance. Maybe it’s not all Julia Gillard’s fault that the ongoing crises in her government forced her and the ALP to govern day by day and not plan policy properly (what with Rudd hanging around, the Greens crushing the life out of her government by their policy demands and Abbott effectively criticising her), but the end result is her ‘gonski’. A rushed policy-failure-in-waiting.

    I said before that the NDIS is a clear example of how well thought out and created policy process can be waylaid and/or ruined by the rushed 24/7 politics of this Gillard government. Careful, well thought out research, wide discussions and detailed plans, in that case with solid, bi-partisan support, all of a sudden had its careful approach ambushed by the political need to have “an issue”. Rushed out at five minutes notice as a “plan’ it is now nothing of the sort, rather a ‘hope for the best’ idea, based on outdated funding figures, unbudgeted funding and broad-brush claims to cover “everybody who needs it” when all the original research showed that virtual rationing would be required to make it affordable. One thing that the NDIS policy DIDN’T do was address that very issue at all, which was my point!

    Gonski could be a similar victim of this need for political issues at an election because it sure looks like it and the similarities with the interrupted NDIS process are too clear to be ignored, although Gonski was intended to be primarily a funding plan and not decisive on policy.

    Education for the future is the issue and you and I can park the past ‘blame’ anywhere it fits but Gonski was intended to be good education policy irrespective of those mistakes and that blame. Good government aims for that and good policy PROCESS is the way to attain it. The Gillard approach to process, as in the NDIS, is ineffective and it also shows in her misnamed gonski.

    Your points…..next.

  19. As for the Libs, coalition, whatever, it is true, as I have indicated before, that they never seem to see a private school they didn’t like, just as the modern ALP has its old default position favouring union leadership to the extent now that under Julia Gillard the ALP might actually look like, as Rod Cameron put it recently, that post-September 14 this year it might be left as a mere Trade Union Party.

    However, as to CURRENT policy, and whilst you can have a nagging doubt that their seeming reluctance to decisively leave the old model, part of their reluctance to do so completely might be natural reluctance to look at private school funding changes too closely, it is, as I also said recently, an ALP guarantee that such funding to private schools NOT be reduced in any way under anything they plan either.

    As for the Liberal plan, the immediate proposals are quite clear, as is their general philosophy towards the future they see as necessary and I posted that very recently indeed. I will steer you onto that in a moment. First the immediate proposal which I find quite compelling, seeing the rush and day-to-day changes being forced on the current one by the Gillard rush to get something, anything agreed to by the various States so that it can be THIS years election issue (another bad move for ‘good policy-making’). That is to leave the current plan in place for up to two years, leaving all States knowing immediately and with certainty as to what funding they will have for the near future (something Julia Gillard should have done to avoid this funding void they are all in right now and negotiating day to da). Then the government of Australia (them, naturally) can calmly and professionally liaise with the States (the bodies with the constitutional powers to actually run actual schools and the expertise to do so) and other stakeholders to arrive at the best policy (they say). A bit like the initial NIDIS Process until it was derailed by election requirements.

    As for the future directions and SPECIFICS, I posted recently a Pyne summary of the detail which I found after less than 5 minutes searching.
    “focus on four main areas at the top of our agenda for school education.
    1.We will relentlessly focus on reforms to improve teacher quality;
    2.We will work with the States to introduce real principal and school autonomy into the Government schools system;
    3.We will encourage more parental and community engagement; and
    4. We will continue implementing a robust national curriculum”.

    Points 1 and 2, of course are specifically praised by the Gonski Report as desirable goal and they have been relentlessly opposed by Teachers unions for years (decades actually) and as for ongoing testing of teachers abilities, this has been actually and openly dropped from the Gillard plan.
    Point 3 has parent and teachers unions with vastly different views as to what ‘engagement’ parents and communities should have. Needless to say I do NOT agree with the teachers unions on this.

    Universities again. First, universities are NOT “Gillard Gonski” and are not on the table for backing/rubbishing “Gillard Gonski”. They are a separate argument altogether and discussed elsewhere. The Gillard university cut in funding are NOT Gonski never were Gonski and when the Gillard scheme proposed them Gonski people spoke out publicly against them. Let’s leave that out of “Gonski” talk for all time now shall we?
    For Abbott and Libs stating openly recently that whilst against specific funding cuts they would not automatically restore ANY cuts made by the Gillard government was on the stated basis that the economy had a lot to make up (deficits going well into the future etc) and that they would only be able to afford to restore any funding when the economy and government spending was brought under control is a regrettable but eminently sensible policy. It leaves open to actually restore ANY funding they deem necessary without restricting their actual priorities.

    Note this: All education funding has greatly increased by 40% (over the recent decade and a half, I believe) yet all are agreed that educational outcomes are falling. Gonski was meant to be a funding plan but then Julia Gillard pulled her ‘gonski funding’ from beyond the forward estimates period – 3 elections away – and thus in wish list territory, I just wonder why they didn’t just invent the WHOLE of the Gonski funding instead of only about half of it.
    Some more direct answers: Howards early cuts in tertiary education were too savage but, what is worse, they didn’t even go to correcting problems in the university sector, such as the stop the steady downwards spiral of a whole series of major university problems, standards, bureaucracy- growth etc. I have plenty of material on that world-wide university bureaucracy problem and it is there for you at any time. It is not Gonski which will deal with that though.

    Your narrative starts to tail off after the university material and into your personal feelings and frustrations, and dare I say it generalisations and ad hominems and so on and there’s not much that can be said in such a case if hands are firmly over the ears.

    But nobody is arguing against special funding for the disabled and special needs children, mainstreaming such services and so on. Where did you get that idea from?

    But at least that IS Gonski.

    The IPA does not speak for me as I have said before. I am not a libertarian. The IPA views sometimes happen to coincide with mine that’s all. Free speech. Political analysis of anything, any policy is just that and even ALP rusted ons can provide arguments on policies which will also sometimes coincide with mine (not, unfortunately – well not openly, publicly – on free speech). But there it goes.
    And I am not a feeble old man. Why, Bob Ellis is much older. Heh.

    • I’m not interested in your self-serving waffle Ryutin. You have raised no points that are a direct challenge or offer any kind of serious argument to what I’ve written
      Not one.

      What you have done is reveal your hypocrisy and expose yourself as this blogs major partisan political player. John, Doug, phill, and myself should just step off in awe.

      What I will do though is further blunt these already dull proddings of yours.

      You say: “Vast increases in funding have seen lowered standards and falling outcomes.”
      Not quite my “base political point scorer” par excellence. Not quite.
      It was only after, AFTER, Howard’s decimation, that we had lowered standards. Rudd policy and money tried to reverse that. That process is still ongoing. It is boringly characteristic of you to gloss over this and it’s an unfortunate byproduct of the bias you try so hard to deny but that reveals itself at almost every point.

      You mention Pyne’s “specifics” and his “detail”. I’ll list it again so that everyone reading can see what the Liberal party and their hack propaganda machines (that’s you Ryutin) call “detail and specifics”. I do this in the hope, the HOPE, that deep shame and a profound embarrassment will stop you from insulting us again in this way.
      Ryutin: “As for the future directions and SPECIFICS, I posted recently a Pyne summary of the detail which I found after less than 5 minutes searching.
      “focus on four main areas at the top of our agenda for school education.
      1.We will relentlessly focus on reforms to improve teacher quality;
      2.We will work with the States to introduce real principal and school autonomy into the Government schools system;
      3.We will encourage more parental and community engagement; and
      4. We will continue implementing a robust national curriculum”.

      What you’ve presented here as Pyne’s program, or as you like to put it, his “summary of the detail” is simply an embarrassingly lightweight series of brochure like platitudes. It’s not surprising it took you a few minutes to find it. This kind of say nothing inanity litter the Liberal website. After spending the past few years NOT thinking but only negating, the Liberals have found themselves in a kind of intellectual wasteland, a dumb-dumb land where soundbyte gets passed off as policy. We saw it with Broadband, we saw it with Education and there’s no doubt whatsoever that we’ll see it with their further policies once they win the election because sure as shit they will NOT release beforehand for fear of being exposed as mouthbreathers.

      Anyway the point is, Pyne’s list is NOT ‘specifics’. I’m surprised you weren’t embarrassed posting them. But then I realized why you did - because there’s nothing else!!! Not a goddamn thing!!
      This was my exact point. I don’t want fucking platitudes, I want policy and money!

      Now to Gonski himself. My position is that I don’t give a fuck if Gonski is unhappy about where the money is coming from or whether his recommendations are adhered to as strictly as he would like. Just because Gonski doesn’t like where the money is coming from doesn’t mean that it deserves your infantile partisan rubric “Gonski lite” or “Gillard Gonski”. It simply means he doesn’t support the funding model. Big deal. I’m certainly NOT going to apologize for his feelings nor am I going to let his criticisms detract from the overwhelming substance of the report. Nor am I going to let you continue using that as some kind of distraction. It’s not. It just happens to be the ONLY one, judging by the amount of times you’ve used it, that you’ve got.
      His job is over. Fuck him. If that’s the best you can do to wedge the report from the governments application of it then you’re a pedantic old fool. If the name bothers you, which it seems to do for you mention it every time as if it’s some sort of marker of the reports efficacy, then rename it. Call it Judd’s Education Scheme, call it Ryutin’s Chagrin, call it the policy Pyne wishes he had.
      Who gives a fuck?
      You just continue to concentrate on the name, I’ll chase the policy and money, if that’s alright with you. Also, if your major complaint is that Gonski doesn’t like Uni slowdown of its increased funding then move to the dunce corner you ridiculous pathetic alarmist! That’s right - stop funding our kids schooling because Ryutin and Gonski don’t like where it’s coming from!!
      Fuck you!
      Let’s hear you scream that you want the money to come from Abbott’s NBN catastrophe, or his rich man’s baby bonus or his Direct Action disaster.
      Till then shut the fuck up!

      Serious, long term, increase in funding happened on Labor/ Rudd’s watch, not over the past decade or so. Your backhand attempt to include Howard into the frame is laughable and typical of your sly partisan propaganda.
      No surprise there.
      Howard’s ‘Backing Australia Ability’ for example was a minuscule attempt to redress his previous funding cuts. Did he really think anyone would actually buy it? Oh wait, you did. Ooops.

      Finally, the reason why I abuse you is because I despise your politics. As Heidegger might say, our ‘world picture’ differs. Your 2 long posts further proof of everything I don’t like about you:
      duplicity and cowardice buried in seemingly impartial narrative.
      There’s no one here that doesn’t see through it. You just insult everyone’s intelligence with your continued charade.
      That’s why I abuse you.

      And as my final post to you on this subject, broadband awaits us, let me name drop one more time in an effort to strike at the heart of my enmity towards you.
      You strike me as one strain, one type, of what Weber called the “specific and peculiar rationalism of Western culture…. a… “specialist without spirit, a sensualist without heart.”

      That’s why I abuse you.

      Now to broadband.
      Why do think it is SPECIFICALLY that the Liberals DID NOT cost the ongoing maintenance of their node absurdity?

    • Rootin’ - that’s too much for any sane and non-bedridden person to read. Break it up into smaller posts

      re education: Look Labor cannot change everything at once; we live in a democracy (yes, I know, it’s not a real good democracy, but the term will do). They keep their hands off the rich men’s schools while they build up the schools of poor men and women. Especially by putting in place STANDARDs of funding.

      To change things in a democracy you have to work carefully. \\

      As with the disgusting situation in the NT Senatorial representatin, where 200 years hadn’t been long enough for the Scots and other bleeding hearts to get an Aboriginal in, sometimes you can cut through and just do it - and Gillard did it. Similarly, Gough, after a millenium of fat Bob’s drowsing in dreams of Britannia, big changes could be made

      But mostly it is 2 steps forward, 1 back and 1 diagonally forward

  20. You do take a lot of words to say not very much, Rootin’.

    Governments and long-term planning are at the mercy of short term interruptions, such as elections.

    You may not have noticed, but NDIS planning has been brought forward by public demand, and the “me-too”-ism of the Abbott coalition has pretended to support the Gonski, NDIS and like reforms, and has gone quiet on the NBN.

    Expect more of the same until after the election, win lose or draw.

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>