JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

I haven't seen any hate here over Pynes/Abbotts lies yet. We have a unity ticket on education, well, we did before the election, be thankful for that 'cause that's the best you will get.

Tony Abbott says Coalition will honour Gonski school funding plan for four years - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
"As far as school funding is concerned, Kevin Rudd and I are on a unity ticket," Mr Abbott announced this morning.

No surprises, we say what we mean and do what we say.
Breaking the Gonski promise may provide painful lessons for Christopher Pyne

Thank god the adults are in charge!

 

Simple, if you don't follow through on what you say you are a liar. No point trying to spin it. If Juliar's crime was "there will never be a carbon tax under a govt I lead but I am determined to put a price on carbon" is a lie, what is this back flip? It didn't matter if we continually reminded you of the last half of the quote, you continued with the first half. No selective quoting here though, they lied straight up. We are so glad the adults are back in charge.

Edit: It has nothing to do with Labor, Shorten. It's a Lieberal promise.

 

The thing is, Abbott was working on the principal that the electorate was becoming very concerned at our rate of borrowing, to fund future programs such as Gonski and the NDIS. You can't continut to borrow to fund programs of that size and nature forever. The ALP did not have the funds to permit either scheme to operate for anymore than as a trial at various locations (NDIS) or get agreement with the States for collateral funding arrangements (Gonski). Both schemes are prohibitively expensive and interminable (ie never-ending), and would involve huge chunks of the Federal Budget every year, growing exponentially with the population increase. Where will that funding come from if not borrowed?

Abbott and Pyne played to their audience on many issues, all of which found favour with the electorate. The fact is they knew that some promises would have to be shelved/broken/deferred, and that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone on this forum. Does it undermine or erode their credibility? Yes, to some extent, it must, but they are no different to their predecessors. The Libs are economic rationalists - a typical conservative government. The NDIS and Gonski are typical Labor type progressive programs, but typically also, unfunded. Pyne's proposal is a half-way house to see improvements commence soon, though not to the standards originally recommended in the Gonski report. Those recommendations will have to wait - the harsh reality of limited government funding.

The efforts by opponents to undermine Abbott's effrorts with the boats is pretty deplorable, because it is a program that the electorate wants overwhelmingly to succeed. This is not a nation of bleeding hearts - whilst we have a level of compassion that is enviable by world standards, there must be a limit to our compassion. ANY strategy that achieves a reduction or termination of asylum seekers coming here as they have is worthwhile IMO. IF the efforts of the government to cut boat arrivals is successful on a permanent basis, the funding saved could, in theory, be re-allocated towards worthwhile programs like Gonski. Does anybody on this forum believe that boat people have a greater claim to our limited funding than our children?

 

What did you think of Abbott in opposition screaming every time a boat arrived, saying we had open borders etc etc. That was a signal to the smugglers to send more. If speaking about them is now an operational matter and everything should be pretty much hush, why was he doing what he was doing whilst in opposition? Wasn't he undermining Labors attempts to slow the boats? He has no right to complain now. He was acting against Australia's interest for political gain. If it should have been hush and he had Australia's interests at heart he would have advised the previous govt to hush rather than spruik it every night on the news. The man has no class and has now become a liar..

 

'Natural selection' - that old chestnut. Imagine if society relied on 100% natural selection. There would be no pediatric medicine for starters.We give aid because in general human beings are altruistic. Dawkins would argue altruism is in our genetic makeup.

If Minux were one of the poverty-stricken masses I'd say his viewpoint would be dramatically different. I would agree though sometimes aid is mis-managed due to corruption.

Back to Abbott - Promises. 1. Stop the boats. Boats are not stopped. Slowed down, yes, not stopped. A more appropriate promise could have been 'we will slow down the number of boat arrivals'. But that is 8 words, 5 more than the Abbott campaign limit.
2. Backing Gonski - uh-oh. During the campaign I actually believed him on this one. Disappointed.
3. Reducing debt - I hear Libs are looking to increase debt limit? What happened to the shrill cries of economic catastrophe if we let the debt go any higher? No you can' blame the ALP, YOU are in power now. I remember when older PMs got **** done in the first 100 days. 85ish days in not much has happened here......

So far this is 3 clear furphies foisted upon the electorate. How many more to follow?

 

Ok - without spin can somebody post the 30 second summary of what has been said by the people involved on this education thing? I don't wan't partisan spin/whatever - just the facts.

 

Calm down, old son. You'll blow a poofle valve if you keep that up.

Let's face it, Abbott and his team played the boats issue because it was an absolute loser for the ALP. Harping on about it kept the issue at the forefront of the news and the news was always bad for the government. That's Politics 101, nothing less. But at the same time, the ALP DID screw up what had been working very well. It's one thing to say that what worked then might not work now, but it WAS working, very effectively, when Rudd dismantled it. For that reason, Abbott had plenty of ammo to chuck at Rudd and Gillard and their efforts never seemed to quell the tide. Perhaps, if they had more time, the PNG solution might have seen a substantial reduction in the flow of boats, we will probably never know. As for publicising to the smugglers that their work was successful by constantly harping about it, well, the ALP's "open door" policy on news announcements every day seemed to be more than adequate intelligence for the smugglers - I doubt that Abbott's contribution made much difference. People far better qualified than you or I have supported the current policy on the grounds that no news from us hinders the smugglers operations. I can accept that without seeing any conspiracy theories. Can you?

As for "stopping the boats", the leftists on this forum (including you, obviously), seem to think that Abbott said he would stop the boats from day one of his Prime Ministership. He never said that and only the most fervent Abbott hater would believe that was what he meant. This problem is huge and far too big to simply stop overnight. The fact that his government is keeping mum about the matter doesn't concern me in the least and I wonder why anybody would get their knickers in a knot because we aren't being updated daily. If the reports are accurate, and the reduction in boat number is as stated, then for most of the time, there is nothing to report anyway. Who the hell wants a nightly update that says "Umm, no boats were intercepted today"?

Edit: Just as a Postscript, I trust you aren 't one of those who believe that Abbott has deliberately failed to placate Indonesia over the phone taps issue, so that he has a convenient excuse for failing to stop the boats. That is one conspiracy theory that illustrates just how stupid some Abbott haters really are. The ABC seems to be riddled with them.

 

Yep, he played it for political gain, that's what I said. If he believed it was such a big deal for Australia he should have been trying to help not exacerbate the problem. Yep, no secrets that I'm a lefty.

If I believed he said he would stop the boats on day one I would have said so, I haven't even commented on it. I also don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. I don't hate Abbot, I don't think I hate anyone, I don't like him and there are a lot of people I don't like, I don't particularly like Shorten either, but hate is not the word. No class at all is how I see him, an opportunist with his own interests ahead of the country.

As for conspiracies, what do you think of the right carrying on about a plot to save the story about phone tapping until after the election? Tin foil hats don't look good on anyone... Well, except maybe Bolt.

 

I would have thought so along with other broken promises and we're not even 3 months in
maybe they should have put more thought into it instead of going around promising to spend what we don't have.
hopefully it will continue to haunt them like Gillard's carbon tax did her

 

yes the reality of things is you can't go around sterilizing people just because they are poor.
when they are able to do that I hope they extend it to include the incredibly stupid so people like yourself aren't allowed to breed either

 

Reaper asks -
"Ok - without spin can somebody post the 30 second summary of what has been said by the people involved on this education thing?"

I tried to keep up, but that became very difficult a bit before the last federal election.

The Commonwealth doesn't operate many (any ?) schools, but it contributes vast sums to schools operated by the states, and to schools operated by non-government organizations - be they churches, other religious organizations, or otherwise.

Over the years, there was an "understanding" more or less reached, that the states would pay for state schools, but would not contribute to non-government schools.
Balancing that, the Feds would not contribute to state schools, but would contribute to non-govt schools.

The amount of Cth contribution was partly driven by debate about "equity", with non-govt schools saying that they ought to receive a comparable contribution to what state schools received.

On the other hand, it was pointed out that some non-govt schools were very well-resourced (a.k.a. "rich"), and it was unfair to everyone else to give govt money to schools that had plenty of money already.

But, whatever you imagined the situation to be, at every state or federal election, the rules changed - a little, or maybe a lot - as the pork-barrelling that is part of democracy ran its course. Iniquities between states flourished, as federal govts rewarded their mates, or punished the other side.

So, Prof GONSKI & his Committee was commissioned to re-examine Commonwealth expenditure, with a view to ensuring, it was said, that Cth money was being spent in a way that gave best value, and implicit in that, that it was expended "equitably" around Australia.

Also, we need to remember that the Cth gives some money to schools, but under the heading of Aboriginal Affairs, or Migration Affairs, or Refugee Affairs ... and this was also part of the review.

So, Prof GONSKI presented his report, and the Labor Federal Govt started to negotiate with the states, individually, against the background that a federal election was coming up.
At that point, I believe, The Gonski Review fell off the rails: the negotiations should have been simultaneously, with all states represented and in the room at the same time.
Some states got a deal; some states got better deals; but other states got no deal - how is that equitable ? How is that the best bang for the taxpayers' dollars ?
Of course, that is not the fault of Prof GONSKI or his committee.
Again, our Parliamentary systems - both federal and state - seems to be no better able to provide value and equity than they were before the GONSKI report was handed up.

Gloomy, I know, but that's how it seems to me, having watched closely for the last few years ...

 

delete doubled-post

 

how else do you propose stopping them from breeding?
telling them to stop?

remember these are poor people who can't afford to do anything else or contraception

 

I've thought about this a fair bit. The ABC is probably the ALP's equivalent to the Coalition's Murdoch press. Their bias is just as blatant as is Murdoch's. The timing of the release of the information was intended to create the maximum difficulty for the new government, because releasing it prior to the election would have been catastrophic for Labor. If the information was available in May, why not release it then after some basic research, which I assume took place? It would have been just as explosive when first obtained as it was some five or six months later.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but this action by the ABC stinks to high heaven.

Let me ask a few questions. The ABC claims it is in the public interest to know of these things happening. Opponents of that view claim that the national interest should be pre-eminent.

Is the "public interest" really so overwhelming, that the repercussions justify the news release? Was this story REALLY worth the pain? Does the public at large REALLY CARE that we spy on our neighbours, and believe they don't do the same to us? Are we really that naiive?

 

They also have absolutely no education. They do not know anything about world population increase and the impending problems it creates. They do not know that other parts of the world are any different to theirs and that famine is not the only form of existence known elsewhere.

And they are only doing what comes naturally.....

I can't see any way of improving the situation without education and vast improvements in their quality of life.

 

So you believe the conspiracy that they "sat on" the story for 3 months just to embarrass the new govt, which ever that may have been? Or are you saying that they only would have released it if Abbott won and it would have remained under wraps if Labor had won? Personally I think that's way far fetched, like most conspiracy theories. Don't you think what the Guardian has said is much more likely? That Guardian US got the mountain of documents 3 months ago but only just got to those particular docs just prior to them being released by Guardian Au? You think the media would sit on a story like this? Too much Bolt is not good for you Calaber.

If there was a conspiracy to ambush Abbott and they had the story before the election and sat on it, the time to release would have been while Abbott was in Indonesia. What do you think?

 

This member of the public would be far more concerned if we didn't! I honestly don't know who spy's on Australia but firmly believe that *any* country (USA included) would if they had the chance. As Alexander Downer said - he assumed every telephone was bugged and thus didn't discuss any sensitive subjects on it. I'd think that anybody in senior government would do the same (of any political ilk or country)

I haven't heard any such conspiracy's and very much doubt anything like that would have been "sat on". I personally think that such a story only has a down side for Australia and there is nothing to be gained in the public interest by it's reporting.