State Government | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

State Government

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
Re: State Government-Victoria

Liverpool said:
I wouldn't call them "bashers" if they were open with their political views/leanings.

You have admitted you are more socialist in your political views and therefore I expect you to denounce the Libs at every opportunity while defending Gillard and co.
I know which angle you are coming from and therefore can understand you questioning the integrity of the Baillieu government while ignoring and even defending very similar broken promises or lies conducted by the Gillard government.
You're not a 'basher' because I expect you to be negative towards a conservative government due to your personal beliefs and political leanings and so far you haven't disappointed.
Thanks....I think. I don't defend Gillard on everything but I don't support blind accusations either. Ted talked a big game before the election but so far only delivered on most right wing aspects of his promises and has dropped the left wing ones. Predictable but that doesn't mean he should be let off the hook.
 

Liverpool

How did that Julia and Kevin thing work out? :)
Jan 24, 2005
9,054
1
Melbourne
Re: State Government-Victoria

KnightersRevenge said:
Thanks....I think. I don't defend Gillard on everything but I don't support blind accusations either. Ted talked a big game before the election but so far only delivered on most right wing aspects of his promises and has dropped the left wing ones. Predictable but that doesn't mean he should be let off the hook.

I'm sure you and others who started this thread will be more than happy to not let him off the hook :cutelaugh
 

tigergollywog

Non-Hierarchical Boss Cocky
Feb 4, 2006
5,018
1
Re: State Government-Victoria

Liverpool said:
You have admitted you are more socialist in your political views

geez Livs, you caught another lefty out. You should be a private eye, or a barrister. Your ability to glean peoples political persuasions and then really nail them with it is uncanny. I have come up with simple quiz (below) to really test out your skills. Try it

Which party do you think the following former AFL players stood/held a state seat with?

1. Damien Drum (geel)
2. Steve Oliver (Carl)
3. Percy WOW Jones (Carl)
4. Nigel Smart (Adel)
5. Murray Thompson (Rich)
6. Bill Sykes (Fitz)
7. late Jack Dyer (Rich)
8. late Maurice Rioli (Rich)
9. Justin Madden (Carl)
10. Geoff Ablett (95% hawks)


scroll down for answers

1. Nats
2. Nats
3. Liberal
4. Liberal
5. Liberal
6. Nats
7. Lab
8. Lab
9. Lab
10. Lib

Justin Madden obviously should have played for Richmond.

source: anthony greens election blog + others (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/10/afl-players-contesting-the-victorian-election.html)
 

Azza

Tiger Champion
Aug 30, 2007
4,057
0
The way the Baillieu government makes policy decisions -

- The relevant public service department spends a great deal of time and money consulting with experts and stakeholders.
- A briefing on the policy options rated most to least preferable (with justifications), is sent to the minister's office
- The minister's political advisor (usually a political hack with no experience relevant to the department) decides on which option is the most politically expedient, and tells the public service. The minister doesn't get to see the brief at this point.
- The public service rewrites the brief and recommends the advisor's option to the minister's office.
- The minister's advisor sign's off on behalf of the minister
- The minister finally gets to see the brief, and ratifies the advisor's decision.

Any flak on the decision can be deflected back to the public service for poor advice to the Minister.

(note - all governments operate in this way to some extent, but Baillieu is really making an artform of it).
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
8,005
2,154
Great recent work by big Ted on trying to get a response from the PM on Telstra with what happened in Warrnambool. 17 days later still many phones not connected.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
MB78 said:
Great recent work by big Ted on trying to get a response from the PM on Telstra with what happened in Warrnambool. 17 days later still many phones not connected.

Ummmmm......John Winston Howard sold Telecom. Not sure the PM is the person to be asking. are you? Is the PM asking Ted where his "The best paid not the worst paid" commitment is at?
 

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
8,005
2,154
KnightersRevenge said:
Ummmmm......John Winston Howard sold Telecom. Not sure the PM is the person to be asking. are you? Is the PM asking Ted where his "The best paid not the worst paid" commitment is at?

I'm sure the Fed government is the right place to be asking. They own part of Telstra and have a minister by the name of Stephen Conroy who should be stepping in assisting businesses that have lost thousands of $ due to this. The elderly where without landlines for days. How do we learn from this to make sure people are protected from what has happened.

Is it to much to expect action from our Governments without playing the blame games?
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
MB78 said:
I'm sure the Fed government is the right place to be asking. They own part of Telstra and have a minister by the name of Stephen Conroy who should be stepping in assisting businesses that have lost thousands of $ due to this. The elderly where without landlines for days. How do we learn from this to make sure people are protected from what has happened.

Is it to much to expect action from our Governments without playing the blame games?
Not at all. But it is only fair IMO if we expect big Ted to stop playing his games as well. He is fighting with the feds over the bandwidth for the emergency telecoms plan and is using this situation, IMO, to score an extra political point to help out his beleaguered national leader. I agree that the situation is ridiculous but I think we ought to exhaust ourselves with Telstra first and the parlous state of their systems and responses before we take aim at the federal government that doesn't run the system any more.
 

K3

Tiger Legend
Oct 9, 2006
5,213
973
MB78 said:
I'm sure the Fed government is the right place to be asking. They own part of Telstra and have a minister by the name of Stephen Conroy who should be stepping in assisting businesses that have lost thousands of $ due to this. The elderly where without landlines for days. How do we learn from this to make sure people are protected from what has happened.

Is it to much to expect action from our Governments without playing the blame games?

Well said. IMO both governments should be working hard to a. fix the problem and b. ensure it doesn't happen in the future.

Hmmmm. If there were no state goverments... ha ha Yes, it is my 'cause of the month' :)
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
K3 said:
Well said. IMO both governments should be working hard to a. fix the problem and b. ensure it doesn't happen in the future.

Hmmmm. If there were no state goverments... ha ha Yes, it is my 'cause of the month' :)

I can't see why a failure of proprietary telecom company tech should be the responsibility of government. Why aren't Telstra responsible? It is Telstra system failure, only they can fix it. If you reckon they aren't fed up with Conroy beating at them already...
 

K3

Tiger Legend
Oct 9, 2006
5,213
973
KnightersRevenge said:
I can't see why a failure of proprietary telecom company tech should be the responsibility of government. Why aren't Telstra responsible? It is Telstra system failure, only they can fix it. If you reckon they aren't fed up with Conroy beating at them already...
True, and my wording wasn't the best. What I mean was that the Govt should be pushing Telstra, and all other telecom's companies, to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
willo said:
As I said it's time to stop the blame game. Fed vs State (any State), and start putting the well being of us citizens first and foremost.
Once again I'll say it. The best, easiest and most practical way would be for the Fed's to fund Health care (and Education) for starters. That's the thing with too many layers of government. One hand with-holds then it's blame blame. We know there are problems with Health care (including Aged care in this) find the solution.

1. Do you believe Australians have the best Health care system possible, (including Aged, Preventative, Mental, Dental, Staffing, Emergency & Elective surgery,etc all facets)
2. Could more be done to improve it?

I agree completely with this sentiment, I would love to see State Government dispensed with, so long as local government is de-politicized at the same time. There is in my opinion no reason for councillors to have a political affiliation. They are administrators.

1. Australian health systems are very good.
2. But there is a problem somewhere. We funnel money into the system but all over the country people are waiting on trundles and ambulances are lined up in emergency admittances when they should be attending calls. Ambos are being asked to work 12 hour shifts or told to clock off on time, as though they were factory workers and surgeons are rivalling CEOs for escalating salaries.

But to defend myself from your emoticon sarcasm an increase in funding, by a reduced amount is still an increase and not a cut isn't it? Federal funding of health for Victoria has increased, but the increase is $109m smaller than was originally announced, am I wrong about that? State Government cuts are $600m. While I am not impressed with any cuts to health it is at least important to be accurate about what is really going on or how can you debate it?
 

Willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
18,257
6,133
Aldinga Beach
KnightersRevenge said:
I agree completely with this sentiment, I would love to see State Government dispensed with, so long as local government is de-politicized at the same time. There is in my opinion no reason for councillors to have a political affiliation. They are administrators.

1. Australian health systems are very good.
2. But there is a problem somewhere. We funnel money into the system but all over the country people are waiting on trundles and ambulances are lined up in emergency admittances when they should be attending calls. Ambos are being asked to work 12 hour shifts or told to clock off on time, as though they were factory workers and surgeons are rivalling CEOs for escalating salaries.

I totally agree with you agreeing with me. ;D I also agree with the rest of what you say.

KnightersRevenge said:
But to defend myself from your emoticon sarcasm an increase in funding, by a reduced amount is still an increase and not a cut isn't it? Federal funding of health for Victoria has increased, but the increase is $109m smaller than was originally announced, am I wrong about that? State Government cuts are $600m. While I am not impressed with any cuts to health it is at least important to be accurate about what is really going on or how can you debate it?
I didn't think it was a "sarcastic" emoticon, I thought it was "laughing", As I said, I thought it was very "Yes ministerish" that summary.
So you say a reduction of a planned increase is still an "increase". I say a reduction of a planned increase is still a "cut" on what was planned. Happy to differ. But the end result is that more funding is required. That, I believe we agree on.
All parties should get together in a bipartisan arrangement. It's just too critical an issue.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
willo said:
I totally agree with you agreeing with me. ;D I also agree with the rest of what you say.
I didn't think it was a "sarcastic" emoticon, I thought it was "laughing", As I said, I thought it was very "Yes ministerish" that summary.
So you say a reduction of a planned increase is still an "increase". I say a reduction of a planned increase is still a "cut" on what was planned. Happy to differ. But the end result is that more funding is required. That, I believe we agree on.
All parties should get together in a bipartisan arrangement. It's just too critical an issue.

Fair enough sarcasm can be hard to judge in text. Otherwise we are in furious agreement. :grouphug
 

Streak

Tiger Legend
Aug 31, 2007
37,213
6,216
Western Australia
brigadiertiger said:
Wouldn't it be just easier to get rid of state governements?

I think we have one layer of Government too many, and on the face of it the State tier would be the most likely to go.

But that would rely on effective local Government, which in WA (not sure how the rest of you fare) would be a laughable outcome if it wasn't so serious.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
Baillieu's school plan spoiler

THE AGE February 23, 2013

"TED Baillieu has torpedoed the Gillard government's school reforms, announcing his own plan for education funding amid fears the Commonwealth proposal would leave many Victorian schools significantly worse off. The federal government has said the states would receive no extra funding if they refuse to sign up to the federal plan, warning Victoria would miss out on $1.2 billion over five years.But Mr Baillieu has rejected Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal, saying there is a better way to improve Victorian schools in line with the needs-based principles of the Gonski review. Victoria's plan, which would be phased in from next year, centres on extra funding for disadvantaged students. It includes a voucher system where money would follow the student to whatever school they chose to attend, regardless of whether public or private. As part of its pro-school choice agenda, the state government would provide more consistent funding for students with a disability attending private schools. It says those at state schools currently receive up to $32,000 more per student. The plan, which would cost an extra $400 million a year to fully implement, would require additional funding from both the state and federal governments. Under the Commonwealth's plan, every student would be allocated a base level of funding, with additional loadings for disadvantaged students, such as those with a disability. State schools would be fully funded by the government, while the amount given to private schools would vary depending on the level of disadvantage and the ability of parents to pay school fees. The Baillieu government's alternative plan comes as Ms Gillard told a teachers' union conference on Friday that ''the big test'' for the biggest reform to schools' policy in 40 years would come at April's Council of Australian Governments meeting. ''I hope the premiers will rise to the challenge. Australia's children are counting on them,'' she said. ''We will get this thing done.'' The Greens, meanwhile, have vowed to amend the government's legislation to ensure that poorer state schools are funded first. One of the key findings of the Gonski review was that Australia lacks a logical, consistent and transparent approach to funding schooling. If the states follow Mr Baillieu's lead and don't sign up to the Gillard plan, this would leave Australia with a messy system where jurisdictions were funded differently. The Victorian government has suggested the other states and territories could adopt a similar approach to its own. Under the Commonwealth's plan, funding would be conditional on the states agreeing to lift teacher quality; an improvement plan for every school; more power for principals; a plan to prevent bullying and more information for parents through the My School website. However the Victorian government opposes a uniform method of allocating funding to schools and prescriptive requirements on them. ''The Commonwealth government has linked increases to funding with greater intervention in the decision making of schools and school systems, stifling schools' ability to respond to parents, communities and local school system leaders,'' said Victorian Education Minister Martin Dixon. ''This one size fits all approach to funding and standards poses a significant risk to the achievements of, and ongoing improvements to, the Victorian school system.'' Mr Baillieu said that under the Commonwealth's plan, some schools would lose their anticipated funding over the next decade, despite Ms Gillard's pledge that no school would lose a dollar. Under Victoria's plan: ''no school would be worse off'' and many would gain significantly, he said. At Senate estimates last week, the associate secretary of the federal Education Department, Tony Cook, said Ms Gillard would like all states and territories to sign up to the reforms in April. However, asked what would happen if states refused to sign, Mr Cook said contingency plans were in place. The Commonwealth reforms would cost an extra $6.5 billion a year but the government is yet to reveal what proportion the states will be required to contribute. ''We can afford school reform,'' Ms Gillard said. ''I'm not asking the premiers to put money on the table today.'' The federal school plan would roll out between 2014 and 2019."

Here we go again, I think Ted sees that State Governments are becoming an irrelevance and is trying to push back. Given that he is currently in court trying to legitimise his actions against teachers how can he possibly be taken seriously on education reform? So he says : no school would be worse off, really Ted? Is that like "not the worst paid, the best paid"?
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
18,205
17,604
Camberwell
KnightersRevenge said:
But to defend myself from your emoticon sarcasm an increase in funding, by a reduced amount is still an increase and not a cut isn't it? Federal funding of health for Victoria has increased, but the increase is $109m smaller than was originally announced, am I wrong about that? State Government cuts are $600m. While I am not impressed with any cuts to health it is at least important to be accurate about what is really going on or how can you debate it?
There is much that can written about this. I have some recent experience around Public Health so I can write with knowledge.

You are right. When the National health Agreement as struck a few years back it included very large Federal Govt increases, to the level of 7-8% per year. It was to address waiting lists in both emergency and elective surgery and bed numbers specifically. All federal spending is routed through the States who disburse it with the exception of a few things like drugs and mental health which are already funded direct. In the last 2 years the Vic State Govt has said thanks very much for the money and used the Federal increase to fund it's own cuts. A total of $616 million over 5 years. It has used Federal money earmarked for improving health to balance its own budget. The Federal cuts were garbage , badly thought through and badly handled , a poor attempt to claw some money back with the expectation that the States would cover it.
However the fact still remains that even after these cuts , which are not just this year but also into the future, the feds will still increase health funding to Victoria by 25% over the next 3 years.

The Federal Govt's handling of this has been bumbling and incompetent and they have been out gunned in the politics as well, but if you are looking for a scapegoat for cuts in health spending look to Ted Baillieu and David Davis.