Talking Politics | 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.

Talking Politics

Baloo said:
What a coincidence that Abbott is overseas pressing flesh with foreign leaders while his attack dogs start working over Malcolm T. Sure signs that Abbott's lack of popularity with the masses and discontent with the budget internally is starting to worry our great PM.

Unless it's a confected distraction from the budget. Why on earth would Turnbull go onto Jones' show?

Mind you with Credlin away trying to minimise Abbott's damage on the international stage, maybe the kiddies really are getting out of control.
 
Giardiasis said:
I'm not defending the current PM at all, I am treating his dishonesty as equal to that of Gillard. Saying she wants to price carbon doesn't negate her first line. She said we wouldn't have a co2 tax, and then we did. Blatant lie. You sympathise with the lie, and hence you are blinded to reality. The voting public certainly weren't.

Nope, I accept that that the then PM said she would price carbon and did. No mixed signal there. All the momentum was that an ETS was the best "political" solution though to my mind a carbon tax is the more effective solution as a market based mechanism will likely get usurped by players and scoundrels. The current PM lied openly, thereuis absolutely a difference and your vehemence suggests more bias than you let on.

Trying to argue the CO2 tax wasn't a tax is semantic time wasting. Did people have to pay more money? Yes. Did the government in kind receive more money? Yes.
Meh I obviously think the same of you. Democracies around the world are falling apart, they won't be in any position to reduce standards of living to fix an issue that is becoming more embarrassing to the scientific establishment and their government cohorts everyday.

Meh. The only people embarrassed are the ones saying "look over here!, it's sunny and nice" while great chunks of Antarctica melt into the Southern Ocean.
 
politics?

leaders should be people with a wealth of knowledge,wisdom,compassion,care,understanding..with a vision thats clearly to the benefit of the majority,especially those who weren't born into privilege,

clearly we do not have one of these in office right now
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Nope, I accept that that the then PM said she would price carbon and did. No mixed signal there. All the momentum was that an ETS was the best "political" solution though to my mind a carbon tax is the more effective solution as a market based mechanism will likely get usurped by players and scoundrels. The current PM lied openly, thereuis absolutely a difference and your vehemence suggests more bias than you let on

He lied. She lied. Your bias is clear KR

fWIW I think they both believe their course of action once elected is in the best interests of the nation as neither course of action was going to be popular.
 
Hugo said:
He lied. She lied. Your bias is clear KR

fWIW I think they both believe their course of action once elected is in the best interests of the nation as neither course of action was going to be popular.

I understand I am in the minority Huge, perhaps a minority of one, but I don't accept that she lied. I know people think that is my political bias. The truth is the label that best fits me, without being completely accurate, is socialist. JG was far from that. All taxes are accounted for in the same way by governments. The deficit levy will join them, the fixed price on carbon emmissions that formed the transition to an ETS didn't.

She said she'd price carbon and followed through on her committment. That is a kept promise. The current PM promised no cuts to ABC and SBS, no cuts to education and health, no changes to pensions. They are statements designed to win an election and were made with the express intention of breaking them. There is a world of difference. An analogy if you will. JG said "I'm not going to repossess your car but I am determined to make you pay for it". So she put you on a much much stricter payment plan. TA said, "I'm not going to repossess your car". Then he repossessed your car.
 
arlobill said:
politics?

leaders should be people with a wealth of knowledge,wisdom,compassion,care,understanding..with a vision thats clearly to the benefit of the majority,especially those who weren't born into privilege,

clearly we do not have one of these in office right now
It wouldn't matter if all our politicians were saints, economic calculation is impossible under centralised control of the production structure.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
I understand I am in the minority Huge, perhaps a minority of one, but I don't accept that she lied. I know people think that is my political bias. The truth is the label that best fits me, without being completely accurate, is socialist. JG was far from that. All taxes are accounted for in the same way by governments. The deficit levy will join them, the fixed price on carbon emmissions that formed the transition to an ETS didn't.

She said she'd price carbon and followed through on her committment. That is a kept promise. The current PM promised no cuts to ABC and SBS, no cuts to education and health, no changes to pensions. They are statements designed to win an election and were made with the express intention of breaking them. There is a world of difference. An analogy if you will. JG said "I'm not going to repossess your car but I am determined to make you pay for it". So she put you on a much much stricter payment plan. TA said, "I'm not going to repossess your car". Then he repossessed your car.

She strictly said no carbon tax. She campaigned on it. Then introduced a carbon tax. You argue she has this get out of jail free card because she said she would price carbon. Doesn't Abbott have a similar rider in that they indicated they would not know the true state of the finances until they were in power and thus left open the ability to back track?
 
Abbott wins the prize.

Is Australia run bu compulsive liars?

"Early in the 2013 campaign, an editor asked a journalist to research the blatant malicious lies – Class F – by party leaders since 2007: Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Warren Truss.

The journo reported back two disturbing findings.

First, the number was actually quite high – more than twelve – higher than either had expected.

And secondly — they were all from just the one leader. None from any of the others."

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/is-australia-run-by-compulsive-liars,6376
 
Hugo said:
She strictly said no carbon tax. She campaigned on it. Then introduced a carbon tax. You argue she has this get out of jail free card because she said she would price carbon. Doesn't Abbott have a similar rider in that they indicated they would not know the true state of the finances until they were in power and thus left open the ability to back track?

I quite liked my analogy, it would seem you didn't. She strictly said she was determined to price carbon too. Not a get out of jail card, a statement of fact. You like most choose to only focus on the first part of the statement and ignore the reality that it did not resemble in its method or its accounting any other tax on the books. I will not back down so it is pointless to continue on that front, ask Willo. ;)

It is very different from what the PM has done. He told us well before the election that his word was worth nothing, and has set about proving it. He is the epitome of a political animal, and like JW Howard he has his Ruddock, Morrison out there persecuting refugees in the yours and my name. Frankly it disgusts me.
 
blah blah blah Canadia blah blah blah... If he was someone else's PM I would be pissing myself laughing over that one! Buuut he's not.
 
K3 said:
blah blah blah Canadia blah blah blah... If he was someone else's PM I would be p!ssing myself laughing over that one! Buuut he's not.



SAW that little gem on the Australian Network news last night and just shook my head but had to laugh.
 
Hugo said:
She strictly said no carbon tax. She campaigned on it. Then introduced a carbon tax. You argue she has this get out of jail free card because she said she would price carbon. Doesn't Abbott have a similar rider in that they indicated they would not know the true state of the finances until they were in power and thus left open the ability to back track?

but what about the policy goals of the lies? Gillard's was to make a start towards low emissions, and if you believe the experts, try to save potential catastrophic damage to the global ecosystem. Abbott's was to make poor people balance the books, which, if you believe the experts, didn't really need balancing.

you might not see a difference, but I do.
 
pref.jpg
 
A question for ya'll... Can anyone think of the last time a govt conducted an 'inquiry', into anything, which was a you beaut, true blue fair dinkum effort to find out the truth of a matter?

I ask as I am so sick of seeing the political parties shower themselves in praise for setting up some inquiry which will, undoubtedly, be headed by some ex-minister/ donor/ known affiliate of that party. Of course the inquiry's findings are most often 'magically' in line with what the party wanted and nothing appears to be learned or gained from the millions spent.

Help restore my faith before I find a clown to lead a party to contest the next election...
 
Gonski education ?

Or what about the one they did on Tax but decide most of the suggestions would result in political suicide so they ignored them all ?
 
Baloo said:
Gonski education ?

Or what about the one they did on Tax but decide most of the suggestions would result in political suicide so they ignored them all ?

Good call there Baloo! The Gonski one is a beaut', but will slowly be cut back by the Libs just in time to stop the major investment period. I suppose the Mining Tax and ETS could also be put down as inquiries which came to a conclusion that didn't sit with either major party.

It's like a ray of sunshine busting through a cloudy day... ;D
 
K3 said:
A question for ya'll... Can anyone think of the last time a govt conducted an 'inquiry', into anything, which was a you beaut, true blue fair dinkum effort to find out the truth of a matter?

I ask as I am so sick of seeing the political parties shower themselves in praise for setting up some inquiry which will, undoubtedly, be headed by some ex-minister/ donor/ known affiliate of that party. Of course the inquiry's findings are most often 'magically' in line with what the party wanted and nothing appears to be learned or gained from the millions spent.

Help restore my faith before I find a clown to lead a party to contest the next election...

the productivity commission report into the national disability insurance scheme fits that criteria i reckon.
 
Australia's education system is segregated and losing equity, says visiting professor
By Rebecca Barrett
Posted Wed 18 Jun 2014, 9:25pm AEST

Two men study
PHOTO: One of the world's leading educators says Australia is losing its equity in education.

One of the world's leading educators says Australia is losing its equity in education as the system becomes segregated due to the number of students now attending non-government schools.

Finland's former Director General of Education and now a visiting professor at Harvard University, Pasi Stahlberg, is in Australia this week delivering a series of talks about equity and excellence in education and how Finland has built its highly regarded education system.

Dr Stahlberg says it is "surprising" that Australia is not taking the Gonski school funding model more seriously.

"What has happened to Australia in education is that you have lost some of that equity that you used to have before here and when you lose the equity it seems like this ... is tracking and pulling back the quality," he said.

The Federal Government has committed to fund the first four years of Gonski but not the final two years when the largest share of funding kicks in.

This week, New South Wales agreed to spend a record $14.4 billion on education that will fully fund Gonski and pay for major school redevelopments.

Education Minister Adrian Piccoli says the 2014-15 budget delivers on New South Wales's commitment to fully fund its $1.76 billion Gonski commitment.

"Where the Commonwealth Government refused to fund its share of the agreement beyond 2017, NSW has kept faith with school communities around the state by allocating additional funds across the forward estimates," he said.

Disadvantaged students to benefit most

Some school principals say they are reaping the benefits.

Experts barking up the wrong tree


Those wanting to improve equity in Australia's education system should be looking to increase rather than limit school autonomy and school choice, writes Kevin Donnelly.
Christine Cawsey, the principal of Rooty Hill High School in Sydney's west, says half of her students come from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Speaking in a union "I Give a Gonski" campaign on YouTube, she says Gonski money combined with some extra funding for reading has made a huge difference.

"We've been able to lift the reading levels of our students in Year 7 by one year already. Some of them three or four years in reading," she said.

Dr Stahlberg says four out of five children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds in Australia are educated in public schools.

He says Australia has the lowest share of public school students amongst members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) at a time when many countries, including Singapore, are retreating from private education.

"Many of the things that you have currently in place go against what the most successful systems are doing," he said.

He says "the Federal Government is right when it says more money is not going to solve the problem and improve the quality."

"I think the right question is not how much money you spend but how you spend the money available and there I think Gonski did wonderful work in spelling out how unfairly the money that is available in Australia is spent.

I think the right question is not how much money you spend but how you spend the money available and there I think Gonski did wonderful work in spelling out how unfairly the money that is available in Australia is spent.

"In Australia you are funding inequity within your school system rather spending the money in a way that would enhance and fund equity within the system," Dr Stahlberg said.

But Dr Kevin Donnelly, who is co-chairing a review of the Australian curriculum, argues that Dr Stahlberg has got it wrong.

Writing for ABC's The Drum this week, he says "the belief that all can be winners", as Stahlberg implies with his argument that with enough resources and support every child can do well, is also far from true.

"Not all students have the same ability, motivation and will to succeed, and it is far better to give students a realistic and truthful appraisal of their ability instead of letting them float through school believing all is well," he said.

Dr Donnelly says "those wanting to improve equity in Australia's education system should be looking to increase rather than limit school autonomy and school choice."

The Commonwealth is working to encourage around 1,500 existing public schools to participate in the Independent Public Schools initiative by 2017.
----------

I don't suppose Dr Donnelly is associated with the Liberal Party in some way...?