The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

My reasons for posting those concerns about Rudd's leadership pronouncements, so early in this election campaign, are pretty straight-forward ones. It is not the Kevin Rudd Party, it's the Australian Labor Party! We all saw, all too clearly, what a disaster the Latham one man band was. I don't want that to happen again in 2007! The ALP must be unified to beat this Liberal government & already there's a feeling of disquiet in the ranks, as we can see from the internal ALP leaks to the media. I think he'd better learn about teamwork & consultation & very quickly!

0 Replies

Builder wrote:

msolga wrote:

Well, was the family evicted from the farm when he was 11 years old, or not? :wink:

When Rudd snr died, he was share-farming, and the owner made it clear to Mrs. Rudd that when a replacement share-farmer was sourced, she would have to move out of the farmhouse they occupied.

It was some months later that a replacement was found, but it would seem that Mrs. Rudd was a rather proud sort, and she not only refused to share her plight with her family and friends, but assured her former boss that she had somewhere to go to.

As the story unfolds, it's most interesting to note that pride is what stood between her and the help she had around her.

I met Kevin's sister yesterday. Their family home is part of one of the most cohesive neighbourhoods that I have had the pleasure of working within.

Interesting, Builder.

Thanks for that.

..... Any thoughts on my "Rudd concerns"?

0 Replies

Agreed. United we stand, divided we fall.

I think that is part of the smear campaign.

Interesting parrallels would be republicans distancing themselves from Cheney and Bush in the recent midterm elections.

I'm gonna go back and get a picture of Rudd's childhood home, and try to talk to his sister about him.

Might be a scoop of sorts. :wink:

0 Replies

Builder wrote:

Agreed. United we stand, divided we fall.

.... & a vague nodding acquaintance with "the light on the hill" in what a future ALP government might stand for, wouldn't be a bad thing, either! :wink:

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Builder wrote:
Agreed. United we stand, divided we fall.

.... & a vague nodding acquaintance with "the light on the hill" in what a future ALP government might stand for, wouldn't be a bad thing, either! :wink:

Saw a funny article in the local paper today. Rudd has taken a leaf out of Howler's book in turning his back on the opposition when they have the floor, and chatting amiably with colleagues while the Howlers put their points across. Seems he got under our current bean-counter's skin in a big way. *chuckles*

0 Replies

Builder wrote:

Agreed. United we stand, divided we fall.

But a camel is a horse designed by committee.

The art of politics seems to me to be having people on side prior to making public announcements.

Help others achieve their goals and you will achieve yours.

Rule number 1 of teamwork is common goals.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Builder wrote:
Agreed. United we stand, divided we fall.

But a camel is a horse designed by committee.

The art of politics seems to me to be having people on side prior to making public announcements.

Help others achieve their goals and you will achieve yours.

Rule number 1 of teamwork is common goals.

Yes. Precisely, dadpad!

This Rudd tendency to publicly declare his own philosophy/intentions without prior ALP agreement is really worrying me! He'd better learn about common purpose & teamwork post haste or else problems will inevitably follow!

0 Replies

Ignore this post if you're tired of me raving on & on about public education. :wink: (I know I have a bee in my bonnet about it, but I consider it so important!).
I'd been getting rather nervous about Kevin Rudd's most recent public statements (as you can gather!) & am discovering that many other supporters of government schools are, too .... like Kenneth Davidson, in this AGE article today. I have the greatest respect for Kenneth & thought this article was spot on.:

Rudd's ALP is selling out public schools
Kenneth Davidson/the AGE
March 22, 2007

AUSTRALIA has institutionalised educational inequality and the Labor Party is part of the racket.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd and his shadow education minister can't have it both ways. They can either fund schools on the basis of need or they can maintain the unfair indexation arrangements of current spending set in place by the Howard Government.

Presumably they think that the parents of the two-thirds of children who go to government schools don't care, don't notice or believe that the Rudd Opposition is the lesser of the two evils.

What is clear is that the private-schools lobby is the very large tail that wags the education dog.

When the Liberals are in office, the charge for more and more resources at the expense of the Government system is led by the independent school lobby.

When Labor is in office, the charge on behalf of private education is led by the Catholic bishops.

Thus we have a largely puerile debate about values and national curriculum that fills the vacuum left by the lack of statistics on where the educational dollar goes.

Equity in the funding of government schools should have priority in any society with more than phoney pretensions to espousing egalitarian or secular values.

But it seems anybody who sticks their head up to fight for proper funding of government schools is branded a class warrior or a bigot who wants to open up the sectarian debate between Protestants and Catholics. This debate blighted Australian society up until the Whitlam government's creation of the schools commission to bring the Catholic schools up to the standards of government schools.

..............

..... we have the spectacle of Rudd and his education spokesman, Stephen Smith, promising to "fund all schools on the basis of need and fairness. We will not cut funding to any school; and we will not disturb the current average government school recurrent costs (AGSRC) indexation agreements for schools funding."

You can have it one way or the other. The unfair funding gap between non-government and government schools can be maintained or it can be closed and fairness restored.

Let there be no mistake.

The Rudd Opposition is in the business of buying off vested interests and hoping the majority won't notice. .........

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/rudds-alp-is-selling-out-public-schools/2007/03/21/1174153156079.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

0 Replies

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/22/wbTOONleunig2303_gallery__470x340,0.jpg

0 Replies

http://network.news.com.au/image/0,10114,5425724,00.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5425783,00.jpg

0 Replies

Hi Msgola

I noticed you posted about public education, and Rudd upholding the funding of private schools.

While I agree with you that public schools, and universities should be fully funded by the government, I have a great deal of sympathy for Rudd's stance on this issue...not because of the rightness or wrongness of it, but because of political reality.

Political reality is, if he removed funding from the schools, he would leave himself open to an ongoing attack on his leadership credibility (irrespective of whether or not the idea is a good one)...for a sustained campaign would be able to be launched against him on this topic, with enough 'facts' that people people not in possession of the full facts (read most) would start doubting his leadership ability.

The other political reality is, most of Australia's money, is tied up in the hands of people who went to private schools. If Rudd were to have a policy of reducing funding to private schools, he would make said people very nervous (for they have no concept of what being 'poor' entails, only that it should never happen to them)...and money speaks...it can speak in adds, in influence, and in donations to political parties.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

.....I have a great deal of sympathy for Rudd's stance on this issue...not because of the rightness or wrongness of it, but because of political reality.

Political reality is, if he removed funding from the schools, he would leave himself open to an ongoing attack on his leadership credibility (irrespective of whether or not the idea is a good one)...for a sustained campaign would be able to be launched against him on this topic, with enough 'facts' that people people not in possession of the full facts (read most) would start doubting his leadership ability.

The other political reality is, most of Australia's money, is tied up in the hands of people who went to private schools. If Rudd were to have a policy of reducing funding to private schools, he would make said people very nervous (for they have no concept of what being 'poor' entails, only that it should never happen to them)...and money speaks...it can speak in adds, in influence, and in donations to political parties.

Where I differ from you, vikorr, is that I want the Labor Party to stand for something! I can see no point in voting for the ALP if its policies on issues I consider important are almost identical to the Liberals ... as much as I want to see that last of Howard & co running the country. I'm not saying that Rudd should come out aggressively with an assault on institutionalized privilege, greedy fat cats, etc .... that won't get him (& the Labor party) anywhere. :wink: I'm saying that the Labor Party should act responsibly & with integrity to redress the disgraceful state of public education in this country. Two thirds of Australian children are educated in government schools & they're getting a really shabby deal. There are rational & convincing ways of putting the case for fair & decent funding for government schools (& the public health system as well, for that matter), but I think Labor has long given up on attempting to do this (for the reasons you stated).

Apart from that, if the Labor Party leadership continues on this pragmatic course it will ultimately be harming itself. If it is not the party of conscience which strives for a more just & fairer Australia (compared to the Libs & their business loyalties), then what does it stand for now? Why bother to join Labor & participate in its "grass roots" decision making process, why support Labor at the election if really, they're not that much different to the Libs?

I understand that the Labor leadership now wants to make changes to the existing ALP policy on uranium mining (Should make for an interesting conference this year!), now I'm seriously wondering if a little more pragmatism might be considered a good idea for the IR laws? Business might like that! Sigh. Sad

If I'm sounding cynical or overly critical, vikorr, it's because I desperately don't want Labor to blow this real chance of ridding us of Howard. But I believe that clear alternatives to Howard's policies & actions are needed to succeed. (No, not by being overly "radical" & scaring the voters ... by offering a fairer & more moral alternative to the Libs & also by convincing Australians that Labor is "economically responsible" without totally selling out ordinary people in the process.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Apart from that, if the Labor Party leadership continues on this pragmatic course it will ultimately be harming itself. If it is not the party of conscience which strives for a more just & fairer Australia (compared to the Libs & their business loyalties), then what does it stand for now? Why bother to join Labor & participate in its "grass roots" decision making process, why support Labor at the election if really, they're not that much different to the Libs?
.......
If I'm sounding cynical or overly critical, vikorr, it's because I desperately don't want Labor to blow this real chance of ridding us of Howard. But I believe that clear alternatives to Howard's policies & actions are needed to succeed.

Oh we don't differ on this view. The problem as I see it, stems back to allowing big business to donate to political parties.

The secondary problem is that most people are not politically astute, most especially the working class (who have lost out time and again over the last few decades while receiving more and more handouts).

The two combine together to produce a political climate that suits big business....that climate makes it hard for anyone against big business to become elected...and the leaders of big business favour private schools.

So why is it hard to gain election if you are against big business? BB donates to both political parties, but if you come up with policies against them, they donate to one political party, effectively tripling the other parties monetary advantage over it. (eg 2+2 vs 2+2...&...2 vs 2+2+2) Money buys more spin doctors, more advertising guru's, more advertising, more researchers to dig up dirt, more speech writers, more economists etc etc etc. Unfortunately, anyone who don't pay much attention to politics (or ignores politics on principal of not liking them), votes for those they know (which is where advertising comes in), or those that sound the best (which is where spin doctors and PI's etc come in). And as Howard has proven numerous times now, all thats needed is to throw enough doubt in the mind of voters, that they vote for the 'safe' options - the known government. I'm sure there's heaps more reasons than that.

Ideally I agree with you (about Labor differentiating itself, and having a distinct identity). For me though, I think current political reality would make complete distinction electoral suicide...The economy has been good over a long period of time, which gives Howard's economic policies credibility in the eyes of the public, and much ammunition against labor, should labor wish to change them...so I am of the opinion that Labor must fight where it can win, and go along with those things that would do too much politic damage.

...there is always the subsequent election to make further changes.

0 Replies

ie. He should do a Howard. Get in, then worry about his agenda.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

ie. He should do a Howard. Get in, then worry about his agenda.

A bit like my love life at present. I seem to be borrowing rather heavily from the future fund. Management continue to tell me thats a very bad Idea but As I see it its NOW that matters.

0 Replies

On the plus side, the NSW conservatives have had their worthless arses well and truly pounded today, and will slink off into the political wilderness for another four years.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

ie. He should do a Howard. Get in, then worry about his agenda.

Yeah, that'd be terrific! Another shifty leader with a fresh set of core & non-core promises. Laughing

I just don't like the thought of Oz having a similar experience to the UK. They elected a Labour government after all those hideous years (for Labour folk) under Thatcher. And what did they get? The Blair government = a Clayton's Labour government. Honestly, Labour supporters must be so disillusioned by the experience. It wouldn't surprise me if some have just given up on participating in the political process in disgust.
Me, I like a Labor government that sort of resembles a Labor government! :wink:

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

....The problem as I see it, stems back to allowing big business to donate to political parties.

.... & media ownership concentrated in too few hands. For most of the Howard years most political commentary in Oz has been quite conservative & generally uncritically approving of JH & co. Add to that regular attacks on poor old Auntie's "left bias". It's only recently that so-called liberal newspapers like the AGE have been openly critical of the Libs' excesses.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Wilso wrote:
ie. He should do a Howard. Get in, then worry about his agenda.

Yeah, that'd be terrific! Another shifty leader with a fresh set of core & non-core promises.

I just don't like the thought of Oz having a similar experience to the UK. They elected a Labour government after all those hideous years (for Labour folk) under Thatcher. And what did they get? The Blair government = a Clayton's Labour government. Honestly, Labour supporters must be so disillusioned by the experience. It wouldn't surprise me if some have just given up on participating in the political process in disgust.
Me, I like a Labor government that sort of resembles a Labor government! :wink:

As I have said in a previous post, you have to admire bonzai for standing up for his mates ... it's just a pity a labor leader didn't stand up for the working class and and promise them a share of the country's wealth instead of trying to pander to big business. It has to be workers putting bonzai back in power all the time. The ALP needs to get back to its roots.

0 Replies

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know