Australian Federal Election

[tommytomlin 0]

Yes, but if the Libs don't get the 39th seat in the Senate, then that 1 vote will be the difference between the Coalition's legislation passing or not.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

Croweater, that's an interesting opinion, why is that??  Personally I like Costello, he also happens to be my local member, but he is not widely popular for one reason or another.  I'm not too sure why, I think it's because he "looks smug", which doesn't seem an overly good reason to not like a politician.

Because he's nowhere near as far right as Howard is. Costello is someone who think could easily be either Labor or Liberal, as he's to the right of most of the Labor party but to the left of the majority of the Liberals. For that very reason, I too hope that Howard is relieved sooner rather than later. Unless of course Abbott somehow beats Costello in the leadership challenge, as he's possibly the only potential PM worse than Howard.

 

And tommy, I too am saddened that Family First look possible to be the one person the Coalition has to swing in order to control the Senate. However I'd prefer that one member of Family First to be there than a government majority. As is I think that the next three years will be amongst the worst for Australia. I fear for the environment, I fear for our national security, I fear for our health and education systems (as someone going into university next year especially) and I fear for refugees and I fear for gays. It really will be a time of backwards movement (especially with this talk of abortion being an issue, which really worries me).

Err, what?

 

Costello is less conservative than Howard, but that hardly places him further to the left. He is a classical liberal, in the economic and social sense of the term, and would have no place in the labor party. He believes in a fully deregulated labor market and he abhors the unions. He's for a big decrease in the top marginal tax rate (or the abolition of it altogether), and would probably want to index all the other rates.

 

The reason why Costello is better than Howard, is because he's more LIBERAL than Howard. That would tend to put him further to the right of the political spectrum, but those measurements are so ambiguous and subjective that its useless to argue over them.

[tommytomlin 0]

And considering he's stood by and allowed Howard to put his stamp of social conservatism over every aspect of Government legislation without barely a whisper (he really needs to grow some balls), I don't see his appeal.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

The right person won thank god. I go to a private school that was exempt from Lathams cuts (St. Kevins), but I still think it is unfair what he was trying to do. Not everybody that goes to those schools parent's have money growing on trees. Why should their tax dollars go towards somebody elses kid and not their own. Why should some rockape from Mill Park High who doesn't wanna be there get their education paid for, but a kid whos Parents work 2 jobs to send them to Wesley or Kings School get nothing. His education plan was extremly unfair and it WAS devisive. He is punishing parents who want to give their kids a better education than the education given in a public school. He also tried to get pretty with it by excluding Catholic & Jewish schools, and than having the Catholic church saying it was wrong to do what he was planning. I'll say it again, thank god the right person won.

[Guest Nanks]

That Private School policy was disgusting. I couldn't believe he was harping on and on about how lavish the grounds at Kings are and how they shouldn't have funding while at the same time letting St Kevs and Xavier slide. Two of the most expansive grounds in Victoria.

[DARRYLXWF 0]

And considering he's stood by and allowed Howard to put his stamp of social conservatism over every aspect of Government legislation without barely a whisper (he really needs to grow some balls), I don't see his appeal.

It's called cabinet solidarity, and every Australian government does it. Without it the party is politically divided, not to mention politically dead.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

That Private School policy was disgusting. I couldn't believe he was harping on and on about how lavish the grounds at Kings are and how they shouldn't have funding while at the same time letting St Kevs and Xavier slide. Two of the most expansive grounds in Victoria.

The reason why SKC & Xavs weren't included in the policy was because their fees were just under the cut-off point. In comparison to the rest of the APS and AGS schools, SKC is fairly small though. I think we may be the smallest in all of the APS. And I think people using the grounds size as a reason were missing the point. The grounds are not just for luxury, the grounds are an integral part of the school. If we didn't have them, we would be constanly having to rent out space for carnivals and APS sports.

 

I am also finding it funny to hear the ALP saying that the Government ran a "Scare" campaign. I seem to remember ads saying how scary it would be if Costello became PM when Howard retires

[Adam 0]

After that load of shit that was the Election, a move to New Zealand is likely. Oh yeah, we've got a great economy, pity about the fucking health and education sectors, isn't it? When I vote for that beedy-eyed lying bastard, Satan will iceskate to work.

[Guest Nanks]

Dude, St Kevs does not have the smallest grounds in the APS.

 

Furthermore, I'm fairly sure all the fees are uniform across the APS, outside of boarding at GGS of course.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

Dude, St Kevs does not have the smallest grounds in the APS.

 

Furthermore, I'm fairly sure all the fees are uniform across the APS, outside of boarding at GGS of course.

There is a fairly big jump in fees. I think there is about 7 grand between us and Hailebrury(sp?), Scotch and a couple of others I think also cost a fair bit more than us. Who does have the smalest grounds?

[Guest Nanks]

I'd argue MGS has smaller grounds than STK. Mind you I'm not including the new sports centre in Port Melbourne, that might be the difference these days. I'd say Caulfield too, but because they've got 2 campuses that technically isn't true.

[tommytomlin 0]

Such a travesty for these schools to get reduced government funding. I mean, how else will they pay for their sports centres?!

[Guest Nanks]

If you think the funding the private schools get is spent on sports centres you lose any credibility you hold with me.

 

You can't possibly justify taking the funding from private schools, it's out and out wrong.

[tommytomlin 0]

No, it's not wrong.

 

There's 2700 non-government schools in Australia. Under Latham's plan, 67 would have gotten their funding reduced, and another 111 would have it frozen, for a saving of half a billion dollars, which would then be distributed amongt lower-fee non-gov schools. He's not taking funding off 'private' schools, he's taking funding off the private schools which receive excessive funding considering the resources presently available to them.

 

There is a need for governments to fund private education. Mainly because it saves taxpayers money. But a line has to be drawn. Governments should not be delivering the same amount of funds to a school which charges $15,000 a year and has a system of old boys to provide it with funds for sports centres, polo fields and shooting ranges. The bulk of funding should be going to schools WITHOUT these resources, private schools which in some cases, are no better off than public schools.

 

Tax's purpose is to redistribute funds for the good of the community, not to service the choice of the few.

[Guest Nanks]

If you seriously think that the top private schools actually have polo fields and shooting ranges then you're just plain ignorant. Kings' School has one underground rifle range that is a leftover from wartime, that's it. The amount of media beatup that shit got is laughable. You can really easily pick out people who've been to public schools by the way they describe what they think private schools are like.

 

The big private schools get the levels of funding they do because they have a lot of students, and no, they're not all products of BRW rich list parents who have a Mercedes for every day of the week. The majority are just normal middle class families. A reduction in the funding would lead to an increase in fees and probably the eradication of scholarship programs. In turn, more kids are going to have to go back into the public schools and then there'll be an even bigger over-crowding problem and still not enough funds.

[tommytomlin 0]

I went to a private school. I have mates who went to GPS schools, and none of them had a problem with Latham's policy.

 

There are plenty of non-Government schools that don't have the need to charge $15,000 a semester for exactly the same education. Governments should be working to make public and smaller non-government schools better, and if it has to come at the expense of schools like Kings, then so be it. If the average middle class family can't afford the fee increases at Kings, there's a thousand or so other cheaper private schools that they can send their kids to, and receive exactly the same level of education.

 

And just a question, when the Howard Government boosted funding to elite private schools, did their fees go down?

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

You are an idiot. Why should my parents tax dollars go to knuckle draggers at Thornbury Darrebing high, who could give 2 shits on how they do education wise, instead of going towards my education. There is a reason why Private school students do so well, and you are dreaming if you think the price has nothing to do with it. Sports programs, camps, pastoral care programs and top rate facilites & teachers are not cheap. You take the funding away and all the fees rise to accomodate for those things, or you lose them. Why should a school lose all of that to help schools whose students don't give a shit, who are at those schools just to pass time. Those things I describe go a long way to help form the person you become. Countless OBs are back at the school from time to time, but schools should lose that because Latham has a hatred of rich people?. And remember, this coming from somebody whose school wouldn't be affected by the cuts. Andrew Bolt spoke to us about the importance of doing good rather than seeming good, and this is a perfect example of it. It seems good to take money from richer schools to give money to the poorer schools, but in the end, all he is doing is just taking money from people who deserve it just as much, which is not good a all

[Guest MikeSC]

God, I wish my country would allow voters to make the choice Australia is currently given.

-=Mike

[Guest Nanks]

What choice is that??

[spiny norman 0]

My school is a 35 year old public school. It is in the top five schools in the state. We had air conditioners installed into each classroom about five years ago and had our school hall built last year. Before that we had neither. Both of these had to be done through donations from parents, because the funding from the government was purely not enough. Almost everything in our school, such as sporting equipment etc. we get from parents paying fees. Somebody please justify why this school does not get sufficient funding, to the point that parents must pay.

 

Why should my parents tax dollars go to knuckle draggers at Thornbury Darrebing high, who could give 2 shits on how they do education wise, instead of going towards my education.

 

Yes, and it's the people who receive the public education who are ignorant in terms of what they believe the other side is like.

[Guest MikeSC]

What choice is that??

What it sounds like --- and I could be wrong --- is that you're allowed to divert your taxes in Australia from public schools to pay for private schooling.

 

This is an exceptionally controversial belief here (even moreso, because the pols and union leaders who support public schools don't send their kids there).

-=Mike

[Guest Nanks]

Yeah, it's kind of like that.

 

One of the big issues that the leader of the opposition took into the recent election was that he would cut or freeze funding to the top private schools and redirect to the "underfunded" public schools. The point he stood on was that all the top private schools have wonderful facilities, etc that are apparently paid for by taxpayers. Which is a fairytale of course. They're paid for by the fucking massive fees that each parent(s) pays each year. The public schools don't get thousands of dollars every year from their parents so they don't get the added facilities. Furthermore, all these parents pay just as much and often more in taxes, which in turn goes towards the free education of other people's children.

 

The theory was that it would be more equitable to make private school parents pay even more for the education of other people's children whilst also paying massive amounts for the better quality education of their own children. Because everyone knows that parents who send their kids to private school have more money than they know what to do with, so it would only be fair to take it from them and use it in someone else's interests.

 

Yes, I went to one of the top private schools in Australia. Yes we had terrific facilities and teachers and programs. But guess who paid for it?? My parents. Not someone else's parents. Why should my parents, who don't go out the back and pick the money out of the garden to pay for it all, pay for every other school to have wonderful facilities while other people's kids get a free education???

 

Communism....

 

Oh, and yeah, when the Opposition leader was questioned on what school he was going to send his young children too he snapped and refused to discuss his private life. Fucking hypocrisy. Fortunately, the country saw through his class warfare bullshit and re-elected our Prime Minister with an increased majority.

[Guest MikeSC]

And that is basically the system conservatives have been fighting for for years --- since many of us feel that the public education system here has failed to do its job. We would KILL for the Australian system, where your property taxes (which provide over 90% of schools' funding) can be given back to parents to use towards paying for a private school.

 

And the pro-school choicers get irked because the people who fight for public schools so hard, by and large, do not send their own kids to public schools, which reeks of hypocrisy like few others. I know Dems in Congress and NEA union heads fervently support it --- yet good luck finding one who has their own child in a public school.

 

American public schools tend to be shitholes.

-=Mike

[Positively Kanyon 0]

Well I voted Labor and I'm fucking proud I did. Bottom line, I was sick of John Howards lies in regards to Iraq, the children overboard scandal and what really pissed me off was the advertisements saying if Labor was in power, interest rates would rise. The government doesn't control interest rates, the Reserve Bank does so that's a load of shit.

 

As for Labor's private schools policy, I was all for it. Why the hell should Australian Taxpayers have to pay for privately funded schools while public funded schools flounder? If parents want to send their kids to a private school, let them pay for it. Simple as that. I applaude Mark Latham's stance on key issues brought up in this election, and if he runs again, he'll get my vote again.

[Guest Nanks]

You think Australian taxpayers aren't paying for public schools too?? They paying entirely for public schools. Every fucking cent that public schools get is coming from the taxpayers.

 

Yeah, parents want their kids to get the best possible education, they do pay, they pay a hell of a lot. At the same time they pay for every kid in the public system. Why am I less deserving of the government funding my education than any kid in a public school?? Because my parents work fucking hard and make sacrifices to pay for quality?? Too many people in this country expect a free ride and get bitter when someone else won't just pay for them to have the best.

[Positively Kanyon 0]

Obviously I have no problem paying for public schools... Don't know what you're going on about there... I do have a problem with my tax dollars already going to some swank private school where they should be clearly diverted to public schools that need the funds.

 

You are blowing this completely out of context... That's great that your parents can afford to send you to a private school, but what about the people on low incomes that have to send their kids to a public school, aren't they entitled to an education? I've got no problem with you, but put yourself in the shoes of a struggling family, don't you think that their kids should have an opportunity to make something of their lives?

 

You're coming off as some rich poncey cappuchino drinking yuppy that thinks their too good for everyone else, having a whinge that you don't get a fair break... typical Liberal voter

[Guest Nanks]

Yes they're entitled to an education, and they're getting one. And I'm paying for it. I know loads of people who are products of the public school system, they're doing the same course as me and they're doing fine.

 

I don't claim to not be getting a fair break at all, I never said that, I said that it wouldn't be just for the parents of private school kids to have all their tax dollars going to the education of other peoples' kids and not to that of their own. If you think that every family who sends their children to private school are "rich" or "yuppies" or even Liberal voters, you are painfully wrong. I have dozens of friends who come from lower-middle income families who were staunch Labour supporters. They voted Liberal this election, they couldn't believe they were being betrayed like that.

[tommytomlin 0]

You are an idiot. Why should my parents tax dollars go to knuckle draggers at Thornbury Darrebing high, who could give 2 shits on how they do education wise, instead of going towards my education. There is a reason why Private school students do so well, and you are dreaming if you think the price has nothing to do with it. Sports programs, camps, pastoral care programs and top rate facilites & teachers are not cheap. You take the funding away and all the fees rise to accomodate for those things, or you lose them. Why should a school lose all of that to help schools whose students don't give a shit, who are at those schools just to pass time. Those things I describe go a long way to help form the person you become. Countless OBs are back at the school from time to time, but schools should lose that because Latham has a hatred of rich people?. And remember, this coming from somebody whose school wouldn't be affected by the cuts. Andrew Bolt spoke to us about the importance of doing good rather than seeming good, and this is a perfect example of it. It seems good to take money from richer schools to give money to the poorer schools, but in the end, all he is doing is just taking money from people who deserve it just as much, which is not good a all

Wow, speeches from Andrew Bolt. Does Piers Akerman teach English too?

 

Your argument is completely flawed. You want more funding to elite private schools, but you don't want your parents tax dollars going to public schools to teach 'knuckle draggers' (good to see you're not a privately schooled elitist prick by the way)?

 

Which one is it? We should fund education based on how much a kid wants to learn?

 

And yes, pastoral care programs and sports centres do not come cheap. But a school doesn't need a sports centre to give children an education. It needs a sports centre to teach a kid how to be good at rugby.

 

Governments should not be funding prestige.

[tommytomlin 0]

Yes, I went to one of the top private schools in Australia.  Yes we had terrific facilities and teachers and programs.  But guess who paid for it??  My parents.  Not someone else's parents.  Why should my parents, who don't go out the back and pick the money out of the garden to pay for it all, pay for every other school to have wonderful facilities while other people's kids get a free education???

 

Communism....

 

Why should I pay for roads I don't use?

 

I never go on the F3 in Sydney, why should I my taxes pay for it?

 

I've never been to Royal Prince Alfred hospital, so why should I pay for that?

 

It's called tax, not communism. If you want a user pays society, move to America.

[Guest Nanks]

I've got no problem at present with my taxes funding someone else's education. What I would have a problem with is when my taxes will be paying for someone else's kids education and not for my own kid's because I choose to give them the best education available.