RObert,
It beats me what you've got against the Left being educated in the Humanities, or following their ideological convictions in wanting to move the Party in that direction--that's the idea!

I think you make an excellent point, Grim:
"Why must it always be about winning?
In the early days of the Federation, Labour (including several Labor leaders) didn't want the Government benches", though I don't know about the rationale:
"They were content to hold the Gov. accountable, and offer “support in return for concessions”".
I think it would be an excellent tactic, as well as showing some backbone, if both parties gave up on popular politics and espoused their agendas fearlessly, giving the people real alternatives. I hope Newman (and Abbott next) takes his head and leads QLD further down the conservative/neoliberal path. The whole problem with the politics of both persuasions is they're manic about winning elections and thus they sell-out their ideals wholesale in favour of whatever it takes to get em over the line. And yes, the remuneration and the virtual celebrity status are now such that corruption of principles goes without saying. We need politicians with integrity who would rather wax eloquent from the backbenches than sit meekly on their hands in government. I'd like to see both parties hold the people accountable for their choice.

Squeers the main reason we don't want leaders educated in the humanities, or law for that matter, is that they are disciplines favoured by people who have failed arithmetic, & don't actually know that there are even more advanced areas of math. Trying to explain algebra to them is likely to give them a nervous breakdown.

We don't actually need leaders who have no idea that you have to earn money before you spend it. We need those who understand that if you haven't already earned the money you decide to give to someone, no matter how deserving, you are going to have to take it off someone else.

Just think Grease.

In fact it appears many of these humanities types think the idea of having to work, & earn money is rather dirty, & should only be done by others. This is also a trait often found in academics, & most unsuitable in a countries leader.

In fact in view of recently announced cuts in university budgets, it is probably one not suitable in academia either.

Hear Hear Hasbeen, I fully agree; at least with this sentiment:
"We don't actually need leaders who have no idea that you have to earn money before you spend it. We need those who understand that if you haven't already earned the money you decide to give to someone, no matter how deserving, you are going to have to take it off someone else."
I would love to see governments in Australia involved in more money making ventures instead of relying solely on taxation.
A few ventures which spring to mind might be:
A government owned (Commonwealth) bank
Gov owned national Telco
Gov owned insurance
Maybe even a Gov owned airline, let's be crazy if it makes money.
And yes, I'm well aware both 'sides' of Australian politics have indulged in selling off the business ute, but that's largely because both sides have embraced neoliberalism.
There was no way I was going to vote for Labor in this election, not after the most egregiously undemocratic action in amalgamating councils against the wishes of the vast majority of Qlders - the only result of which I've seen was a rise in my rates bill of 30% to pay for it.
But now I'm wishing I and a lot of others had.
Every government needs an effective opposition.
That means an alternative voice to neoliberalism -which really hasn't been working out so well over the last few years.

Grim - while state-run socialist economies everywhere have been collapsing through financial exhaustion and popular unrest, our 'neo-liberalism' has been doubling our collective wealth, over and over again.

If you think that's 'not doing so well' then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Squeers, I like the concept of the humanities but like theology a lot of it seems to start from some unquestioned assumptions and carry on from there.

In particular a lot of the junk around gender studies and the damage that's caused when that stuff is taken seriously by government in the real world.

R0bert

RObert,

in my experience there are two versions of all such disciplines as you allude to within the designation "Humanities"--such as the Gender Studies you instance. There's the real thing and there's the ignorant, populist misconception of it. From my studies within the humanities I can honestly say that the theory and methodology employed strains to be rigorous and unbiased, though qualitative as well as quantitative research is used and this doesn't prevent some people from producing twaddle. Of course no mode of study is above criticism, but it's simply not true that "a lot of it [humanities] seems to start from some unquestioned assumptions and carry on from there". This is only your deprecating idea of it--or perhaps you can cite an example?
I've studied within the Humanities for many years now and I'm sick of hearing it unfairly ridiculed and condemned in this ill-informed manner.

With all due respect I also think your statements above amount to an irrational attack, perhaps born in frustration but reflecting your own political-bias rather than any lucid criticism of Labor (or the Humanities). There's plenty to criticise Labor for and I generally enjoy your posts, but it seems to me all you're doing here is venting spleen.