The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An agenda for Labor > Comments

An agenda for Labor : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 22/2/2007

Labor needs to build for the future rather than embracing a policy that relegates the movement to 'one step forward, two steps back'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Rob - If the US can have an effective company tax rate of around 40% when you add the state rates, why is it beyond the pale for Australia to have an effective rate of 34% incorporating a 4% infrastructure levy? And why, especially, is this so bad when it will help pay for an infrastructure backlog that goes into the tens of billions, and support the development of high wage industry? And why do you automatically assume that this will lead to a plague of avoidance or - worse still - the 'collapse' of the system?

Under Hawke, if I remember correctly, the rate was around 39%. Then it went down to 36%, an eventually (I think) 30% today. Now the BCA wants this brought down to 25%. Unlike the labour movement, the business community is ALWAYS on the offensive - and yet, wanting more expenditure on infrastructure - it wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is just to show things have not always been as they are today. Yes, we need to remain competitive - but providing infrastructure is part of this equation, and it is only reasonable that business pay its share. Given that you also oppose halving or abolishing dividend imputation, I assume you prefer to 'turn a blind eye' to the infrastructure backlog, or otherwise raise income tax and cut programs. And who - I wonder - would you choose to pay in such a scenario?

And Mat - whatever caused Latham's defeat, I don't think it was Medicare Gold. Medicare Gold was a modest program that appealed to pensioners. What I'm proposing is a more robust injection of funds (at least $5 billion) - to meaningfully slash waiting lists for all of us. As for dental care - as far as I'm aware the public program has been drastically cut under Howard with waiting lists that are beyond the pale. I'm on a pension and I pay the full commercial rate for my dental care. Given waiting lists, there's little choice.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 23 February 2007 8:01:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps I had lumped it in with the general Latham malaise that descended in the dying days of the election campaign, but I don't remember anyone really loving the idea, and I do remember it being considered irresponsible and unnecessary. Which returns us to the dental program. I, too, am on a pension and was a dole-bludger when I had my last bout of dentistry. It cost me my wisdom teeth and $25, as did the previous episode of tooth removal.

Specifics aside, there are a wealth of real issues out there and there's no call for publicly funded dental care. Waiting lists, hospital beds, more hospitals, more equipment and another $5 billion for medicare are needed and repeatedly called for. Publicly funded dental care totally seems the sort of thing people will lampoon Labor for, especially considering there a plenty of big issues to spend money on. The Libs are going to be hammering fiscal responsibility (one of the two categories of the recent newspoll Labor isn't leading), so spending money on stuff people aren't clamouring for is likely to cost more votes than it wins. Pour it into renewable energy, into infrastructure, the Murray river (yep, my mind's eye is giggling at that picture), schools, universities, but don't go spending people's tax money on stuff they're not excited about.

Have you any data to show that people would like their money spent on it?
Posted by Mat, Friday, 23 February 2007 8:59:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't pay the Ferryman - Dr Death

Reports from the Liberal Government's Education portfolio, are attempting to comment through controlled media, that there is no one book that is the same, between any of the States of Australia, once again leading up to a Federal election.

There is no system of teaching syllabus that is the same, leaving Australian students credentials and academic ability at risk and under educated.

Political agenda and bias has been reported, in each of the State run Labour party governments.

Between the State Labour governments and its individual State institutes of academics, political bias has been placed in the middle of the Education debate leading up to another Federal Election.

Continuing, scathing reports and investigations into the State Education Institutes who have set the standards of education for Australian children and young adults.

The problems are decades old.

The Federal Labour opposition leader is inspiring Australians through media ads, a vision to put Education as a future Labour export and commodity of leaders in export technology.

Didn't Beazley run on Education in the last election, upon reflection of the dominance of Labour State run education systems, the deck full of Labour State governments?

Perhaps Kim or Mark should have had the last of dying outback's gloss and rural glamour, with a million dollar ad campaign, funded by their Labour party caucus, to sell a better way to right their State Governments mishandling and manipulative intentions to our Australia's most vulnerable, youth.

Taking stock of the past history of election campaigns of the two headed monster, wheeling out a solution and packing it back into the too hard basket when they have been re-elected. It's party time.

Perhaps we should pay peanuts to our politicians and diplomats for the monkeys that are landing on the Australian citizens back.

Australian citizens, should be a leader in Education and technology.

There has been plenty of time for any of our long term politicians and diplomats to have stood up for this national interest, instead now of the re-direction of policy and tax payer funding to import the educated.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Sunday, 25 February 2007 2:48:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suebdootwo,

I do not clearly understand what you are saying, so you may like to clarify.

The Liberals are attempting to use state Labor's control of education to win votes, using the usual tactics of attacks on standards, attacks on teachers and attacks on collective industrial agreements. But it is a poor strategy because the people of Australia have in twenty consecutive state and territory elections rejected the Liberals' education policies and chosen Labor's. The people of Victoria remember that the last time they had a Liberal government, it caused massive damage to the education system. It dumped 9,000 much-needed teachers, brought in unprofessional and corrupt bonuses (as Julie Bishop is proposing to do again), used retrospective legislation to increase class sizes and teaching loads (as Julie Bishop is effectively proposing to do again through AWAs), increased the power of bullying principals (as Julie Bishop is proposing to do again), removed traditional academic subjects such as history and geography, reduced the number of marks required to gain an A in VCE English tasks between 1994 and 1995, brought in jargonistic “beginning”/”consolidating”/”established” reports, etc, etc, etc. In the most recent state election, Ted Ballieu promised to bring in a bonus system for teachers. He lost.

When John Howard attacks so-called trendy eduction, he is in fact attacking his own party, not the Labor Party, which is committed to high standards for all children.

The state Labor government has commenced the rebuilding of the education system. It has invested $1.4 billion in capital spending on schools, employed an extra 5,193 teachers, funded schools to cap prep to grade 2 classes at 21 pupils each, introduced the Victorian Institute of Teaching to uphold professional standards and ethics, restored the traditional academic disciplines of history and geography, ensured there are standards in schools through the Victorian Essential learning Standards, brought in a reporting system that allows parents to know the level their children are actually achieving and which explicitly shows whether or not they have made improvement over the school year.

Federal Labor has an asset in the Victorian Labor's education record.
Posted by Chris C, Sunday, 25 February 2007 4:44:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think, also, that we need to look beyond the spin in assessing state curriculums. Critics such as Kevin Donnelly have been wont to attack critical literacy programs in English as well as the inclusion of popular culture in said curricula because of what they perceive as the malign influence of postmodernism.

While Donnelly has posed as the champion of Western tradition and Reason, however, as opposed to the relativism of postmodernism, it is hard to see how the exclusion of class-based, gender-based and other perspectives in History fits in with this angle. In order for Reason to prevail, after all, we must be free to choose from and criticise all manner of narratives and voices. This, after all, is part of the rationale in the campaign for free speech: that Reason might prevail in free and open exchange.

And while I do not believe that all narratives are equal, and I am myself skeptical about postmodernism, I do think that in developing life skills of critical literacy it is important to exercise criticism in all manner of contexts.

Critics, however, have developed an insidious scare campaign in their attempts to drive English and History curricula back 50 years. This is the ideology that animates the drive for a national curriculum. Labor should be more forthright in defending inclusive narratives and English and History. Otherwise the only voice in this debate will be that of the Conservatives: and their voice will ultimately prevail.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Sunday, 25 February 2007 7:26:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris C

They are both to blame.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Sunday, 25 February 2007 7:48:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy