Having perused Gillard's patronising swill once again, I regret that I responded at all thoughtfully. Isn't anyone else insulted by this kind of puerile rhetoric. At least statesmen and women of yesteryear adopted a tone, and couched their hyperbole, in a form that didn't assume we would be moved by unpalatable content. Bereft of anything inspirational to say, the deputy prime minister attempts to make a dog's breakfast look like haute quisine. One cannot help but be cynical; one becomes impatiently cynical, even of the cynical media and its naive deconstructions of the government line: spin spin spin!
And I've been a Labor voter all my life!
But this is curious...
Is Gillard conducting an inpromtu poll of her own? ...Something's afoot!
I'll buy the rationale, then. I agree; I've never understood why the child of a rich person deserves a better education (or healthcare) than the child of a battler. So what is the proposal? Abolish private education/health? Bring in progressive taxation to fund equality? Bring in the guillotine? Excellent!
Or is it a smoke screen for procrastination on global warming--something with which to carry the next election.
I have no doubt Labour wants to have the courage of its convictions, but what can it do in opposition? rings out the silent retort.
An early election, to test the water, again. Four more years in power; then, Rudd might decide to take a plunge!

You know, I was brought up in a working-class, Labor voting family, too. We also valued education and hard work; Mum & Dad worked hard to give us the opportunity to finish High School and go on to University. I voted solidly Labor all my life ... right up until the 2007 election.

To quote the inimitable Jack Marx:

"I now find myself disliking the Rudd Labor Government like I've never disliked any before it. What irks me most about this is that I think I despise it not because it is witless, or arrogant like Howard's Liberals, but because it is so clever - perhaps the first Government in our history smart enough to know how stupid Australia really is, bold enough to openly exploit that stupidity, and contemptuous enough of the intelligent minority to care not a hoot what they might think of it all. "

Blue Cross,

I am fully aware of the funding arrangements of private schools. Start with the objective - equality of opportunity for all children. Now work out how this can best be done. Here is one possibility.

Set the benchmark for how much money we need per child - which can be estimated from the amount of the top 20 private schools. Now work out a method of increasing the amount of money to bring the amounts into near balance. Finally give responsibility for expenditure to each school and of course require that all schools who receive any government funds report how much money is spent per child.

Any school or parent that "circumvents" the rules has their funding from the government reduced.

A critical part of the system is the allocation of some of the money to children who then "purchase" their education. The amount of money given to children for education will depend on the school they attend. The money to children comes from zero interest loans which are notionally paid from future taxes paid by the child when they are an adult. They do not pay any extra tax as with HECS but to keep the bookkeepers happy we keep track of the loan repayments.

If a parent pays extra from their own pocket for a child to attend a private school then the amount of money contributed by the government to the child or to the school attended is reduced.

While this might seem to be difficult to administer it is actually quite simple and we do not have to do the whole nation to begin with. We can start with schools in our most severely disadvantaged areas and learn how to do it. The Feds do not have to get agreement from the states as they can do what they like with their money and in fact the State schools are treated in the same way as private schools - just with a different owner.

Gee its George Orwell all over again. There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in the article its hard to know where to begin.

Firstly, she is angry about the Australian Education system (which allowed her to succeed) because her father had problems early last century in another country.

Secondly, she was able to succeed and become Deputy Prime Minister from a working class background and Public school (as many have before and since) yet believes the system is unfair to people like her.

Thirdly, her statement that individual effort and responsibility is what makes her Left not Right is quite bizarre considering the Labor Party is well known for giving a leg up to all their mates to the point of corruption and also for their attempts to redistribute the wealth of those who have put in a huge effort in many to those who haven't.

Fourthly, and perhaps most Orwellian is that all these issues are HER REPSONSIBILITY AS THE ELECTED LEADER and MINISTER for EDUCATION yet she has done nothing. Money is being spent on schools in a most haphazard self promoting fashion by the Labor Party yet the major educational issues remain.

What happened to the "every child gets a computer" promise? Sorry to mention it - we were supposed to forget about that one.

There are some very good comments on this thread. Re-reading them the point that sticks out is the meaning we give to 'injustice'.

Most reasonable people (even the Liberals) would agree that opportunities should be accessible to all, however the implication is that those in lower paid jobs are somehow something to be despised. That we all must aspire to greatness or higher education.

The Labor Party should be more concerned with reducing the gap between the lowest and highest paid so that workers at all levels are able to function and contribute to society.

"Driven by indignation at injustice"? Julia puhleeease!! You have kept in place draconian anti-worker laws from the Howard regime. You have defended those laws and spoken contemptuously and dishonestly about construction workers at the ACTU Conference. Now a bloke who had the temerity to draw attention to safety issues on an Adelaide job site, and the even greater hide to refuse to attend a secret interview with your "tough cop on the beat" is facing a mandatory six months in gaol. I'm indignant. You're not.

As for education, all your "reformist social-democratic" vision is focussed on the extremely reactionary and totally screwed up policies of Joel Klein, Arne Duncan and the failed practices of Teach for America. Take a good look at the research.