|
Election time again (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| A.J. |
Higher Education
| quote: | A Federal Labor Government will:
Expand the opportunities to get a TAFE or university qualification
—create 20,000 new Tafe/ university places each year by 2008/09 to be distributed throughout Australia
—provide $35 million to support secondary school students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress to university or TAFE.
Ensure fair access to affordable tertiary education
—stop the Howard Government's 25% Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) fee hike and the deregulation of HECS fees
—abolish full fees for all new Australian undergraduate students which can cost as much as $200,000.
etc
|
http://alp.org.au/policy/education/aimhigher.php
thanks to Arctic for the link
*EDIT* And you were asking about private schools?
| quote: |
Labor's Plan for Fairer Schools Funding
A Federal Labor Government will fund Australian schools more fairly on the basis of need.
Labor will end the damaging funding debate between government and non-government schools. There are needy schools in both sectors that need more government support and resources.
Labor will increase funding to government schools and maintain overall funding for the non-government sector.
Labor will establish a national standard by which all schools — government, Catholic and Independent — will be funded. Schools below the standard will receive more funds.
Labor also guarantees that under our fairer funding model, the vast majority of Catholic and Independent schools will be better off.
The Howard Government has given the wealthiest schools the largest funding increases. For example, The King's School has received 215 per cent increase at the same time, government, Catholic and low-fee independent schools who educate the vast majority of Australian students have had to make do with smaller adjustments — just 20 per cent for government schools and 25 per cent for Catholic schools. |
:p :p |
|
|
| Romp |
Economically, Howard and Latham are pretty much the same. Both are from the neo-liberal, free-market, economic rationalist school, whatever you want to call it. Budget surpluses, minimal government regulation and interference.
Foreign policy again fairly similar. Both want to fight the war on terror. Both support the American alliance. Howard sucks up to Bush a bit more. Labor traditionally has better relationship with Asia.
Where the real difference is is in social policy. Do you believe that all Australians should have health care, the ability to have a good free education and to go to university? Whoever was talking about removing HECS, how do you think people from working class or poorer backgrounds will ever go to university then? They have to work for 10 years until they can afford to go? There are already rich people 'jumping the queue' and taking university places ahead of poor people who have a better UAI but cant afford full fees.
Shouldnt everyone have the opportunity in Australia to better themselves and make something of their lifes? Equality of opportunity is what its about.
Should we just think of ourselves like Americans or should we care about our fellow Australians? Howard is trying to make our society like America's, where the rich are getting richer and 20% of people are living in poverty in mobile homes with no health insurance at all? Not to mention all the crime as a result of inequality.
Do we want to up our environment and the earth anymore than we already have done? We have probably the best natural environment of any country yet we are just exploiting it. Why not sign the Kyoto agreement? Don't we care about the world our children and grandchildren will be living in?
Shouldnt Australia be a tolerant society? Since Howard came to power we have had the Tampa incident, refusing to say sorry to Aboriginals and children and innocent people in detention for years. I dont think this is what Australia is about.
Australia has always been the land of opportunity and mateship. We should be looking after our country for our children, helping each other out and creating a society which anyone would be happy to live in.
Under Howard we are heading towards a society of selfishness, intolerance and inequality. In fact society has already changed since he has been in power. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by matt_a
I cant be ed replying to your whole article, simply acuse I can't see the point, if you want to run in the special olymipics thats up to you.
Simple fact is the fluff that Latham is advocating, is nothing more than a superficial facard to cover his clear lack of real political insight. |
I disagree with the economic rationalist/neo-liberal stuff that he peddles, but you can hardly say that he lacks 'real political insight'. Read his books if you're interested in what he advocated -- there are actually some pretty radical ideas in them.
| quote: | | I havent heard anything deeper than "Ease the Squeeze" and if you watch the Labour party during question time, you might realise why. |
Howard repeats inane phrases as well -- all political leaders do it. It appeals to stupid people unfortunately, and the rest of us just have to put up with it.
| quote: | | Oh another thing was when Latham was asked about Universities, he didn't mention them and proceeded to talk about giving more money to catholic and small independant schools. |
Again, he debate is more about image and impression. He evidently felt that the independent school point would get him more votes/traction. Look on the ALP website for policy, you're better off to ignore the debate (that goes for the Coalition as well).
| quote: | | It seems as though his education policy is to take from the very rich private schools, and give it to the growing private schools. This is why I can't see that schooling is an issue, because the public schools look like getting jack all either way! |
Not really he's giving it to struggling private and public schools. That being said, I disagree with his policy, which is why i'm not voting for him. |
|
|
| batemanscott |
Just to highlight a couple of points i see getting reffered to frequently...
Whilst it is true that the ruling government does not set interest rates directly and it is done by the RBA, it is does in response to current and predictable economic situation; hence our interest rates are indirectly affected by decisions made and actions taken by the ruling government.
The current interest rates in the the US are in response to the collapse suffered around the 9/11 incident to spark consumer spending. Our's are not as low because we don't need it and it would only lead to excess inflation.
What rubbish to insist that we had labour governments to thank for our current (relatively) prosperous economy. We were only going backwards. Constant budget deficits where as now we enjoy the opposite....SURPLUS!! ( personally i think we should get a little more back and a little less surplus but any win is a win). Talk to anybody who owns a small business and most themselves over the thought of greater union power due to labour. ( I come from a family business background and have seen it first hand)
Iraq was a mistake lets face it! In the single most intelligent comment to come out a labour party politicans mouth Kim Beazley stated that the war was not for oil nor liberation is was about the US trying to scare the middle east into complying with it's demands regarding the war on terror and i still believe this to be true.
Let's get serious though, If labour was in power you can bet your arse we would have done the same thing!! We always will because we need to appease the US. I don't agree with it nor like it but thats life.
Whilst i am typically a liberal voter this election i was hoping not to be becuase i am not happy with alot of things Johhny has said or done but ask yourself.....Would Latham really have done it differently? The simple and correct answer is no.
If labour do get in i think alot of you pushing their cause will get a rude surprise as just how mislead you have been.
I like labours education policy, i like their medicare policy, i think we need beazley as defence minister instead of that twat ruddock but i know all too well the problems of a typical labour government. Just remeber everything depends on a good economy! If we don't than we can't afford anyones policies. |
|
|
| lethal |
Im not in the mood to write a large amount here because frankly i think most of you are thick as posts! But anyone who thinks that the economy is going to go downhill just because of a change in government needs to be taken to with a large piece of 2"x4".
People who quote all about how the economy was so bad under the last labor government, how we ran budget defeciets and all that - wake the up.
The economy was in recession because the world economy was in recession, at that stage our economy was tied extremely closely with the world economy thus when the world economy crashed so did ours - nowadays our economy is not so closely tied to the world economy but i dont believe thats a very good thing cause just look at the foreign account deficeit - its bigger then its ever been!
The labor government ran budget deficeits in the early 90's because the way to pull an economy out of recession is to increase spending (as you would know if you'd done anything as basic as yr 10 economics!:rolleyes: ). Spending = demand, increased demand leads to increased supply, leads to increase in economic activity. True labor over did the spending - they should have headed back towards the surplus side once the economy began to recover but they over stayed their welcome and they paid by losing the election.
Seriously most of you people need to actually look at the facts in context rather then just spitting facts and figures youve garnered off the main stream media - its pathetic.... :whip: |
|
|
| AussieTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
If labour do get in i think alot of you pushing their cause will get a rude surprise as just how mislead you have been.
|
As opposed to say Howard, with GST, $100,000 degrees, Iraq, Children overboard, the list goes on and on - bet you didnt see these coming when you people voted for him, again and again...
And another thing..
Of course you have a great surplus, you ripped the friggen funding out of education and health (both of which are stuffed beyond recognition, and will cost billions to fix - there goes the surplus right there!).. And because most states are Labour run, you just pass the blame on to them. |
|
|
| JulesPLees |
you mean Ray and Naomi would lie to me....
*shock horror* |
|
|
| batemanscott |
| quote: | Originally posted by JulesPLees
you mean Ray and Naomi would lie to me....
*shock horror* |
:haha: :haha: :haha:
That's blasphemy jules.. |
|
|
| JulesPLees |
| haha...getting hyped for GK? |
|
|
| batemanscott |
cant wait, i keep having this dream that i forgot it was on...
pretty ed up? |
|
|
| tachyon |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
cant wait, i keep having this dream that i forgot it was on...
|
fck!! me too.. i had this dream that i woke up on sunday morning
and looking at a calendar going .. ... GK was yesterday!!!
and then i proceed to mutilate myself |
|
|
|
|
