In effect Abbott has endorsed Labor's plan to fund Gonski, but is would rather use the money to maintain welfare to high income earners than make the necessary investments in our education system.

Once again we get the pain without the efficiency benefits, the investment in human capital or the investment in infrastructure.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/coalition-will-ditch-school-reforms-but-keep-uni-cuts-20130421-2i8hg.html

MOTR wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 7:42am:

Once again we get the pain

Just who is 'we'.... not 'me'.


MOTR wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 7:42am:

but is would rather use the money to maintain welfare to high income earners than make the necessary investments in our education system.

What do you think Uni graduates will be Poindexter? :-?

YTF should my taxes pay for them?

They will graduate and be the ambulance chasers and the accountants and the union political classlets of the nation dreaming up more scams to rob the taxpayer....

Pay your own way pimples..... :(

The fundamental problem is once again how is it to be funded. It is just like Whitlam all over again with all these really cool ideas and not the foggiest idea of how to pay for them.

longweekend58

Funding for tertiary education should be on a supply and demand basis and also targeted on the needs of Industry and business. Ultimately it does come down to affordability so given the mess the ALP has created no doubt there will be cuts to many areas, why would you think that Uni Funding be exempt from economic reality ?

All I see in this forum from the rusted ons is BS traps thrown around about what Abbott may or may not do...... clearly these ALP rusted ons have given up all hope in September.

   

what about the no more scholarships..that too has to be repaid now...nice.....

NOTHING BUT NOTHING IS EVER FREE..

and any clown that thinks otherwise.. lives in a different world to the rest of us..

I dont think going to Uni should be prohibitive either.otherwise they will end up full of students from POOR countries... and I dont think we need that either..

someone must find a balance where its fair and manageable..whats the system in  other countries???... why do we always end up.. with either its" free" or costs a mint..

we mustnt forget rudd and swan went to the free Uni.

cods

I was a scholarship winner when I went to uni.

What everyone is forgetting is the Wran report into tertiary education, it proved the socio economic breakdown of uni students was unaffected by making tertiary education free.

People from lower incomes choose not to go to uni for reasons other than cost.

FYI yes it was commissioned by the ALP who brought in free tertiary education then took it away again.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:28am:

The fundamental problem is once again how is it to be funded. It is just like Whitlam all over again with all these really cool ideas and not the foggiest idea of how to pay for them.

It was easy for whitlam because the state had income sources. They have all been sold off now though . . . .

SOB

RightSadFred wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 9:56am:

cods I was a scholarship winner when I went to uni. What everyone is forgetting is the Wran report into tertiary education, it proved the socio economic breakdown of uni students was unaffected by making tertiary education free. People from lower incomes choose not to go to uni for reasons other than cost. FYI yes it was commissioned by the ALP who brought in free tertiary education then took it away again.

That's interesting! I never knew that. I guess in hindsight it makes sense. If you really want to go to university, you will go  - fees or not. If you dont really want to go then you wont.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:28am: The fundamental problem is once again how is it to be funded. It is just like Whitlam all over again with all these really cool ideas and not the foggiest idea of how to pay for them. It was easy for whitlam because the state had income sources. They have all been sold off now though . . . . SOB

you are presumably old enough top have been around in whitlams time but still you come up with this drivel. Whitlam implemented many programs that were unfunded or underfunded in a time of global economic uncertainty.  SOUND FAMILIAR?

longweekend58

The ALP stench of hypocrisy on education goes back a long way.

One thing that I have noticed lately and I admit to missing it along the way, while many rusted on ALP MPs think Whitlam  was great, there are an equal number that think he was an idiot. Reading some articles from many ALP elders even from the left are critical of Whitlam. Its hard not to be, critical of that era anjd the GG decision was vindicated by a landslide victory by teh Liberal party.

RightSadFred wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:41am:

longweekend58 The ALP stench of hypocrisy on education goes back a long way. One thing that I have noticed lately and I admit to missing it along the way, while many rusted on ALP MPs think Whitlam  was great, there are an equal number that think he was an idiot. Reading some articles from many ALP elders even from the left are critical of Whitlam. Its hard not to be, critical of that era anjd the GG decision was vindicated by a landslide victory by teh Liberal party.

the election result did vindicate what was a line-ball decision by the GG. Whiltlam was passionate eloquent and charismatic. He was however an idealist surrounded by fools.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:19am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 10:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:28am: The fundamental problem is once again how is it to be funded. It is just like Whitlam all over again with all these really cool ideas and not the foggiest idea of how to pay for them. It was easy for whitlam because the state had income sources. They have all been sold off now though . . . . SOB you are presumably old enough top have been around in whitlams time but still you come up with this drivel. Whitlam implemented many programs that were unfunded or underfunded in a time of global economic uncertainty.  SOUND FAMILIAR?

Nope. Explain.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 10:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 9:28am: The fundamental problem is once again how is it to be funded. It is just like Whitlam all over again with all these really cool ideas and not the foggiest idea of how to pay for them. It was easy for whitlam because the state had income sources. They have all been sold off now though . . . . SOB

what income sources did you have in mind?????????

that havent been replaced with better and more efficient ways.

Swagman wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:35am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:42am: Once again we get the pain Just who is 'we'.... not 'me'. MOTR wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:42am: but is would rather use the money to maintain welfare to high income earners than make the necessary investments in our education system. What do you think Uni graduates will be Poindexter? :-? YTF should my taxes pay for them? They will graduate and be the ambulance chasers and the accountants and the union political classlets of the nation dreaming up more scams to rob the taxpayer.... Pay your own way pimples..... :(

By we I mean us, swaggie. We get the cuts to higher education but not the investment in primary and secondary education. We get NBN lite with few of the benefits but most of the costs. We get the massively expensive direct action policy without the microeconomic reform that comes from putting a price on carbon.

Two massively expensive lemons and cuts to higher education. I honestly can't remember a more short sighted political leader.

Quote:

microeconomic reform that comes from putting a price on carbon.

Impact not "reform"


MOTR wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 3:27pm:

By we I mean us, swaggie. We get the cuts to higher education but not the investment in primary and secondary education

No kids in school and none in Uni for me Motty

I'd prefer the rebates...

MOTR wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 8:35am: MOTR wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:42am: Once again we get the pain Just who is 'we'.... not 'me'. MOTR wrote on Apr 23rd, 2013 at 7:42am: but is would rather use the money to maintain welfare to high income earners than make the necessary investments in our education system. What do you think Uni graduates will be Poindexter? :-? YTF should my taxes pay for them? They will graduate and be the ambulance chasers and the accountants and the union political classlets of the nation dreaming up more scams to rob the taxpayer.... Pay your own way pimples..... :( By we I mean us, swaggie. We get the cuts to higher education but not the investment in primary and secondary education. We get NBN lite with few of the benefits but most of the costs. We get the massively expensive direct action policy without the microeconomic reform that comes from putting a price on carbon. Two massively expensive lemons and cuts to higher education. I honestly can't remember a more short sighted political leader.

you mean an NBN that gives everyone what they NEED and not a wishlist? sounds reasonable. and our complaining about education funding is bogus since the libs support gonski but just have the 'unreasonable' demand that it be funded.

a true MOTR post. s few facts, a few lies and a partisan conclusion.