As appears to be becoming the norm for Conservative political parties the world over, and in Australia, they have developed a blueprint for winning elections from Opposition which involves an amalgam of amorphous concepts, Fuzzy Math, Truthiness, Catch Phrases, Principled Words that look good on a backdrop and every marketing trick in the book. Or is that, every marketing trick that they can fit into a glossy pamphlet?
Thus with Tony Abbott’s Coalition we have the amorphous concepts of a government of ‘chaos and dysfunction, in disarray’. A position not actually borne out by the facts of a government who, despite instability, which is different, have governed well and in an orderly fashion over the last 3 years.
Tony Abbott likes to contrast that with his team, an Opposition ‘ready to govern’ with a ‘stable front bench’. Whether in reality that is a good thing is open to question, even as he tries to portray it as such, as you could also portray it as a stultified and sclerotic potential administration, unable or afraid to move on poor performers from their spots where they have become araldited to the Shadow Front Bench.
Anyway, as we all know, Abbott is simply trying to make the best of a bad situation, unable as he is, to move them, because if he does he invokes the agreement he made with Gary Gray as Special Minister of State which would see a cut in resources allocated to the Opposition.
Still, you can’t say that Tony Abbott doesn’t try to make every post a winner.
Also, the ‘Fuzzy Math’ is manifested in the Coalition’s position to dismiss the validity of Treasury estimates of anything but to laud the ability of their ‘Commission of Audit’, which would occur after an election of an Abbott government, to come up with the correct figures, in contrast to Treasury’s numbers, and upon which they would rely instead. Just as the Coalition attempted to do in the 2010 election when they rubbished Treasury Costings of their policies and relied instead on the arithmetic of their chosen firm of WA Accountants (with links to the Liberal Party). Figures which were subsequently proven to be without solid foundation, and more than a bit fuzzy.
The Catch Phrases, in lieu of cogent and accurate criticism of government policies, we can all come up with many examples of from the Abbott Opposition over the last 3 years. ‘Great Big New Tax’ being just one.
The ‘Principled Words that look good on a backdrop’, which the Opposition have chosen to background Abbott with this go around are, ‘Hope. Reward. Opportunity. Real Solutions and The 5 Pillar Economy’. All well and good, and what any citizen would aspire to for their country and to be manifest as aspirations for a government. Though I can see why the Coalition have opted for 5 Pillars, when usually 4 pillars are enough to support a structure, 5 are better!
However, all of that is not what this post is actually about. Instead I am wanting to focus on the ‘Truthiness’ aspect as it relates to the Coalition’s policy platform relating to Education.
Stephen Jones, MP pointed out in a Tweet the other day this paragraph from the Coalition’s ‘Real Solutions’ booklet which went to their Education policy:
I had to wonder, what does that mean in reality? Because the Coalition aren’t telling us straight up. So I went to the Liberal Party Platform document to try and flesh out the motherhood statement in the pamphlet with some more concrete facts. Ever hopeful that I am of the Coalition having an Education policy, which has just been hidden away somewhere.
Here it is:
Federal Platform
The Liberal Party of Australia
THE LIBERAL WAY
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AUSTRALIANS
Liberals believe in a society in which all children have the opportunity
to develop their potential and all people have the opportunity to
achieve.
The education system is fundamental to achieving this goal, but
education goes beyond schools to include family and community.
Material reward, cultural enrichment and personal fulfilment may be
derived from an effective education system that seeks to overcome
limitations imposed by disadvantage and maximises opportunities
for all.
Liberals are committed to the widest possible freedom of choice
in education. The right to choose should not be just a privilege for
the rich.
In creating opportunities for Australians, Liberals will:
•
recognize the importance of families and good parenting to children
in policies that protect and strengthen the family;
•
ensure the widest possible freedom in choice in education,
promoted by diversity of systems and schools;
•
ensure that all children have access to the best possible education,
irrespective of sex, race, religion, socioeconomic background or
place of residence;
•
establish standards of literacy and numeracy, and accountability
mechanisms for their achievement;
•
help students overcome limitations and disadvantages by fostering
choice in education, accommodating diversity in needs and
aspirations, and encouraging excellence;
•
decentralise the control and administration of schooling
by empowering local systems and respecting school
communities;
•
promote awareness of the need for adults to upgrade their
education and provide appropriate opportunities for doing so;
LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA
16
•
offer financial assistance where appropriate so that educational
needs can be met;
•
oppose discrimination based on irrelevant criteria;
•
implement economic policies that generate employment
opportunities;
•
assist migrants to integrate and find appropriate employment;
•
provide for the needs of special groups in the community,
including the disabled, the aged, indigenous Australians and
remote communities; and
•
recognise that gifted and talented children often have special
educational needs, which must be met if their potential is to be
realized.
Nope, nothing there that tells us exactly what the Coalition would do as far as their approach to educating our children and grandchildren goes. In fact, if you read it you would have to say that their aspirations sound very much like those outlined in the Gonski Report. ‘Provide for the needs of special groups in the community….’ Also, to ‘offer financial assistance where appropriate so that educational needs can be met’, sounds very much like they would provide something like the ‘School Kids Bonus’, which they have pledged to rescind.
Anyway, the line which interests me the most, and which is, yet again, left deliberately vague as to it’s implementation on the ground, is:
decentralise the control and administration of schooling
by empowering local systems and respecting school
communities
So, in the interests of informing ourselves just what this new system of educating our kids might actually look like, which the Coalition are keeping under wraps for the most part, possibly until after the election, we’ll have to go to those government’s school systems that have already embarked upon similar paths to see what they look like.
From the research I have done there may be a few options for paths that the Coalition may go down. They are paths that other countries with Tory governments have taken as they have turned over what we know as Public Education to Private Education Services providers. Which can also encompass ’empowering local systems’, or franchises, when you think about it.
Plus, I will look at those Coalition State governments that the federal Coalition are looking to for inspiration.
1. Vouchers.
On ABC24’s ‘The Drum’ last Monday, a spirited discussion about what may be the specifics of the Coalition’s plans for Education policy, occurred between the IPA’s, Tim Wilson, and actor and friend of Kevin Rudd, Rhys Muldoon. The Privatisation of Public Schools was discussed, based upon the paragraph in the ‘Real Solution’ pamphlet that I have highlighted above, and Wilson, often a public cipher for the Coalition’s private musings, was more inclined to think that the introduction of Education Vouchers for each student would be the best way to go and that any group, in any community, who would wish to start up a school, should be able to do so.
So, what is the Voucher system and how does it work? What are it’s pros and cons?
School Vouchers are a certificate given by the State Government that allows parents to take their child’s portion of that State’s per pupil education spending and apply it to the school of their choice (Private, virtual, or home) instead of the Public School district their child resides in.
What are the advantages of School Vouchers?
School Vouchers give parents who would not otherwise be able to afford it some choice in their child’s education. Public Education is the cheapest form of education and many simply cannot afford other choices such as Private Schools. The voucher system gives them the opportunity for this type of choice.
Another advantage is that all taxpayers pay for Public School funding regardless of type of school their child attends. So a parent, who has a child in the Private School system, is paying for the Public School system as well. This eliminates that double payment. Proponents also argue that School Vouchers would provide more competition across schools, which would in turn improve the quality of education for all students.
What are the disadvantages of School Vouchers?
The opportunity to undermine the Public Education system is presented with the School Voucher program. Public School enrollment and funding would take a huge hit. Essentially opponents of School Vouchers say that the monies being taken away from Public Schools through the voucher program would not be replaced and it would be difficult to be competitive without adequate funding.
It can also be argued that Private Schools, many who control enrollment, will not have enough room to meet the potential demand, thus having to turn down students who wish to attend their school. Much as they would love to, Private Schools would not be able to endlessly expand. Opponents also argue that parents who take the vouchers to home school their child may not be spending it properly on their child’s education.
I remember that when Brendan Nelson was John Howard’s Education Minister, he and Howard began to make sotto voce comments about a School Voucher program. Then Howard lost the 2007 election and the option has not been publicly spoken about by the Coalition since. Only the IPA.
For a more comprehensive explanation of the Voucher System and a comparison with other alternatives, you may like to read this: http://www.wested.org/policy/pubs/full_text/pb_ft_voucher.pdf
It may be an American information sheet, but so much in Education Theory these days is global and shared.
2. Independent Public Schools
Fortuitously for me, over the last week, Christopher Pyne, Shadow Education Minister for the Coalition, has fleshed out what will be the policy that they will take to the election. By reading this informative article by Maralyn Parker in The Daily Telegraph, of Wednesday, July 17th, 2013:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_coalitions_school_education_policy_independent_public_schools_and_more_/
and an article, by way of reply, from the NSW Education Minister, in The Sydney Morning Herald, of Saturday, July 20, 2013:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-shuns-federal-coalition-plan-to-split-state-schools-20130719-2q9ng.html
it is now possible to say with confidence that the Coalition have a plan to spread nationwide, by ‘encouraging’ the States, that system which has been implemented in Western Australia, and is being rolled out now in Queensland. Though not one that NSW is interested in.
What is it and what does it involve?
From this article in ‘WA Today’ of March 25, 2012:
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/minister-refutes-privatisation-of-schools-20120325-1vs4k.html
we have the WA Minister of Education, Dr Liz Constable, explaining the guts of it as being about giving School Principals more autonomy in the schools they run and attracting experienced and outstanding Principals to the most disadvantaged schools, with financial incentives, and allowing them to develop the programs that will lead to an overall improvement in the school’s results.
Which sounds all well and good, and, as Dr Constable explains, it is merely the implementation of an agreement to do just that which has been entered into with the federal government.
The other aspect of the Coalition policy is this:
Under the policy, schools can apply to become an IPS, giving them autonomy over budgets and staffing, greater discretion over curriculum, and managed partly by a school board. They remain publicly funded and do not charge compulsory fees.
However, Minister Piccoli in NSW is not convinced:
”While we are talking about very significant devolution of authority from the centre out to local schools, we are not talking about wholesale autonomy,” he said. ”We will not be introducing charter schools or independent public schools because there is no evidence that they improve student performance.”
If it doesn’t lead to improved student performance, why advocate for it then? Unless it is to be the thin end of the wedge which leads to the Privatisation of Public Education, where schools are run by ‘Education Services Providers’, who take over the running of the schools and the education of the students in them, from the government.
Such as has been happening in Sweden for the last few decades, and is happening in Britain now, where the Cameron Tory government, under Education Minister, Michael Gove, has introduced Academies and Free Schools, and is considering whether to allow them to be able to run and make a profit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cash-for-classrooms-michael-gove-plans-to-let-firms-run-schools-for-profit-8682395.html
So, as you can see, at least we now have an Education policy from the Coalition, and we can compare it to the ‘Better Schools’ offering from the Labor federal government.
Two radical new proposals to take education of our kids down a new path in the 21st century.
One an evolution of our present model and an improvement upon the, now generally recognised, failed model of the Howard years.
The other, a devolution revolution. And one which it’s critics say benefits the companies who seek to get into the education space, more than the students themselves.
The election will decide which one we get.
THE PUB 
Just back from the weekly shop and I heard about ‘Operation Rolled Gold Sovereign Tosser’ from Tosser-In-Chief, Tony Abbott. Is there no ‘Modern Warfare 3’ X Box game-emulating policy for the neuronally-challenged bogans, whom he is relying on to get him over the line in the election, that he will not try and slip past the electorate without proper scrutiny?
I see, from reading the posts up above, that, as well as limiting the number of questions he gets asked at Press Conferences, now he’s also taken to limiting the number of journalists at them as well! Sounds like he only allowed the interns to be sent along as well, from the level and intensity of questions he got. That is, minimal.
I don’t suppose anyone thought to ask him and Deputy Dawg Morrison, what was the purpose of involving the Military in Border Protection? Because there’s only one thing I can think of, bristling as the Defence Forces are with all that military hardware, otherwise known as guns and other assorted artillery and munitions, and that is to fire on those who may seek to breach Fortress Australia with their Indonesian Fishing Boats. Why else have the Military? To look scary?
Or, is this what he has planned for the Army or Navy to do every time an asylum seeker boat (because he won’t be able to stop them with this policy without causing an inter-national incident), hoves into view with it’s cargo of asylum seekers:
It’s a Right Wing nutjob policy that has been crafted to simply keep Abbott and Morrison looking more hard-arsed than Labor. How could it ever work in reality? The might of the Australian Defence Forces versus Fishing Boats and their human cargo. Is it even legal to propose to do such a thing as threatening to blow asylum seekers out of the water when they approach your country?
Now, what I would also like to know is whether Mother Milne and Sarah My Little Pony-Young, were as quick out of the blocks to condemn this policy and cry their standard issue shedload of crocodile tears for teh asylum seekers, as they are whenever Labor releases policy in relation to asylum seekers? I sit waiting to be pleasantly disabused of the notion that they weren’t, because I haven’t seen or heard anything yet to indicate they were.
And just when ya think we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, the coalition outdoes itself.
We will look back on these times with such shame one day.
Oh, he’ll answer the questions, Leone. The caveat is that he’ll have the questions delivered to him well in advance and have had his answers written out for him to memorise. It’ll be a mix of ‘tough’ questions that he has prepared answers to, and soft soap stuff. It’ll be a hand-picked audience, with hand-picked questions, but they’ll make it seem a bit more thorough than that. I expect there to be a few on asylum seekers (he has his lines crafted for that one), the car industry (ditto) and maybe a couple on leadership. Leadership is an area where they can throw a few attack lines in.
He might be asked about how he’s going to pay for all the things he’s promised, but he won’t be pressed on it. The thing is, he can deliver pat lines on nearly every topic. They won’t explain anything, but they’ll be answers. The last time he tried one of these things he gave the strong impression that ‘getting rid of the carbon tax’ would solve everything. That line won’t be as effective this time around. I think we’re back to Faceless Men, You Can’t Trust Rudd, It’s Still A Carbon Tax, Jakarta Not Geneva, that sort of crap.
The trouble with these People’s Forums is that they’re useful if you actually go out there and field questions on anything that turns up in the discussion. But if they’re just controlled media exposure exercises there’s no point to them.
The fun part of this one is that it’s clear their latest Bash-The-Reffos attempt hasn’t been thought through at all. Just by talking about it Abbott will be doing damage to himself.
This man (?) is a Rhodes Scholar! I’ll bet there are quite a few similarly educated people trying to keep it a secret. Oh! what damage he has done to such a highly respected achievement..
I don’t know how journalists can report on this hairy-chested asylum seeker policy from Abbott and Morrison with a straight face?
Aguirre
Yep. The audience has been chosen by Galaxy, allegedly ‘undecided voters’ from the electorate of Bass. Who knows how ‘undecided’ they really will be, or what questions will be discarded before the session gets under way. I’m thinking there may be a return of the Abbott earpiece tonight.
The next phase of Tones Stop the Boats Campaign will be to dress up his direct action green army in battle fatigues.
They’ll be transported to the N-W coast of Australia and given shovels to dig holes to plant the trees which at night can be reversed so that the shovel handles look like rifles.
With lots of trees and handles the green army will repel the hordes.
Who knows, some of the army recruits might get some scalps!
It’s a win -win for Australia.
We stop the boats, we save the environment and we get rid of the dole bludgers
Who’s going to volunteer to watch Abbott’s Pre-Selected People’s Forum? 🙂
Anyway, what’s the point of it? Aren’t elections supposed to be about a competition of ideas? So why isn’t Abbott putting himself up against Rudd?
Kevin Rudd, as he’s in Tasmania too today, should go to the People’s Forum with a placard saying, ‘Why Won’t You Debate Me, Tony?’, and hang around outside. 😉
rnm1953,
Maybe Abbott can store all the asylum seeker boats in the dams he is going to build for Gina and Twiggy in the North of Australia? 🙂
I suppose you’ve all seen this. It has been joked about all day, but ti’s still on the Fibs website ands the link – also with the wrong spelling – is still on the home page.
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/07/25/labor-cereal-offender-childcare-rebate-freeze
I wasn’t going to watch Abbott’s People’s Forum, but I could change my mind before tonight. If I have nothing better to do, that is. The thought of an hour of Abbott is a huge disincentive, but maybe if I mute him and just use the captions thingy….
From that Lib headline
Labor a cereal offender on childcare rebate freeze
Are they serving up frozen porridge at the day centres?
From Scott and Tony’s little slide show this morning – since when has it been OK for oppositions to use the coat of arms above their policies?
Willing to kill his own beloved family, will do whatever it takes, instills fear in his enemies, relentlessly pursues his own agenda… is Kevin Rudd Keyser Soze?
Defence Department statement correcting today’s media reports and providing some pertinent facts.
http://news.defence.gov.au/2013/07/25/a-statement-from-the-chief-of-the-defence-force-2/
With regards to the Peoples Forum. When it was first proposed, it was to be one hour People’s Forum each for Abbott and Rudd then a one hour debate. Abbott agreed to the Forum but refused the debate. Rudd then refused to participate in the Forum unless there was a following debate. Once again Tones is scared s@#$less of debating Rudd.
Leone,
Since never!
Use of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms without permission may breach the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the Trade Marks Act 1975 or the Criminal Code Act 1995. Applications for permission to use the Arms outside the authorised uses detailed in these guidelines should be directed to the Honours, Symbols and Territories Branch.
Click to access CCoA_guidelines.pdf
Barry J – I think you can take it that Tones got the right people to nominate him and he got selected.
As for the bit of actually achieving while he was there I think he counted as a ‘fail’ –
“Rhodes Scholars may study any full-time postgraduate course offered by the University, whether a taught Master’s programme, a research degree, or a second undergraduate degree (senior status).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_scholarship
CTar1,
Thanks for the link.
Rhodes’ legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:
Literary and scholastic attainments;
Energy to use one’s talents to the fullest, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
Truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
Moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings
And Tones was selected ? The 3rd & 4th standards must have been totally ignored.
Barry J
(While my internet connection seems to be working quickly!)
How Tones got a MA from Oxford is a bit quirky –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Arts_%28Oxbridge_and_Dublin%29
He was a ‘Blue’ in boxing.
Anyone who has Foxtel should check out a-pac for a laugh. David Flint giving a talk called “Give Us Back Our Country.” .The barbarians and commies are at our gate.
Well, it looks like Abbott and the coalition have taken the big step at last into madness.
In his amazing announcement today Abbott has managed to go where no one else has gone before on the AS issue.
At least Mr Rudd in his scramble to prove he has a bigger penis than Abbott managed to put forward a policy that has a good chance of being successful if given the chance.
But Abbott has released a dogs breakfast of slogans and thought bubbles that does not come even close to being described as realistic.
However, whether it will have any chance of success or not is not what Abbott is interested in.
He is after the headlines and soundbites and as the OM have little interest in policy analysis on any issue he most probably will achieve what he set out to do which is simply to out noise Mr Rudd.
The government needs to stay strong on this and push the PNG agreement as the only realistic policy currently on the table.
The OM will do everything they can to try and derail it but Mr Rudd must stay firm.
We can only hope Mr Rudd does not decide to try and out muscle Abbott any further and drag labor into the pit that Abbott has dug even deeper today.
I was hoping that the politics on this could not debase our country any further than it has over the years but Abbott has managed to achieve just that.
CTar1,
’nuff said. All his qualifications seem as false as the man (?) himself
doyleym,
Kevin Rudd should just laugh at that policy of Abbott & Morrison. I think that would be the most effective response.
a-pac goes from comedy gold with Flint to platinum with the Parrot now on declaring under Rudd “We have surrendered our sovereignty.”.
According to this –
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/january/1347590202/louis-nowra/whirling-dervish
Abbott ‘earned’ that boxing blue by fighiting in just four bouts. His selection as a Rhodes scholar is also explained – there’s nothing like having an influential Jesuit on your side. From what I’ve heard his academic ability at Sydney uni was barely average and that’s being flattering.
Abbott didn’t need to study for his masters from Oxford. As Wikipedia explains, there are no exams there for that degree. Abbott was given his as a reward for upholding the honour of the place in the boxing ring, not for academic achievement.
Oxford likes to drag in overseas scholars who are ‘good at sport’, it helps them beat the other unis in sports carnivals. Abbott was just a useful idiot to them, a colonial biffer who might win a few bouts.
This sums up the events of the day most neatly.
Rudd dismissed Abbott’s plan to implement a policy this morning, he called it just another slogan, ‘operation sovereign something-or-other’.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3810644.htm
Ah yes – with Mr Morrison typecast as Toucan Sam:
Leone
Again while my internet connection seems to be working quickly!
Watching GoT – What makes ‘Drogo’ (however spelled) fall off his horse?
Am I missing something?
c@tmomma,
That is what it deserves.
I hope labor treats it as such.
Three star generals reporting direct to a minister.
What about chain of command and do we even have three star generals in the Australian defence force?
Abbott is beating the war drums and it is totally bizarre.
How much further to the right of Genghis Khan can we go ?
@Ctar1
Drogo got a severe infection from his wound from the fight with that other Dothraki in the previous episode.
leonetwo
If you zoom in on the picture you will spot this label.
“Operation Sovereign Borders” – protecting Australian’s from unwanted royal visits.
(But not stray apostrophes. Oops.)
Kirsdarke
Thanks – I’ll need to go back one episode.
But not now as work calls!
No problem.
In regards to Game of Thrones, I’ve been reading the books in my spare time and I’m really looking forward to the next series.
No spoilers, just that events at The Wall will get very interesting, and there’s the addition of the Martell family to the political games in King’s Landing.
I just saw a thing on Sky News, left there from last night, saying that Abbott and Morrison would announce today they were putting a lieutenant general in charge of their plan to implement a policy they don’t yet have. By this morning it was a three star general. By tomorrow it will probably be the supreme commander of the galactic empire.
Kirsdarke
Just about to do the work stuff but –
[and I’m really looking forward to the next series.]
Do you mean we have to wait?
R
So no word yet from SHY or Mother Milne, no presser to bash and trash Abbott’s fruit-loop policy. Not a peep, not a tear, nothing. And they were so quick to get their mugs on TV to trash talk the government’s PNG announcement.
Yeah, Season 4 is going to air next April, they only do 1 season per year.
An analyst from the ANU who spoke to Kim Landers this afternoon about Abbott’s asylum seeker policy made a good point:
This policy is essentially Rudd’s status quo but with the insertion of a
3 Pip General under the CDFs who would report directly to Commandant Morrison. Now, as the Military is all about Chain of Command, the insertion of this new guy(well, it won’t be a woman if Abbott and Morrison are concerned), is likely to cause problems because, in the event of a real war, who will decide where to deploy the Military’s assets? Will they be kept back for Border Control, or sent off to fight a war?
I also notice that Neil James from the Australian Defence Association is ‘Not Happy Tony!’ He doesn’t think Australia’s Defence Forces should be deployed for civilian deterrence purposes.
There’s also a couple of other aspects to the policy which need closer examination.
I detected in the Power Point these two dot points:
* Increase capacity at offshore processing centres, and
* Lease vessels “to relieve patrol vessels of passenger transfers”.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong but by saying that they will increase capacity at Offshore Processing Centres, doesn’t that suggest that the Coalition are tacitly admitting that they won’t be able to ‘Stop the Boats’?
And, if they are going to lease people’s tinnies to ‘relieve patrol vessels of passenger transfers’, does that not also assume that asylum seekers on boats will keep on coming, the Coalition acknowledge this, and they’ll need to be offloaded from patrol boats just the way they are now?
It certainly doesn’t suggest to me that the Coalition are thinking about firing on asylum seekers who seek to breach our borders with their Assault Fishing Boats? Just carrying on, like the expert spoken to by Kim Landers said, pretty much as is occurring now under Labor.
I’ve got a picture of the 3 Star General who is going to defend our land from the Alien Invaders, er, Asylum Seekers! He’s prepared to go that extra mile…
Greg Sheridan is on Sky rabbiting on about Rudd’s PNG policy being in tatters and if you want something done you get a soldier to do it, like when there was that tornado or whatever in Queensland and the army went in to fix everything up. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is supposed to be a competent journalist.
For this dross they cut live feed of KRudd talking to school kids somewhere, promising to return if/when he started taking questions. It’s so nice to know what’s really important – not what the PM says in a speech but what trivia the journos ask him afterwards.
leonetwo,
{ From Scott and Tony’s little slide show this morning – since when has it been OK for oppositions to use the coat of arms above their policies? }
I thought by now you would realise that Tone & the Rabble are the rightful Government in exile.
They have been telling the electorate that regularly since 2010 and in fact, have always believed that the electorate made some sort of horrible mistake in 2007 and that it would welcome the rightful Government again taking its place on the treasury benches.
Really, they should be able to treat things like coats of arms and negotiations with foreign powers on behalf of the country, just as if they had never lost their rightful position governing for all of us! 😉
Bwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
How could people be so unkind.
On the GoT theme, Abbott’s next plan might be to begin the order of the “Rights’ Watch” where an order of sworn rightwing volunteers build and defend a wall to the North to prevent the Asylumlings from entering the realm.
leonetwo
[ By this morning it was a three star general]
ABC RN had a 4 star general early this morning. Sad to hear they were later “demoted” to a mere 3 star 🙂
Jim Molan is a member of the Liberal Party. Greg Sheridan is Tony Abbott’s best friend from Uni days. ‘Nuff said.
scorpio
Of course, how silly of me not to realise all that.
I came across a most ugly bird:
I immediately thought of a Member of the Op. but I can’t work out which one.