You might want to readjust your clothing, Dr Guy, your ignorance is showing. There's never been a Rudd government, and four years ago Latham was calling the crazy shots - or was it Crean? Either way Labor weren't exactly on a winner.

Rudd's a bit of a me-too kind of guy, but my reading is that it was an act - we won't know for sure for a while yet.

'But the fact is I don't expect to be nearly as effective with the kids I'll be teaching next year as I have been this year.'

I expect you to be just as effective with the kids you're teaching next year. However, they will be starting in a very different place from the nice, middle-class students with no serious problems you've had this year, and both the resources and the extent / quality of the external support they receive towards their education will be markedly different.

Education is a journey, not a a race. Consequently, the effectiveness of the teacher is a function of the journey your students have undertaken under your guidance, not of some mythical absolute finish line and how chronologically early they may or may not have managed to cross it. Any comparison of your classes must take this into account in order to be in the slightest meaningful.

I have yet to see any model of performance based pay for teachers which even acknowledges the existence of such factors, which is why I regard it as fundamentally inappropriate and inequitable to teaching. In the case of the Howard government, I would go further and argue that it was just another in a whole raft of deliberate measures - like AWAs - intended to disempower working people and further disadvantage those with the least power in the first place.

Mason, you may well be right - perhaps it is common for those who are 'afraid' of performance based pay to be referred to as slackers. That doesn't make it true though.

You may want to adjust your reading glasses as I never said there was one before, during or after. The "his" is Champas Socialist - not any Aussie Pol. Perhaps your myopia is a bit clearer now?

WHile I can see a misunderstanding based upon the sentence the "his" resides in, if you had read the last clause, you would see that it clearly could not have been referring to Rudd or any other pol, but to the object of the quoted material - in this case (unless I am mistaken) FC was referring to Champas, and thus my comments.

But I do see now how the shoe is on the other foot. Easy to bash those when you dont support them - but the hackles sure rose when you thought it was your pol.

Agreed. Given most in Bennelong have never known any other besides Howard, Maxine must be like a supercool breath of freshness in the electorate. I actually heard people say on Saturday night they believe she could be the first female PM of Australia. I wouldn't be so rash as to say this, but we'll wait and see.

Oh, happy days...

Which aren't relevant either.  But if you want to argue that your choice in candidates is as rational as some right-wing Christian extremist then be my guest.

I would be more interested in knowing what governmental policies the candidate supports (for instance) than caring whether it's a man or a woman or whether the spouse took their last name or not. What's next? Picking a candidate because you like their hair?

Would it be fair to say that Howard had a Rudd awakening?

Taken directly from Wiki;

Economics
In his first speech to parliament, Rudd stated that:

Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all.[26]

In the same speech, he praised Third Way/ordoliberal politics as "a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives" and "a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives."

Rudd is critical of free market economists such as Friedrich Hayek,[27] although Rudd describes himself as "basically a conservative when it comes to questions of public financial management", pointing to his slashing of public service jobs as a Queensland governmental advisor.[28]


Foreign policy

Rudd supports the continued deployment of Australian troops in Iraq, but not the continued deployment of combat troops. Rudd, in his role as shadow foreign minister had written a letter in November 2003 to Prime Minister John Howard offering policy ideas after the fall of Baghdad. Among his recommendations were a deployment of trainers for the New Iraqi army, and using the Australian Electoral Commission to help Iraq stage elections.[30] However, Labor pledged in 2007 to replace 550 existing combat troops with new troops serving training and border security roles (possibly stationed in other countries around the Middle East), with a continued presence of over 1,000 Australian troops stationed in Iraq (in 2007, there were 1,575 Australian military personnel operating within Iraq). [31] Rudd is also in favour of Australia's military presence in Afghanistan.[32]

Rudd is a supporter of the road map for peace and defended Israel's right to self-defence during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, condemning Hezbollah and Hamas for "violating" Israeli territory.[33] This was seen as a step towards mending relations between the Jewish community and the ALP [34] following comments by Labor MPs Tanya Plibersek and Julia Irwin. [35]


Industrial relations
Rudd has opposed some aspects of the Howard government's WorkChoices industrial relations legislation, but indicated plans to retain significant elements of it during his election campaign.[36] The main elements of difference in Rudd's policy include the phasing out of Australian Workplace Agreements over a period of up to five years, the reestablishment of an awards system as a safety net, and the restoration of unfair dismissal laws for companies with fewer than 100 employees but more than 15 employees.[36] Rudd's plan also involves the establishment of a single industrial relations bureaucracy called Fair Work Australia.[37] All changes will be delayed until the beginning of 2010, while the award system is being simplified. The Australian Building and Construction Commission will be retained until 2010 and existing AWAs will be allowed to run their (up to five-year) course.[36]

Elements of Workchoices that a Rudd Labor government would retain include:

Secondary boycotts would remain illegal
Employers would retain the right to lock workers out
Union right of entry to workplaces would be restricted
There would be restrictions on workers' right to strike[36]

Environment
Rudd has pledged, if elected, to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012. However, Rudd said he would insist that any future climate change treaty must also restrict the emissions of developing nations. Prime Minister John Howard said Rudd's policy on climate change negotiations had no significant differences to his own.[38] The Liberal policy is a 15 percent cut in emissions by 2020, whilst the Labor policy plans to cut 20 percent in emissions by 2020.

Rudd supports the construction of the Bell Bay Pulp Mill in the Tamar Valley, Tasmania, and has pledged not to protect old growth forests from further logging.[39]

Yes and that the Labor victory could be called a 'Rudd-slide'...

'We will see an end to race-based commentary on immigration and assimilation from our Government'.

I don't recall any between 1983 and 1996 and I am unaware of any between 1972 and 1983.

However, what exactly is the significance of your pointing out that Latham was 'working class'?

Fair point. Probably shouldn't have raised it. I'll try and explain it anyway. His accent made him seem more thuggish, less educated or civilised. Perhaps that's a prejudice, but one which much of the Australian voting public probably subscribed to when casting their ballots. It also made us more inclined to believe he was a thug because he talked about his violent upbringing in Sydney's West.

I expect you to be just as effective with the kids you're teaching next year. However, they will be starting in a very different place from the nice, middle-class students with no serious problems you've had this year, and both the resources and the extent / quality of the external support they receive towards their education will be markedly different.

I agree with all that you've said there, and perhaps I was being inarticulate, but I don't expect the kids next year to come as far as the kids have come this year. partly because of all the external factors you outlioned that make performance pay ineffective. Partly because it's logical that if the kids have made less progress in their first few years, they will continue to do so unless I have some sort of Sidney Poitier moment.

I actually heard people say on Saturday night they believe she could be the first female PM of Australia.

It's a long way off, but there's a potential for it. Why does this matter Draginol? Because it would represent that Australia gas moved beyond the time where we wouldn't vote for a woman as Deputy PM or possibly PM. No one in Australia has put up a candidate for PM that is a female, and it has often been argued that Australians simply wouldn't vote for a woman as PM. I'd like for us to move beyond those days. I believe there are a number of women who could fulfil the role very very well, and maybe one day that will be Maxine McKew.

'His accent made him seem more thuggish, less educated or civilised.'
Let's get this straight. It's not whether Latham actually was working class, but whether he sounded like he was? Is this why Rudd is acceptable, in your eyes - because, despite his humble origins, he sounds middle class? This kind of attitude sounds suspiciously like a throwback to the days of the British Empire, Australia as a colonial outpost, and all the injustice, inequity and prejudice that entailed. (And there was me thinking naively that Australia might actually be looking to the future for once ...)

'Perhaps that's a prejudice, but one which much of the Australian voting public probably subscribed to when casting their ballots.'
I have serious problems with this argument for three reasons. Firstly, you're right - yes, it is a prejudice. Secondly, you appear to be suggesting you believe it's not policies that matter but electability. And thirdly, the last time I looked, a significant proportion of the Australian voting public were actually - * gasp * - working class themselves. In your reckoning, as is usually the case within the political machinery of Canberra, they seem to be getting short shrift.

'I don't expect the kids next year to come as far as the kids have come this year.'
But how far is that, and just what yardstick are you measuring them against? You're falling into exactly the same way of thinking as those who would instigate performance pay by imposing so-called 'objective' or 'standardised' testing across the country.

Jesus, I can't even say I'm happy that Kevin Rudd won without getting ruthlessly attacked. No wonder the Left has been in Opposition for so long with such potential to devour one's own young.

Is this why Rudd is acceptable, in your eyes

Firstly, I'd like to point out that I was trying to explain what the Australian public had in their minds when they cast their ballots. I doubt that even many thugs want one as Prime Minister.

This kind of attitude sounds suspiciously like a throwback to the days of the British Empire

A little overdramatic I think. I was admitting that this was not something I was pleased that I had expressed. But it seems that even admitting one's own foibles are to be pounced upon, so maybe the Government shouldn't apologise to the Aborigines after all if this is the sort of backlash you get when you admit you have done wrong.

For the record, my father's side is entirely working class and my maternal grandparents were also working class. I am one of very few in my family to have a Uni education. I hold my maternal grandfather up as one of my 2 main rolemodels, along with my mother, who was also brought up in a working class family. To reiterate that more clearly, the 2 people I hold in the highest regard and attempt to emulate are working class people.

However, there is a distinct difference between my grandpa and Mark Latham. Grandpa was not a thug. He was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word. There was no chauvinism about Grandpa's gentlemanliness, and that is what I admire most about him.

Latham, though intelligent and educated, was not a gentleman. He was a thug. He perpetuated this image of himself when he talked about his working class background in the Western suburbs of Sydney as having been "no convent" and then having described the need for him to have used his fists during that upbringing. Latham himself attributed his thuggishness to his Western suburbs upbringing. And while it may not be very Leftist or PC of me to say so, it would seem to me that Macquarie Fields sees a fair bit more violence than I ever did growing up on a hill in Canberra.

I have only a problem with prejudice, not so much post-judice eg. I do not assume that because someone is French that they are a good cook. However, when a French person turns out to be a good cook, I tend to attribute some of that to the fact that they grew up in a culture that values good cooking.

Equally, I do not assume that working class people are thugs. That would make no logical sense to my family past. I don't even assume that because they have a thick ocker accent, like Latham that they are thugs. Many of my friends have such accents, and I was mocked in high school for trying to cultivate one. But when I come across someone who is a thug (eg. Latham) and it turns out that they have a working class background, I do attribute some of that thuggishness to the fact that they grew up in a violent part of the country. The vast majority of working class people are not thugs.

Secondly, you appear to be suggesting you believe it's not policies that matter but electability.

Well, when you are electing a leader...yes electability is very important. I wouldn't support someone who was electable but a complete Tory, but there's no point trying to make Andrew Bartlett leader if you've got the option of Natasha Stott-Despoja.

Latham and Rudd are not radically different in policies, although I do agree with Rudd more than I do Latham. I think Latham would have been a disaster as a PM because he is a loose cannon, and forgive me for wanting someone a bit level-headed as Prime Minister. I believe that much of the Australian public felt the same way about Latham.

And thirdly, the last time I looked, a significant proportion of the Australian voting public were actually - * gasp * - working class themselves.

See above.

But how far is that, and just what yardstick are you measuring them against? You're falling into exactly the same way of thinking as those who would instigate performance pay by imposing so-called 'objective' or 'standardised' testing across the country.

This is really another thread, but my main objection to performance pay is that there are many more factors that impact on children's progress or lack thereof than what the teacher does. My other objection is that standardised tests do not take into account cultural capital when doing literacy. However, I don't have a huge problem with standardised numeracy tests. If that means I have fallen into their way of thinking, then so be it. I am not an ideologue who opposes an idea because it's not Leftist enough (see: Apparently I'm a Left Winger).

I'm a long haul trucker. 70 hours would be a short week for me.



Working hard is not, in and of itself, justification for a certain level of pay. If your 'hard work' isn't effective, then the money you are paid is wasted as was the time spent.

And before you climb on a high horse with this trucker, yes I have taught school in a former career.

By the way I have no less problem describing John Howard as a middle class bully, or Malcolm Turnbull as an evil upper class autocrat. Or Christopher Pyne as a spoiled private school brat. But only because they have these qualities. The class is actually irrelavant. And I tried to make that point before, but if you want to jump on me again Furry and make a big show over how closed-minded I am, then you go right ahead.

Maybe it's that you agree with Menzies that we have created a classless Britain in Australia.

By the way yay Kevin Rudd Is Prime Minister. And he actually gives a damn about homeless people, and that's the first time that's ever been the case for Australia and I love him for it (though in a totally non-civil unions kind of way).

'Jesus, I can't even say I'm happy that Kevin Rudd won without getting ruthlessly attacked.'

Whoa Champas, hold your horses. I intended no 'ruthless attack' whatsoever. On the whole Rudd / Latham thing, I imagined I was writing a relatively light-hearted and decidedly tongue-in-cheek riposte to your earlier comments, that's all. i.e. Just booting the political football about, really. Absolutely nothing was intended to be personal, or as an attack - ruthless or otherwise. I obviously hit a sensitive area. My humble and sincere apologies.



'No wonder the Left has been in Opposition for so long with such potential to devour one's own young.'

(NB. The following is a joke.) And they still are. You know my position, same as the anarchists - it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.



Peace. Over and out.