The PM AND Lappy

Originally posted by gogo1 ↑

Lapdog, you don't dissappoint me, not one bit. I gave up years ago ever expecting you to be anything within cooee of the balanced, reasonable arbiter you pretend to be.

There is not one direct quote from Pyne. Not one. There IS discussion of his views and working methods. It would be a big call for any journo to write an article on the subject without doing so, don't you think?

The only direct quotes are from tertiary education professionals. Like the following:

The peak body representing Australia’s universities says the Abbott-Pyne reforms are a “once in a generation opportunity” to shape a higher education system “that is sustainable, affordable and equitable” for students and the nation. Universities Australia chief executive Belinda Robinson said failure of the package will condemn the university system to “inevitable decline”.

This last paragraph from Paul Kelly. (A journalist whose views you have "a lot of respect for", you say. But you don't, because you go on to insinuate that because he writes for a Murdoch paper...column of smoke..dissemble and bullshit. ) And so the final para in the article should resonate viscerally . Except planks of wood don't usually resonate, as we know.:

"Meanwhile, Labor pledges to fight the package “in its entirety”, says it is “unfair and immoral”, declares political war on the top universities and rejects any constructive role in favour of short-term vote buying. Such attitudes will only further sink ALP policy credibility"

Over generous of Kelly, I thought, to suggest Labor have as much as a shred of credibility left.

Hilarious, if only it weren't so serious. Professor Clive Palmer too. God help us.

The country's future burnt at the stake because of Labor's dumb struck ego. Maybe we can package that and sell it.?

Expand

Gogo1, the group of 8 elite universities represent a viewpoint that focuses on their futures and their clientelle.

In contrast to what Paul Kelly wrote, this is from the article written by Matt Knott in The Age online, one which includes some of the perspectives I believe were ignored in Paul Kelly's article:

"Elite universities with poor records of enrolling disadvantaged students would be the big winners under the federal government's new Commonwealth scholarship scheme, according to new modelling.
Regional and suburban universities – which typically enrol more students from poor backgrounds – may have only 20 per cent of the funds to spend on scholarships for disadvantaged students as their elite counterparts, according to the National Tertiary Education Union modelling. ..."

As someone from a very large family of humble circumstance who had to pay his own way through university prior to Gough Whitlam's reforms it deeply concerns me that many of Australia's brightest and most promising students will be seriously disadvantaged.

Christopher Pyne must explain to us exactly how poor people will NOT lose out and why those who come from siutaitons wherer they can't pay feed in advance are going to be made to pay so much of the cost of the tertiary sector in future. Given that he went to the 2013 Election promising to make NO changes he also needs to explain why that promise is being broken.