Shanahan on Saturday:
But old-fashioned appeals to man the barricades are not the answer for a modern Labor Party… Yet Labor has continued with Latham’s class-envy rhetoric over private schools and tax cuts.
Class envy, class war bad.
Shanahan on Monday, declaring that “Howard is winning the class war”:
John Howard is using class and class envy against the Labor Party. He has become the “worker’s friend” campaigning against the workers’ party.
Class envy, class war good.
To quote one John Winston Howard: Hello?
Please explain.
Typically the conservatives only view leftist policies as policies of “class warfare”. Funny that.
Dennis is getting himself a bit confused it seems.
Mark, get over it. They won! They don’t have to make sense, its just sour grapes on your part.
I can see it now, Shanahan is in his office, hair glued into a 1978 mohawk, writing ‘No War But The Class War’ in white-out on his door.
The Australian + SMH + Canberra Times commentariat are generally bloody awful. In Canberra we have the pleasure of reading the horrid Angela Shanahan on a regular basis. Most of them should be given the boot. Michelle Grattan is an obvious exception that springs to mind.
The crass struggle intensifies!!!
Dennis understands politics as well as he understands statistics.
however I don’t know his margin of error.
Shanahan’s saying 1) Labor started a class war; and 2) the PM’s winning it. Where’s the contradiction?
I share CL’s mystification. Shanahan’s case - clearly - is that Howard is using Labor’s historical preoccupation with class envy, against the Labor Party. I can’t see the illogic that you’re seeing Mark.
So when you say the PM’s winning the class war, I take it you mean that he’s winning and the workers are losing?
I think Shanahan is implying that the ALP used “class envy” rhetoric against Howard and this is a “bad thing” (TM). Shanahan seems to be implying that Howard is now using “class envy” rhetoric against the ALP and this is a “good thing” (TM).
There’s no evidence that the schools policy was bad for Labor- people aren’t stupid, and for 90% + of parents that policy delivered more resources to the schools their kids go to at the expense of those that have more than they need.
Because there isn’t a good rational response to the policy, the class warfare rubbish is wheeled out. At which point you’d have to ask: what are tax cuts for the wealthy, a concerted union-busting program, and the right for the rich to buy their way into uni if not ‘class warfare’ so defined?
I’ve never heard a single argument that actually states why those particular children who attend the best-funded schools need more resources spent on them, every single argument is based on rhetorical or emotive or ‘class’ based arguments. Whereas Labor is simply presenting a case for shifting some public expenditure to where it is clearly needed.
Take a look:
http://www.riverview.nsw.edu.au/h_college_city.php
They let the Sydney Kings play basketball on their Olympic standard courts for a small fee, last I heard. I’ve also heard that my local government school:
http://www.nhs.vic.edu.au/index.php?id=7
have asked kids to bring their own tissues.
This debate never ceases to amaze me. If Labor wanted to BAN those schools, or actively remove some of their exisitng (and very substantial) wealth, I could understand the class defence business a little better.
Oh that’s Lane Cove in the background. Here’s what any one of those 6 or 7 ovals would fetch on the market if Riverview was stuck:
http://www.justlisted.com.au/c21/lanecove/
It’s not just about King’s and Riverview Martin. That’s part of Labor’s class-hate trick. They don’t wage a campaign against the totality of monies given to unglamorous Catholic systemic schools in the diocese of Townsville. It’s always King’s - for which I have little philosophical dedication, obviously. The message is this: people of Australia - hate the parents and children of The King’s School. And who was it who wheeled out the “class warfare rubbish” again?
Guy has correctly identified the contradiction. When Labor does anything that might benefit the lower paid as opposed to the top end of town, it’s denounced using the “class war” theme. But Shanahan notes that Howard is using “class envy” to outfoot Labor. I’d have expected some argument that Howard’s tactics are different from Labor’s - ie he’s a uniter not a divider, he appeals to individual aspirations not old fashioned collectivism, or any other nostrum favoured by the commentariat.
But we don’t get that.
Shanahan is actually correct that Howard has a class politics - governing with an eye to the interests of the well off but convincing those that are not so well off (through the rhetoric of “aspiration”) that they should politically identify with policies that (for instance) give a much bigger tax cut to those on higher incomes. It’s his own version of solidarity.
They don’t wage a campaign against the totality of monies given to unglamorous Catholic systemic schools in the diocese of Townsville
Because those schools would benefit from Labor’s policies.
It is correct to say that in the last election their education policy was a winner in the electorate.
Also looking at the polls this years there is little indeed no evidence that Bomber’s tax cuts have been an electoral loser.
Dennis is a mance when it comes to politics and saying what poll results are.
He does have catholic tastes though!
It seems to me like the best trick
the devilthe ruling class ever pulled was to convince people that class didn’t exist.While I’m at this the ALP education policy wasn’t class politics it was more getting rid of some but not all middle class welfare in the education sector.
That ain’t class warfare it is economic rationalism
“Howard has a class politics - governing with an eye to the interests of the well off but convincing those that are not so well off (through the rhetoric of “aspiration”) that they should politically identify with policies that (for instance) give a much bigger tax cut to those on higher incomes.”
There is another dimension to this, and that is the mobilisation of the ressentiment of a discursively constructed “working class”/”battlers”/”ordinary people” against certain groups of conspicuous bearers of the dominant culture, i.e. the humanistic intelligentsia in academia, the liberal media, the new social movements and the political left. This fomentation of class-cultural conflict between the populace and the so-called elites diverts attention from the political and economic class offensive of capital and its political representatives against working people and welfare recipients.
It is actually a brilliant piece of co-optation of a discourse originally developed by elements of the leadership of the labour movement to (a) defend their bureaucratic and factional interests within the movement against insurgent elements such as women and (b) distract their members from the fact that said leaders had rolled over in the industrial, economic and political class struggle. It is not coincidental that the Crean/Kelty/Ferguson/Carmichael leadership of the ACTU in the 1980s ramped up their class-cultural name-calling against environmentalists at the very time that they were allowing Hawke and Keating to renegotiate the original Accord out of existence, at workers’ expense. Nor is it coincidental that such rhetoric comes most consistently from industrially supine unions like the AWU, the SDA and the forestry unions.
Some middle class welfare good. Some middle class welfare bad. Who decides? The Labor leadership, of course. Most of whose children attend toffy private schools. Very rational.
No CL all middle class welfare bad.
You’re not using the politics of envy, are you CL?
It’s the politics of hypocricy. Laborites tell their constituents state schools are great - just not good enough for their own children. Peter Beattie - come on down.
Be nice to see you engage with the issues, C.L., instead of casting personal aspersions on Labor pollies as is your wont.
Congratulations CL you are now agreeing it is middle class welfare.
I am reminded of Michelle Grattan on RN who was pontificating on Bomber and hiss tax policy when Fran Kelly of all people pointed out the polls and suggested it hadn’t gone all bad for him.
Grattan simply ignored the polls and declared it had still been all bad for Bomber.
Meanwhile has anyone noticed how badly Cozzie has been concnerning the 30% rebate for child care.
Tanya P ,who only CS could think of as having ability, has shown him up!!!
-”The Labor leadership, of course. Most of whose children attend toffy private schools”-
Not bad evidence, by implication, that they aren’t out to destroy those schools - and I note that no-one, as per usual, has engaged with the quantitative questions yet again of how much they can actually afford- but just to obtain more resources for the less well off.
I don’t see your point about townsville and poorer private schools CL- this is further evidence that Labor isn’t tapping into the animosity some lefties have for private schools generally, but rather is seeking to assist schools on the basis of need.
-”It‚Äôs not just about King‚Äôs and Riverview “-
Yes it is, that’s precisely the point. It isn’t about the second tier and down, it is ONLY about the very wealthiest. Out of Australia’s considerable number of private schools (thousands, isn’t it?) only a handful made it onto the list.
Of course if you want to fund an expanded middle class welfare program, we could review tax rates for those who can afford to pay…?
The results of focus group research of voter opinion about the budget and the economy are reported today in Online Opinion.
It’s not all good for the government:
To anticipate partisan comments, Online Opinion has an excellent record of polling and identifying issues in the 2001 and 2004 elections. While Tim Grau (one of the researchers) is a former Labor staffer, Graham Young is a former Qld Liberals’ Vice-President.
MP said: It isn’t about the second tier and down, it is ONLY about the very wealthiest.
That’s how it starts my Riverview alumus friend.
Why is it an aspersion Mark? It’s actually a fact re Beattie - as you know. You know which school I’m talking about. Your post is about bona fides, ultimately. It’s therefore a legitimate question: why aren’t state schools good enough for so many Labor brats?
The hate, CL, the hate!
Personally, I went to Kedron State High, if we’re doing disclosure!
C.L., I have no idea where Beattie’s kids go/went to school, and could care less in the context of this discussion.
Liam: of course I’m suspicious of the modern Jesuits! They never developed beyond liberation theology, poor dears.
Anyway, now that I’ve raised legitimate hypocricy issues I can proceed to the promulgation of my pure, polemics-free opinion: yeah, hammer King’s.
Heh heh.
“…my Riverview alumus friend”
Never hidden it. Does it make me a hypocrite for saying that I’ve seen from the inside the fact that it’s well funded, compared to the 2 other high schools I went to: a poorish catholic school and a state school. I’ve never suggested parents can’t send their kids there with their own cash.
“That‚Äôs how it starts…”
More attacking the policy for what it could be, or could be construed to be, not what it is.
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.
Enough of the class war, has CL failed to leave behind the State Aid wars? Who’s living in the past with this debate?
Everyone seems to get bogged down in the schools debate when we are talking about class war
An object lesson in how even nice cuddly moderate Santamaria socialist RWDBs can derail a thread. I swear I will put up a post someday about the rhetorical tactics involved - of which Rob (the not Corr Rob) is the acknowledged master).
Naomi: If you’re arguing Mark Latham and Paul Keating weren’t purveyors of class war… well, you’re just not being serious. And actually the phoney “friends of the lower orders” who cannot be trusted are the Phillip Adams/David Marr/Andrew Jaspan set who loathe everyday people. Their favoured parties are Labor and the Democrats.
It’s always a nice trick to say, “oh well, of course, it doesn’t matter if Premier Beattie sends his kids to a snooty private school.” Sorry, it does matter. Labor’s rhetoric on state schools is that they’re great institutions with great staff and great values. Clearly, when push comes to shove, they don’t believe a word of it.
On questions of class, Labor’s gotta Rolls Royce ’cause it’s good for their voice. But you can’t fool the children etc…
C.L., if we were to discuss this seriously, we would have to address the Labor Party as a vehicle for upward class mobility, and also look seriously into individual motivations. I’m unconvinced this is anything more than a debating point, in the absence of that context. It’s a reverse of the British Labour discourse - against grammar schools and in favour of comprehensive schools, and its context is the much greater elitism and the class basis for the British Labour leadership.
It’s a cheap trick, I’m sorry.
In the Australian context, there are indeed many state high schools that are great institutions with great staff and great values. There are also some that are not. There are private schools that are not great institutions with great staff and great values.
None of this has much to do with the actual topic. You’re taking an individualist approach to what ought to be a structural question.
You keep saying that Mark. What is the freaking topic?
Either Shanahan’s nonsense or Howard’s success in articulating a class politics, C.L.
Bring back the class war - the two-sided variety.
“Labor‚Äôs rhetoric on state schools is that they‚Äôre great institutions with great staff and great values. Clearly, when push comes to shove, they don‚Äôt believe a word of it.”
Um where is that rhetoric. I had a read of the last schools policy - source documents - and some of the commentary which came out. My impression was that the issue was around the resource formula and how that didn’t take into account all forms of revenue. Sure I think there were a couple areas where I couldn’t understand the basis for the resource formula (but then if you looked at the state/federal schools funding mix you freak) and some deal making seemed evident (name me one policy that doesn’t involve some concessions to some group). But I never got the impression that state schools were purveyed as something better.
And I think parents have many and various reasons for sending their kids to whichever school they do - be it state, religious, private.
An expose of C.L.’s unfounded rhetoric, thanks to saint. Labor argued last year (correctly) that state schools had been starved of much needed resources by the Howard government.
The deal making on both sides was a different formula for Catholic systemic schools. Hence Liam’s very whispered dog whistle about state aid.
Yeah this is crap:
-”Labor‚Äôs rhetoric on state schools is that they‚Äôre great institutions with great staff and great values”-
Clearly no, they are saying “with similar resources to the Kings of this world state schools would be…..”
Talked about damned each way.
I swear I will put up a post someday about the rhetorical tactics involved - of which Rob (the not Corr Rob) is the acknowledged master.
I was asleep as I was reading this thread but that statement woke me up with a jolt.