The Abbott Government

Julia · 30 September 2014

+1 sptrawler. Not that any of your logic will meet with acceptance by the Labor acolytes.

At least the families of the young men who died as a result of Labor's mismanaged pink batts scheme will be compensated by this government, as will those insulation businesses who went to the wall when Labor abruptly pulled the scheme from under them.

Meantime, not content with no longer wreaking havoc on the nation, Gillard, Swan and Rudd continue to publicly share the hatred of one another. No wonder their government was such a total shambles.
So completely unedifying for the present Labor opposition trying to regain any sort of semblance of intelligence.

SirRumpole · 1 October 2014

sptrawler said:
Not relating to the above, but, if you are going to pay for multitudes of obscure degrees in irrelivant professions, then expect to pay a lot more tax. Just have a look at what degrees are available.

That's the only thing you said that I agree with, the rest is just diversion.

The taxpayer should be funding courses that provide skills that are required in the community and don't get funded by business. Medical workers, teachers etc.

But neither side is prioritising funding of particular skills, they just pay 50% of any courses that people want to do regardless of whether those skills are in demand or not.

Tisme · 1 October 2014

Julia said:
Good to know that you understand more about a bunch of people you've never met than do those people themselves. Oh, to possess the omnipotence and absolute comprehension and wisdom of a God.

Well you must have met Rumpole, because you seem to know what he's thinking all the time.

Very few have a third eye when it comes to politics, most have only one eye.

sptrawler · 1 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
That's the only thing you said that I agree with, the rest is just diversion.

The taxpayer should be funding courses that provide skills that are required in the community and don't get funded by business. Medical workers, teachers etc.

But neither side is prioritising funding of particular skills, they just pay 50% of any courses that people want to do regardless of whether those skills are in demand or not.

Thanks for agreeing on something, it is somewhat heartwarming to find that our conflicting outlook on life, has at least some common ground.

What did you find wrong with giving people on welfare, that pay no effective tax, a cash payment at retirement?
Rather than making them put some of their taxfree welfare money away now?

How come you don't agree with pensions being linked to cpi, instead of average wages, as the government suggest?
Or do you accept that if wage growth goes negative, so does the pension?
Hard to understand your reasoning on that one, maybe driven by the expectation wages only go up, when in fact the only thing that goes up is the cost of living(cpi).

Don't you agree that Martin Ferguson repeatedly told W.A to sell off its generating assetts? They also reduced W.A Federal grants, by the equivalent of reciepts they recieved from their power generation.
Or do you think only the LNP do that sort of thing?

Julia · 1 October 2014

Tisme said:
Well you must have met Rumpole, because you seem to know what he's thinking all the time.

I don't need to guess at or make assumptions about Rumpole. He is entirely straightforward and honest in his posted sentiments always.
Neither does he usually put words into the mouths of other people or ascribe to them anything other than what they have said.

SirRumpole · 2 October 2014

sptrawler said:
Don't you agree that Martin Ferguson repeatedly told W.A to sell off its generating assetts? They also reduced W.A Federal grants, by the equivalent of reciepts they recieved from their power generation.
Or do you think only the LNP do that sort of thing?

Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof.

Selling off the NSW power grid probably cost the Labor party the last election in NSW, apart from the Obeid fiasco. Most people would prefer public utilities in the hands of their government rather than private corporations.

sptrawler · 2 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof.

Selling off the NSW power grid probably cost the Labor party the last election in NSW, apart from the Obeid fiasco. Most people would prefer public utilities in the hands of their government rather than private corporations.

I agree 100%, I was just pointing out that privatisation isn't party specific, both sides of politics embrace it.

SirRumpole · 2 October 2014

sptrawler said:
I agree 100%,

Now that's heartwarming

Julia · 2 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
Regardless of who tells the States to sell their generating assets, I don't agree with the concept. Privatisation of the power system and the guaranteed returns that were given to the Elco's is the main reason that power prices are going through the roof.

Not necessarily. Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.

SirRumpole · 2 October 2014

Julia said:
Not necessarily. Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.

In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.

noco · 2 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.

NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.

SirRumpole · 2 October 2014

noco said:
NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.

Whatever, it was a government and you can throw them out. You can't throw out a private company.

Julia · 2 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
In that case, you know who to blame; the Newman government.

noco said:
NO...NO...NO...it was Peter Beattie.

noco is right. It all happened while Labor were still in.

In one sense, additional spending was justified on the additional infrastructure. Before it happened we'd get sustained black outs every time there was a bit of a storm. Since all the upgrades, not one. I don't mind paying for such reliability.

Smurf1976 · 2 October 2014

sptrawler said:
I agree 100%, I was just pointing out that privatisation isn't party specific, both sides of politics embrace it.

Agreed although there's some variation between the states and between different assets.

If you look at the actions of the Abbott government, well let's see. We'll pay the states (with taxpayers' money) to sell (to very predictable buyers) their currently profitable assets.

Looks dodgy. Sounds dodgy. The maths says it's dodgy. There's even literally a bribe on offer.

If Labor and unions were involved then the word "corruption" would be used to describe such goings on. Seemingly OK when it's the Coalition and big business doing much the same however.

Smurf1976 · 2 October 2014

Julia said:
Here, regional Qld, there is just one supplier, government owned Ergon and the power prices have well and truly gone through the roof.

Prior to the days of deregulation, the cost of "retail" was so low as to not be worth worrying about. Answering phones, sending out bills and marketing the product - that's retail.

What happened is that we added about 10% to everyone's bill, then let people in many areas choose who to buy electricity from in the hope of saving part of this 10% back.

It would, of course, have been far cheaper to just leave it how it was in the first place.

sptrawler · 2 October 2014

Smurf1976 said:
Agreed although there's some variation between the states and between different assets.

If you look at the actions of the Abbott government, well let's see. We'll pay the states (with taxpayers' money) to sell (to very predictable buyers) their currently profitable assets.

Looks dodgy. Sounds dodgy. The maths says it's dodgy. There's even literally a bribe on offer.

If Labor and unions were involved then the word "corruption" would be used to describe such goings on. Seemingly OK when it's the Coalition and big business doing much the same however.

For the life of me smurph, I can't understand why any Government would privatise what is an essential service. It is the dumbest thing they could do, the Governments prime function is to provide essential services.

SirRumpole · 2 October 2014

sptrawler said:
For the life of me smurph, I can't understand why any Government would privatise what is an essential service. It is the dumbest thing they could do, the Governments prime function is to provide essential services.

They sell them because they are lazy morons who don't want the responsibility of making their assets perform to the public's satisfaction.

Next time power prices go up and people complain to the government what will be this response ? "It's not our problem, tell it to the power companies".

Smurf1976 · 2 October 2014

SirRumpole said:
They sell them because they are lazy morons who don't want the responsibility of making their assets perform to the public's satisfaction.

I've always found it strange that the basic argument is that "governments aren't good at running things".

That being so, if our elected representatives can't find someone (manager, engineer, whoever) to run a few power stations then no way are they fit to even attempt governing an entire state or country which is a MUCH bigger and more difficult task in every way.

Politics seems to be the only career around where openly declaring incompetence is seen as a way to get the job. Truly amazing that we put the future of the entire country, or even just one state, in the hands of such people.

I do wonder about the business nous of politicians at all levels. Here in Hobart the council is offering $1.75 million to fit out a shop (Myer), plus another $3.5 million should the store fail to reach turnover targets. What on earth is going on here? If Myer can't afford to, or won't for some other reason, re-build a store that spectacularly burnt to the ground in 2007 then it seems a dubious business proposition at best to prop it up with ratepayers' funds now. More to the point, there's no mention as to whether or not David Jones (which has no stores in Tas) was approached with a similar offer. To be fair, at the very least DJ's should have been given the opportunity to come up with a proposal should they be interested (and with up to $5.25 million on offer they'd logically have at least had a serious look at the idea).

Julia · 2 October 2014

Smurf1976 said:
Prior to the days of deregulation, the cost of "retail" was so low as to not be worth worrying about. Answering phones, sending out bills and marketing the product - that's retail.

What happened is that we added about 10% to everyone's bill, then let people in many areas choose who to buy electricity from in the hope of saving part of this 10% back.

It would, of course, have been far cheaper to just leave it how it was in the first place.

I don't understand your above post being quoted in relation to mine commenting that Ergon is the only supplier of electricity in regional Qld, or to my stated willingness to pay for certainty of supply.

I wasn't at all arguing that it would not have been cheaper to 'leave it how it was in the first place'. Of course it would. But that entailed frequent, sustained blackouts which caused massive business and personal inconvenience.

Smurf1976 · 2 October 2014

Julia said:
I don't understand your above post being quoted in relation to mine commenting that Ergon is the only supplier of electricity in regional Qld, or to my stated willingness to pay for certainty of supply.

I should probably have put it a bit differently (sitting at home with the flu today, not good.....), but what I mean is that regardless of whether you have 1, 10 or 100 "suppliers", in reality there will only ever be one set of physical infrastructure through which power (or gas) is supplied. It's the same poles and wires no matter whose name appears on the bill.

So "competition" is largely an illusion at the ordinary consumer level since only a small part of the true cost of supply is subject to such competition, the rest remaining a natural monopoly. It's not like, say, airlines where choosing Virgin over Qantas means flying on a physically different plane.

Networks are a different issue to competition as such. Much has been said about "gold plating" and you're mentioning reliability which I agree is a definite issue and a legitimate driver of investment. But it's not like airlines or shops where multiple competitors may lead to improved service. With electricity, you'll get exactly the same reliability no matter who the supplier is. Hence the failure of broad economic models when applied to electricity, gas or urban water supply - there's minimal real competition in practice.

The Abbott Government

Julia

In Memoriam

SirRumpole

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

sptrawler

Julia

In Memoriam

SirRumpole

sptrawler

SirRumpole

Julia

In Memoriam

SirRumpole

noco

SirRumpole

Julia

In Memoriam

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

sptrawler

SirRumpole

Smurf1976

Julia

In Memoriam

Smurf1976

Similar threads

The Abbott Government

In Memoriam

Apathetic at Best

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency