NSW state erection

Didn't want to derail the Spectre trailer thread so I started this one to rebut PM's perennial incorrectness.

A. Electricity prices are set by an independent regulator, not the lessee of 49% of poles and wires.

B. Why are the likes of Paul Keating and Bob Carr supporting the Libs over Labor on this issue (among others)?

Erection? You boys get really excited about politics.

The blood does rush a little.

CJB wrote:

Electricity prices are set by an independent regulator, not the lessee of 49% of poles and wires.

So if they can't make a profit on the lease ... why would anyone want to invest in the infrastructure?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does-privatisation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316

May you be enlightened.

That's not the question that I asked.

You don't get to ask the questions. I made two points you have thus far failed to address.

A. Despite union/Labor xenophobia, electricity prices in NSW are not going to be set by Red Chinese. They will be set by an independent regulator.

B. Why would former Labor leaders like Bob Carr and Paul Keating be backing Baird's plan over Foley's scaremongering? Do they want higher electricity prices too?

If the factchecker contained too many numbers and graphs for a Labor voter to handle, let me summarise it in a few lines for you. That way you can have some facts based on real data rather than an ad you saw on TV:

Correlation does not equal causation. SA has higher electricity prices and a privatised network - yes that's true. Victoria and the ACT have a privatised network and yet have the cheapest electricity in the country. Odd that Victoria and the ACT were left out the ALP's ad campaign. The reason SA has expensive electricity is because it's sourced from windmills and other hippy crap. Indeed, therein lies the hypocrisy of someone complaining about upward pressure on electricity prices when they supported the Brown-Gillard carbon tax and assorted policies.

CJB wrote:

You don't get to ask the questions.

And then you wonder why I refuse to answer yours.

I can demonstrate that one of Baird's promises is an absolute flight of fancy - the promise to bid for the Australian Grand Prix. And I can prove that it's a flight of fancy not because I'm opposed to Baird, but because I have knowledge on the subject that would make it untenable regardless of the political party making the pledge. Sydney doesn't have the infrastructure to pull it off, and the sporting regulations make Baird's proposal impossible.

Now, maybe it was a tertiary promise - he's certainly not pinning his election hopes on it. But I find it telling that one of his throwaway promises is so obviously flawed. It makes me wonder what else is flawed in his campaign. So before I decide whether or not I answer your questions, please tell me why I should believe anything he says.

But we all know that you won't give an answer other than to demand that I reply to you first, and no doubt find a way to insult me in the process. Before you do, however, consider this: the network is currently a public asset. Baird is the one who wants to lease it. Therefore, the burden of responsibility to prove that it is in the public interest to do so rests with him. It's hardly a drain on the economy as it is, given that Baird's own campaign is predicated on his economic management. So why, then, does he refuse to answer a simple question: how is it in the interests of any investor to lease the network if they can't make a profit from it? They can't put the prices up because of the ombudsman, and because they only control a minority stake, any attempts at improving the network though efficiency will cost them more up-front and will see them get a reduced return on investment.

It's like me and Oppers, only with added sexual tension.

I have no idea which is preferable.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I can demonstrate that one of Baird's promises is an absolute flight of fancy - the promise to bid for the Australian Grand Prix. And I can prove that it's a flight of fancy not because I'm opposed to Baird, but because I have knowledge on the subject that would make it untenable regardless of the political party making the pledge. Sydney doesn't have the infrastructure to pull it off, and the sporting regulations make Baird's proposal impossible.

Literally no one cares. I'm glad it's unfeasible. I don't want bogans streaming into Sydney to watch cars drive around in circles.

Quote :

But we all know that you won't give an answer other than to demand that I reply to you first, and no doubt find a way to insult me in the process. Before you do, however, consider this: the network is currently a public asset. Baird is the one who wants to lease it. Therefore, the burden of responsibility to prove that it is in the public interest to do so rests with him. It's hardly a drain on the economy as it is, given that Baird's own campaign is predicated on his economic management. So why, then, does he refuse to answer a simple question: how is it in the interests of any investor to lease the network if they can't make a profit from it? They can't put the prices up because of the ombudsman, and because they only control a minority stake, any attempts at improving the network though efficiency will cost them more up-front and will see them get a reduced return on investment.

The case has been made for years now (initially by the previous Labor government, until the union putsch). Only union troglodytes still think the government needs to own every last pole in the state.

What's it to you if a private investor wants to buy some poles? Your electricity bill isn't going to go up as a result. I've already pointed you in the direction of the very detailed ABC article. I know socialists get confused by numbers and facts, but try to make an effort.

Erica Ambler wrote:

It's like me and Oppers, only with added sexual tension.

Thankfully my real-life girlfriend is more deferential on political matters to me. PM needs to learn how to behave.

CJB wrote:

What's it to you if a private investor wants to buy some poles? Your electricity bill isn't going to go up as a result.

It's because I live on a very tight budget. And if the price of electricity goes up, I probably won't be able to afford the cost of living. Now, I know that you'll say that the ombudsman is there to prevent price rises, but that's not technically true, is it? The ombudsman is there as a price regulator, not a price fixer. They're supposed to represent the interests of consumers, and they do, but that doesn't mean that they can't put the price up if they deem it prudent.

Normally, this wouldn't be a problem. But because the of the "good government" in Canberra, the health and education budgets got slashed, and Baird did nothing to stop it. I can no longer afford private health insurance, struggle to find work, and have almost no savings. So when the state government is seeking a mandate to do something with the potential to drive the cost of living up, however remote that might be, you bet I have a vested interest in it.

That's the problem with conservatives in this country - they only ever govern for the people who voted for them. If you didn't vote for them, that's too bad. Somebody has to pay for the cigars.

As long as you can finally admit electricity prices will go up or down irrespective of partial privatisation.

You can now calmly vote Liberal tomorrow because you like infrastructure that's actually delivered and the fact that the NSW economy has gone from shitsville to #1 in the country during the first term of this government.

No, they can go up or down. If somebody wants to raise the price, they must submit a proposal to the ombudsman, who will review it. Baird cannot guarantee that the price will not go up because the ombudsman is independent.

And I have no intention of voting Liberal. Liberal governments only govern for Liberal voters. Anybody who doesn't vote Liberal usually bears the burden of their policies. You might think that the economy is the best in the country, and it is, but what you are overlooking is the way the housing market is out of control and rent is going up faster than the average wage. But most Liberal voters wouldn't know anything about that, since they're not working to the award rate and they're not looking to buy their first home.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And I have no intention of voting Liberal. Liberal governments only govern for Liberal voters. Anybody who doesn't vote Liberal usually bears the burden of their policies. You might think that the economy is the best in the country, and it is, but what you are overlooking is the way the housing market is out of control and rent is going up faster than the average wage. But most Liberal voters wouldn't know anything about that, since they're not working to the award rate and they're not looking to buy their first home.

Judging by the swings towards the Coalition at the last federal and NSW election, I'd say your views on who votes Liberal are cliches of a bygone era.

I agree that property prices are ridiculous. That's been caused by too much government rather than too little. If the Liberals have failed to address the issue sufficiently - and they probably have - you can be pretty sure the party of red tape will do even less.

CJB wrote:

I'd say your views on who votes Liberal are cliches of a bygone era.

What I find ridiculous is that the Libs' advertising has tried to discourage "local protest voting". It's an obvious jibe at Queensland and Victoria, but it completely fails to take into account the way the Libs got back into power. Nobody voted for Abbott because they believed that he was a genuine leader. They voted for him because he wasn't Labor. And predictably, they and their born-to-rule attitude misinterpreted it as a vote of confidence, and the end result has been predictable - an endless stream of policy backdowns, embarrassments and a fundamental misinterpretation of what the public want. Fifty years from now, people will remember them as being one of the worst governments in history - a government that targets social welfare and public health whilst ignoring corporate tax avoidance, a government who tried to create a country where only conservative voters had the opportunities and anyone else was neglected, marginalised, or ignored.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Nobody voted for Abbott because they believed that he was a genuine leader.

How many Liberal voters did you speak to about this?

Quote :

They voted for him because he wasn't Labor. And predictably, they and their born-to-rule attitude misinterpreted it as a vote of confidence

So after winning the election they should have not implemented policies because the 53% of the country that voted for them didn't really want to vote for them?

Quote :

an endless stream of policy backdowns

Due to a Left-dominated Senate. I agree that the Senate needs to be abolished as it's fundamentally undemocratic.

And yes, I'd be saying that even if Labor was in government. The "unrepresentative swill" are always left-wing populists who rubber stamp Labor legislation anyway.

Quote :

a fundamental misinterpretation of what the public want

Just because parts of the public want Free Shit paid for with borrowed money doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I know you still can't accept the election result, but it is what it is. I'm afraid your mate Bitch Tits Bill has about as much a chance of becoming prime minister as Bitch Tits Beasley. You can get away with cheap populism mid-term and be rewarded in the polls, but come election time people will need to make a decision on whether the country remains solvent or becomes the Greece of the South Pacific. I trust there are enough voters out there who still work to earn a crust and will thus reject economic self-destruction.

Here's tits as my interest in this discussion is waning and I have a life n' stuff.

Well, the Libs won as predicted.

We're screwed. The working class can now look forward to being crushed under the wheels of "progress".

What is this "working class"? You mean the plumbers and electricians who make six figures? I think they'll be just fine. Indeed, I'm sure they'll love getting home to their families faster thanks to Baird's infrastructure plans (endorsed by well-known Liberal Paul Keating no less).

I'll be fascinated to hear who's going to be crushed and how, but no doubt you'll respond with some 70's rhetoric rather than actual policy critiques.

CJB wrote:

You mean the plumbers and electricians who make six figures?

No, I mean the plumbers and electricians who live and work in the western suburbs and who will receive absolutely no benefit from another harbour crossing because they don't make the sixteen-figure salary that you need to live in the suburbs that will benefit from it.

Or how about the North Connex project that was proposed, the tunnel connecting the head of the F3 to the M2? I won't blame him if he's abandoned that - building a sixteen kilometre tunnel under Pennant Hills Road was never going to happen.

They'll benefit from WestConnex and the Western Harbour tunnel.

I work on the north shore but live on da south side ('cause I make slightly less than sixteen figures) and would benefit immensely from the new Western Harbour tunnel easing congestion in the Eastern Distributor. That new harbour raill crossing will also benefit the legions of people who work on the north shore but live elsewhere.

So no, the benefits won't be reaped by just the north shore toffs you blithely dismissed. We southbound working joes will get home sooner too.