The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[pharmaboy]

Agreed,

But all that is in the past (which we can't change), and it doesn't excuse what the current government is trying to do.

I think you have a point - I suppose the other side of the argument is, that once it is sold and in private hands, no govt in the future can let or make it happen again

 

[Flow-Rider]

In NSW, this problem has its genesis with the previous Labor govt and the sheer misunderstanding of basic economics by the electricity providers.

The infrastructure investment was given a guaranteed 10% return on capital - they had a cost of capital of 6.5% - so everything they could think up to build, they did, a guaranteed net 3.5% return no matter how dumb you were.

Next problem - the solar buyback scheme - some complete moron in the Previous govt decided that they would pay householders 10times more for solar power than they can supply themselves. Anyone see a problem here? But when I say "they", what it really means is householders pay for that. So estimates are that people who didn't put panels up are paying $150 a year towards the bill of people who did put panels in.

Final problem - the justifications of the infrastructure build were continued growth in demand for electricity due to in the main, air conditioning growth in households. These dumb fuckwits however, never took into account that the previous 2 policies were about to increase electricity prices for domestic households by 200%! So, because they increased the price by 200%, demand dropped strongly, further, demand for solar increased very fast, which increased prices more- nasty circle that.

What sort of business owner thinks they can triple prices and not change demand?

How much dumb can one govt manage?

The magic question. They upgraded the power network so that they could join up the National Electricity Market (NEM) and made the user pay for the upgrades so that they can profit on excess electricity.

 

[pharmaboy]

The magic question. They upgraded the power network so that they could join up the National Electricity Market (NEM) and made the user pay for the upgrades so that they can profit on excess electricity.

I've never heard anything that makes me believe that was a motivator - my understanding is they are different entities. Most of the wasteful upgrades I've seen are massive substations in cities to supply poles and wires, not high tension cables heading south or north. Substations that require far higher demand than we have in order to be utilised .

 

[Ivan]

I think you have a point - I suppose the other side of the argument is, that once it is sold and in private hands, no govt in the future can let or make it happen again

If the regulators decision is overturned, and the network is sold into private hands, then the high prices (and the returns to the private equity) are locked in forever via the contract conditions. This is why someone would be willing to pay circa $12b for the network.

If the regulators decision is upheld, then the sale of the poles an wires will be for a fraction of the current value, because future profits are reduced. This will mean Baird's spending agenda will be wiped out, and his credibility would be damaged.

I have been of two minds as to whether privatisation of such an asset is the right thing to do. I agree with the principle that private management of the asset would be more economical, but I do not agree that private ownership of such a critical and singular piece of infrastructure is good risk management. Maybe a 10 yr lease is the right option?

But this sale is not about what's right for the people of NSW, as is evident from NSW government fighting the regulators decision, its about money for the government to spend now.

 

[Flow-Rider]

I've never heard anything that makes me believe that was a motivator - my understanding is they are different entities. Most of the wasteful upgrades I've seen are massive substations in cities to supply poles and wires, not high tension cables heading south or north. Substations that require far higher demand than we have in order to be utilised .

What do you mean, they have upgraded high transmission towers right down the east coast of QLD into NSW. They said it was for the local towns because people would kick up a stink and it would be stoped. It doesn't mean it suddenly stops at the boarder, they on sell it in peak demands.

 

[pharmaboy]

What do you mean, they have upgraded high transmission towers right down the east coast of QLD into NSW. They said it was for the local towns because people would kick up a stink and it would be stoped. It doesn't mean it suddenly stops at the boarder, they on sell it in peak demands.

I mean some parts of the upgrade are seen as necessary, and others were just an excuse to spend money.

Being able to move electricity from one state to another makes sense when so much of demand is regulated by weather events - one would imagine it's absolutely critical as we move towards more renewables into the future as well.

 

[pharmaboy]

If the regulators decision is overturned, and the network is sold into private hands, then the high prices (and the returns to the private equity) are locked in forever via the contract conditions. This is why someone would be willing to pay circa $12b for the network.

If the regulators decision is upheld, then the sale of the poles an wires will be for a fraction of the current value, because future profits are reduced. This will mean Baird's spending agenda will be wiped out, and his credibility would be damaged.

I have been of two minds as to whether privatisation of such an asset is the right thing to do. I agree with the principle that private management of the asset would be more economical, but I do not agree that private ownership of such a critical and singular piece of infrastructure is good risk management. Maybe a 10 yr lease is the right option?

But this sale is not about what's right for the people of NSW, as is evident from NSW government fighting the regulators decision, its about money for the government to spend now.

Wouldn't it be he case that what's good for the govt is usually good for the people of NSW as well?

Just thinking, they aren't going to spend the money on a big party for liberal party MPs - it's slated for infrastructure spends as I understand it. Outcome is then you lose ownership of one asset and transfer it to another which you actually build.

On an economic level, this makes perfect sense, because govt can do things because it's a good thing to do for the people, whereas the private sector will only build something when it stacks up from a spend versus income perspective - moreover, the private sector avoids risk, so an operating asset with known costs and revenues is an easy thing to raise capital for.

There have been a number of ABC factchecks on the privatisation and one thing that stuck out was the blatant lies in the union campaign about relative costs between private versus public in other states. It does stack up as a good move: that doesn't mean I don't have concerns about what is in the article though - it is somewhat superficial though, so I'd reserve my judgement

 

[MARKL]

A good article from Jessica Irvine, thats important for everyone to understand...

A couple of months ago I was asked to review a Cabinet briefing note to see if it had any impact on the area of Government I work in eep: It had nil effect in my area of work, simple enough but I couldn't help but comment that the system they were proposing is effectively the exact same debacle that led to the gold plating of the electricity network. Unfortunately this is the issue with the rush to sell off natural monopolies - what they create to replace the natural monopoly is a bastardised hybrid that has the worst of both public and private sector ownership with none of the benefits of either :frusty:

 

[MARKL]

Wouldn't it be he case that what's good for the govt is usually good for the people of NSW as well?

Just thinking, they aren't going to spend the money on a big party for liberal party MPs ...

I want to believe that, the problem as I see it (and I am pointing the finger at both Labor and Liberal) is that they are at most only looking one or two election cycles down the road.

My great frustration in Government is short sighted waste, take the widening of the M2. It was always planned that the road would be widened in the near future. In the rush to deliver the project for the least cost there were bridges/overpasses/tunnels constructed to the minimum width possible, the savings were minimal on a project of that scale. To widen the road though many of these bridges/overpasses/tunnels had to be rebuilt at relatively massive cost to facilitate the third lane:tsk:

My rule with infrastructure is 'what would Bradfield do?' As I say you see this from both sides.

Take the North West rail line, great idea has been needed for many years. They are going to run single deck trains on the line, all good and they are purposely building the tunnel to only take single deck trains. The difference is supposedly only 18 inches, for the small extra cost I can't understand why you wouldn't go with the larger tunnel to give yourself the additional flexibility in the future in case you may need to run double deck trains due additional demand?

 

[Flow-Rider]

I want to believe that, the problem as I see it (and I am pointing the finger at both Labor and Liberal) is that they are at most only looking one or two election cycles down the road.

My great frustration in Government is short sighted waste, take the widening of the M2. It was always planned that the road would be widened in the near future. In the rush to deliver the project for the least cost there were bridges/overpasses/tunnels constructed to the minimum width possible, the savings were minimal on a project of that scale. To widen the road though many of these bridges/overpasses/tunnels had to be rebuilt at relatively massive cost to facilitate the third lane:tsk:

My rule with infrastructure is 'what would Bradfield do?' As I say you see this from both sides.

Take the North West rail line, great idea has been needed for many years. They are going to run single deck trains on the line, all good and they are purposely building the tunnel to only take single deck trains. The difference is supposedly only 18 inches, for the small extra cost I can't understand why you wouldn't go with the larger tunnel to give yourself the additional flexibility in the future in case you may need to run double deck trains due additional demand?

Haha! Just look at what they have done with the Brisbane Legacy way tunnel. They spent billions to build the tunnels and now where they meet at both ends clogs up even more, the government had allocated funds to widen the joining roads. As soon as Turncoat gets in, he stops the funding.

 

[Haakon]

Haha! Just look at what they have done with the Brisbane Legacy way tunnel. They spent billions to build the tunnels and now where they meet at both ends clogs up even more, the government had allocated funds to widen the joining roads. As soon as Turncoat gets in, he stops the funding.

Stops funding for roads? I knew I liked him

We do not need more fucking roads... Build some PT and address some of the root problems.

 

[Flow-Rider]

Stops funding for roads? I knew I liked him

We do not need more fucking roads... Build some PT and address some of the root problems.

What was the point of spending billions on tunnels?

 

[Haakon]

What was the point of spending billions on tunnels?

Good question...

 

[pink poodle]

What was the point of spending billions on tunnels?

It is phallic...well kind of. You know a tunnel resembles a vagina and a train resembles a penis. Politicians either get heaps of nookie or not much at all. I'm going with not much. Unless they are English and hang out around piggeries.

 

[Flow-Rider]

It is phallic...well kind of. You know a tunnel resembles a vagina and a train resembles a penis. Politicians either get heaps of nookie or not much at all. I'm going with not much. Unless they are English and hang out around piggeries.

Craig Thomson didn't have a problem, others are most likely worse because they are smart enough not to get caught.

 

[pharmaboy]

I want to believe that, the problem as I see it (and I am pointing the finger at both Labor and Liberal) is that they are at most only looking one or two election cycles down the road.

My great frustration in Government is short sighted waste, take the widening of the M2. It was always planned that the road would be widened in the near future. In the rush to deliver the project for the least cost there were bridges/overpasses/tunnels constructed to the minimum width possible, the savings were minimal on a project of that scale. To widen the road though many of these bridges/overpasses/tunnels had to be rebuilt at relatively massive cost to facilitate the third lane:tsk:

My rule with infrastructure is 'what would Bradfield do?' As I say you see this from both sides.

Take the North West rail line, great idea has been needed for many years. They are going to run single deck trains on the line, all good and they are purposely building the tunnel to only take single deck trains. The difference is supposedly only 18 inches, for the small extra cost I can't understand why you wouldn't go with the larger tunnel to give yourself the additional flexibility in the future in case you may need to run double deck trains due additional demand?

Haha, only heard of that double decker fiasco yesterday - is it in the local rag or something?


2 term thinking is good, that means you can do what is right and it will be sorted by the time you get to an election that matters , eg current nsw Libs are home and hosed for the next election, which is why mike Baird can explore GST changes without risking oblivion. Same reason JH was able to bring in the GST in the first place.

Of course, by omission 1 term thinking Is bad. Sometimes though, a leader is thinking and acting a 2 term agenda and somehow loses - eg Geoff Kennett ( yes, I know he was a dickhead, but the dickhead Victoria desperately needed at the time)

 

[MARKL]

Haha, only heard of that double decker fiasco yesterday - is it in the local rag or something?


2 term thinking is good, that means you can do what is right and it will be sorted by the time you get to an election that matters , eg current nsw Libs are home and hosed for the next election, which is why mike Baird can explore GST changes without risking oblivion. Same reason JH was able to bring in the GST in the first place.

Of course, by omission 1 term thinking Is bad. Sometimes though, a leader is thinking and acting a 2 term agenda and somehow loses - eg Geoff Kennett ( yes, I know he was a dickhead, but the dickhead Victoria desperately needed at the time)

The story gets a run every few months, pig headed stupidity is still newsworthy :crazy:

I was probably overly optimistic as kevinjuliaruddabbott only ever looked 1-2 news cycles ahead. Hopefully the Turnip will do better.

You are right that Baird finds himself in an amazing position. Labor were in power for too long, the only thing that kept them their was that the Libs were unelectable for most of that period. Boot is on the other foot and Baird just needs to implement good and fair policy and he has the job as long as he wants really...however that is the rub. Far too much decision making is being driven by ideology, decision making is being farmed out to the auditors (KPMGPWCEYDeloitte) and the public service is being further politicized. The result is poor policy in a number of areas and short term planning because everyone is licking arse all the way up the line nobody dares to step out of line.

To give you an example, years ago I introduced a new policy, everyone hated it said it was too expensive and we can spend the money doing 'x'. I made the policy happen because it was the right thing to do, stacked up from every angle...and I controlled that budget and policy. I was a pariah and reviled for what I was doing because every one else had better ideas. Then something bad happened, lots of headlines people running around with their heads cut off. Phone calls from Minister's office...all questions coming to me - 'why did this happen...' 'how can this...' etc. Eventually question comes 'could it happen to us'. Answer - 'No, MARKL fixed this years ago, we have no risk'. Pariah to genius in one disaster.

It would be very hard to introduce that policy now, even though it has long proven to be correct. The tunnel is an example of ideology of good decision making - just imagine the new trains come on line and there is a fault that only becomes noticeable when the system becomes fully operational and takes months to rectify.

Minister - '6 months to fix. That is no good, why don't we use the existing trains until our new ones are fixed.

Train dude - 'Yes Minister, excellent idea except they won't fit because you told us to make the tunnel smaller....

 

[Flow-Rider]

The story gets a run every few months, pig headed stupidity is still newsworthy :crazy:

I was probably overly optimistic as kevinjuliaruddabbott only ever looked 1-2 news cycles ahead. Hopefully the Turnip will do better.

You are right that Baird finds himself in an amazing position. Labor were in power for too long, the only thing that kept them their was that the Libs were unelectable for most of that period. Boot is on the other foot and Baird just needs to implement good and fair policy and he has the job as long as he wants really...however that is the rub. Far too much decision making is being driven by ideology, decision making is being farmed out to the auditors (KPMGPWCEYDeloitte) and the public service is being further politicized. The result is poor policy in a number of areas and short term planning because everyone is licking arse all the way up the line nobody dares to step out of line.

To give you an example, years ago I introduced a new policy, everyone hated it said it was too expensive and we can spend the money doing 'x'. I made the policy happen because it was the right thing to do, stacked up from every angle...and I controlled that budget and policy. I was a pariah and reviled for what I was doing because every one else had better ideas. Then something bad happened, lots of headlines people running around with their heads cut off. Phone calls from Minister's office...all questions coming to me - 'why did this happen...' 'how can this...' etc. Eventually question comes 'could it happen to us'. Answer - 'No, MARKL fixed this years ago, we have no risk'. Pariah to genius in one disaster.

It would be very hard to introduce that policy now, even though it has long proven to be correct. The tunnel is an example of ideology of good decision making - just imagine the new trains come on line and there is a fault that only becomes noticeable when the system becomes fully operational and takes months to rectify.

Minister - '6 months to fix. That is no good, why don't we use the existing trains until our new ones are fixed.

Train dude - 'Yes Minister, excellent idea except they won't fit because you told us to make the tunnel smaller....

This is the whole problem with just about any Government department, the right hand doesn't want to talk to the left hand. It's like watching a pile of dirt get moved about six times on a construction job, because it was in the way of some other job or contractors, when it could of been placed in a spot that it wouldn't affect anyone in the first place.

 

[pharmaboy]

This is the whole problem with just about any Government department, the right hand doesn't want to talk to the left hand. It's like watching a pile of dirt get moved about six times on a construction job, because it was in the way of some other job or contractors, when it could of been placed in a spot that it wouldn't affect anyone in the first place.

"Utopia" - what makes parts of that show hilarious for me, is how close I think they are to the truth.

Occupational health and safety episode as rating number 1

 

[MARKL]

"Utopia" - what makes parts of that show hilarious for me, is how close I think they are to the truth.

Occupational health and safety episode as rating number 1

That show had me in stitches and sooooo close to the truth it hurt to watch. In the latest redistribution of Ministers this year we received an upgrade...and his first action was to change the name of the Department, only a little bit but just enough for the sign writers to :whoo:

In the end somebody said :hand:

Anyhow after nearly 20 years today is my second last day as a public servant :whoo: