Domestic Politics

GreenSeater · April 14, 2015

Vaccinating has benefits to society, rather than not vaccinating having costs to society. It's an important distinction. In other words, someone choosing to not get vaccinated doesn't create a cost for society or have any negative consequences, rather it's a loss of the benefit or positive consequences to society that would come from being vaccinated.

What about the increased medical costs of treating people with preventable diseases rather than the cheaper alternative of just preventing them?

jw1739 · April 14, 2015

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society
The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place?
I do believe that those who worry about vaccine related illness are a bit far-fetched, and agree that there are huge benefits behind vaccination programs.
My issue is that until there is certain proof that there is no risk associated with vaccination, it is wrong to punish parents for not wanting to subject their child to the potential risk, when compared to the risk of infection. Whether that is negligent parenting or not would depend on the actual outcomes of extensive medical research.
Until such research is available, it's all a foggy area of moral value, which of course varies from person to person. I think it is unwise to have policy created based on this.

There is no such thing as absolutely certainty of zero risk. And no-one is being punished - perhaps the child by being unnecessarily exposed to a potential disease by not being vaccinated, but not the parents. The parents are simply being told that they are being held accountable for their choices.

AyeCee · April 14, 2015

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society
The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place?
I do believe that those who worry about vaccine related illness are a bit far-fetched, and agree that there are huge benefits behind vaccination programs.
My issue is that until there is certain proof that there is no risk associated with vaccination, it is wrong to punish parents for not wanting to subject their child to the potential risk, when compared to the risk of infection. Whether that is negligent parenting or not would depend on the actual outcomes of extensive medical research.
Until such research is available, it's all a foggy area of moral value, which of course varies from person to person. I think it is unwise to have policy created based on this.

There is no such thing as absolutely certainty of zero risk. And no-one is being punished - perhaps the child by being unnecessarily exposed to a potential disease by not being vaccinated, but not the parents. The parents are simply being told that they are being held accountable for their choices.

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.

I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation.

bt50 · April 14, 2015

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place? I do believe that those who worry about vaccine related illness are a bit far-fetched, and agree that there are huge benefits behind vaccination programs.

My issue is that until there is certain proof that there is no risk associated with vaccination, it is wrong to punish parents for not wanting to subject their child to the potential risk, when compared to the risk of infection. Whether that is negligent parenting or not would depend on the actual outcomes of extensive medical research.

Until such research is available, it's all a foggy area of moral value, which of course varies from person to person. I think it is unwise to have policy created based on this. There is no such thing as absolutely certainty of zero risk. And no-one is being punished - perhaps the child by being unnecessarily exposed to a potential disease by not being vaccinated, but not the parents. The parents are simply being told that they are being held accountable for their choices.

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.

I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation. That's a point of view.

You could also argue that rather than a punishment for those that don't immunise, welfare is an incentive for those who do.

Glass half empty v glass half full

Tesla · April 14, 2015

Vaccinating has benefits to society, rather than not vaccinating having costs to society. It's an important distinction. In other words, someone choosing to not get vaccinated doesn't create a cost for society or have any negative consequences, rather it's a loss of the benefit or positive consequences to society that would come from being vaccinated.

What about the increased medical costs of treating people with preventable diseases rather than the cheaper alternative of just preventing them?

Sure, if you read above I've already covered this. If that's the argument you want to make, I'm all for it. But, then we'd have to basically tax anything and everything that significantly increases the chances/costs of someone needing publicly funded medical treatment. Including what job you do, what activities you do in your spare time, what you eat, what car you drive, etc. Each of those is a cost driver for your publicly funded health care, and as such there should be a tax on unhealthy food, on unsafe cars, on more dangerous jobs, on more dangerous leisure activities, etc.

So if we want to implement a complete and efficient health care pricing system like that, I'm all for it, but I dont see it being a reality any time soon. So until there is a comprehensive system like that, IMO it's unfair to pick and choose where health care pricing is applied, and so arguments like yours dont hold any merit under current circumstances.

Tesla · April 14, 2015

Vaccines don't work on an individual basis. They work by vaccinating the population. Choosing to not vaccinate is akin to saying "I don't want to pay taxes. There are plenty of others who will pay their taxes, so I won't bother." In essence, you enjoy the benefits of society, without contributing.

Like I said, if these diseases flared up again in our society

The whole point is preventing it from flaring up again in society. Why should 20 innocent kids die until we decide to do something about it for something thats so easily preventable in the first place?

I do believe that those who worry about vaccine related illness are a bit far-fetched, and agree that there are huge benefits behind vaccination programs.

My issue is that until there is certain proof that there is no risk associated with vaccination, it is wrong to punish parents for not wanting to subject their child to the potential risk, when compared to the risk of infection. Whether that is negligent parenting or not would depend on the actual outcomes of extensive medical research.

Until such research is available, it's all a foggy area of moral value, which of course varies from person to person. I think it is unwise to have policy created based on this.

There is no such thing as absolutely certainty of zero risk. And no-one is being punished - perhaps the child by being unnecessarily exposed to a potential disease by not being vaccinated, but not the parents. The parents are simply being told that they are being held accountable for their choices.

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.

I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation.

That's a point of view.

You could also argue that rather than a punishment for those that don't immunise, welfare is an incentive for those who do.

Glass half empty v glass half full

There are a number of reasons why you can't make that argument, I think the easiest one is that parents still receive the payment if the reason for their children not being immunised if it's on religious grounds. So there isn't a link between receiving the payment in question and having your children vaccinated.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Tesla

AyeCee · April 14, 2015

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.
I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation.
That's a point of view.
You could also argue that rather than a punishment for those that don't immunise, welfare is an incentive for those who do.
Glass half empty v glass half full

Lol, nice try, but if it was a new payment as a result of getting immunised, it would be an incentive. Taking away already existing payments for not meeting a new requirement is a punishment, especially when some families are excluded from having to meet this requirement.

I'm all for eliminating welfare, don't worry, but lets not joke around here. Also, another issue is that we're forgetting that personal beliefs are only a small reason for why a portion of society aren't immunised. There would suddenly be a decent amount of people disadvantaged due to logistically not being able to have their children vaccinated.

bt50 · April 14, 2015

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.
I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation.

That's a point of view.

You could also argue that rather than a punishment for those that don't immunise, welfare is an incentive for those who do.

Glass half empty v glass half full

Lol, nice try, but if it was a new payment as a result of getting immunised, it would be an incentive. Taking away already existing payments for not meeting a new requirement is a punishment, especially when some families are excluded from having to meet this requirement.

I'm all for eliminating welfare, don't worry, but lets not joke around here. Also, another issue is that we're forgetting that personal beliefs are only a small reason for why a portion of society aren't immunised. There would suddenly be a decent amount of people disadvantaged due to logistically not being able to have their children vaccinated. Haha nah you just do what some companies do with jobs; no one gets welfare any more, but we have a new supplement payment available for people that immunise...

But yeh I concede, logic not strong with that argument

Shahanga · April 14, 2015

Yes, they're being held accountable for their choices through punishment. It's not an incentive to get vaccinated, the currently touted idea is to stop payments for those who don't get their children immunised. That is punishment.
I'd like to point out that if I had children, I would be getting them immunised. However I also believe that it is wrong to coerce parents into making a rash decision on something that still has legitimate concerns floating around it, especially in a healthy country where chance of infection is very low. If there was a sudden burst of disease, I would be all for compulsory immunisation, as it would be saving lives, but this is not the current situation.

That's a point of view.
You could also argue that rather than a punishment for those that don't immunise, welfare is an incentive for those who do.
Glass half empty v glass half full Lol, nice try, but if it was a new payment as a result of getting immunised, it would be an incentive. Taking away already existing payments for not meeting a new requirement is a punishment, especially when some families are excluded from having to meet this requirement.
I'm all for eliminating welfare, don't worry, but lets not joke around here. Also, another issue is that we're forgetting that personal beliefs are only a small reason for why a portion of society aren't immunised. There would suddenly be a decent amount of people disadvantaged due to logistically not being able to have their children vaccinated. Haha nah you just do what some companies do with jobs; no one gets welfare any more, but we have a new supplement payment available for people that immunise...
But yeh I concede, logic not strong with that argument

Actually this argument is a strong as Tesla's (in regards to them not damaging society as immunisation is an advantage, or whatever the exact words were). Welfare payments shouldn't be consider "a right", they should be given as part of an agreement that you are prepared to be a reasonable member of our society (pretty much every payment has some sort of condition, so this is effectively policy). If that's not for you, then by all means don't participate, but don't expect to get a reward for thumbing your nose at the rest of us.

Honestly Tesla you wouldn't be as objective about this if you had a kid and they couldn't be immunised due to their poor health.

cadete · April 14, 2015

This Budget is going to be very interesting for both parties...

The Polls are saying that the Libs and Abbott have recovered a bit from looking shithouse to average, which is of course still has them in a crap position but its significant shift for a PM who most experts have written of as being replaced by the Mid Semester Break.

The other thing is that Shorten can not afford to hit this Budget for six because he is going to be bowled a Mark Taylor lollipop from the most unpopular Treasurer in my lifetime.

If he does not do this he could be in trouble himself because regardless of Abbott's mass unpopularity Shorten is not a great speaker and all though Abbott continues to make his own well publicised dumb gaffs in the media he is still beating Shorten up in Parliament... where Shorten should be really make much bigger in roads.

Personally I think Shorten is the type who will always make a better PM than an Opposition Leader and I like his the more moderate position he is trying to take the ALP back to but considering the strength of the Left currently in the ALP in comparison to the past twenty or so years he has to make every point count when Hockey delivers what inevitably will be a badly presented unpopular Budget... to make the public see him as their next PM.

thisphantomfortress · April 15, 2015

If he does not do this he could be in trouble himself because regardless of Abbott's mass unpopularity Shorten is not a great speaker and all though Abbott continues to make his own well publicised dumb gaffs in the media he is still beating Shorten up in Parliament... where Shorten should be really make much bigger in roads.

Since Feburary Abbott's satisfaction rating has gone up 9% while Shorten's has gone down 9%. The budget is going to be an important time for the ALP to try and reverse this trend. I get the feeling that Shorten will take them to the next election but if ever his leadership is under threat it is probably now.

bt50 · April 15, 2015

If he does not do this he could be in trouble himself because regardless of Abbott's mass unpopularity Shorten is not a great speaker and all though Abbott continues to make his own well publicised dumb gaffs in the media he is still beating Shorten up in Parliament... where Shorten should be really make much bigger in roads.

Since Feburary Abbott's satisfaction rating has gone up 9% while Shorten's has gone down 9%. The budget is going to be an important time for the ALP to try and reverse this trend. I get the feeling that Shorten will take them to the next election but if ever his leadership is under threat it is probably now.

Lel, surely even the ALP wouldn't be stupid enough to knife another leader at this point in time...

Deeming · April 15, 2015

If he does not do this he could be in trouble himself because regardless of Abbott's mass unpopularity Shorten is not a great speaker and all though Abbott continues to make his own well publicised dumb gaffs in the media he is still beating Shorten up in Parliament... where Shorten should be really make much bigger in roads.

Since Feburary Abbott's satisfaction rating has gone up 9% while Shorten's has gone down 9%. The budget is going to be an important time for the ALP to try and reverse this trend. I get the feeling that Shorten will take them to the next election but if ever his leadership is under threat it is probably now.

Lel, surely even the ALP wouldn't be stupid enough to knife another leader at this point in time...

I think the budget will be fine. They should slash costs and spending but unfortunately that is not popular and they don't have the salesmen to get anywhere near there. Even if they wanted to with the rainbow senate, any changes they'd want to make would be blocked. I think they are resigned to only tinkering with the budget, meanwhile our debt increases.

Deeming · April 15, 2015

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/daniel-andrews-makes-major-announcement-about-east-west-link/story-fni0fit3-1227304361140
$420 million plus for not building a road, less than expected but still a massive waste of taxpayer money and in the meantime our roads will get more congested

cadete · April 15, 2015

If he does not do this he could be in trouble himself because regardless of Abbott's mass unpopularity Shorten is not a great speaker and all though Abbott continues to make his own well publicised dumb gaffs in the media he is still beating Shorten up in Parliament... where Shorten should be really make much bigger in roads.

Since Feburary Abbott's satisfaction rating has gone up 9% while Shorten's has gone down 9%. The budget is going to be an important time for the ALP to try and reverse this trend. I get the feeling that Shorten will take them to the next election but if ever his leadership is under threat it is probably now.

Lel, surely even the ALP wouldn't be stupid enough to knife another leader at this point in time...

They wont...

But the bloke is an opening batsman batting against Bangladesh at the moment and only getting scores in the mid 40's... its clearly a concern ESP when you consider the whole new "One Term Government Theory" is yet to be proven at a Federal Level.

It appears the Libs are not dead yet like so many thought and Shorten's performances in the media and ESP in Parliament are a big part of this...

thisphantomfortress · April 15, 2015

It appears the Libs are not dead yet like so many thought and Shorten's performances in the media and ESP in Parliament are a big part of this...

Shorten is pretty poor in question time from what I've seen. I'm sure outside of a small minority most voters wouldn't have any idea how most politians perform in parliament though.

Tesla · April 15, 2015

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/daniel-andrews-makes-major-announcement-about-east-west-link/story-fni0fit3-1227304361140
$420 million plus for not building a road, less than expected but still a massive waste of taxpayer money and in the meantime our roads will get more congested

He said the Government would renegotiate with banks to take over a $3 billion credit facility the consortium set up.
The rates, fees, swaps and obligations related to the credit facility will now be worked through between the financiers and the state, Mr Andrews said.
That money will then be used to help fund the Melbourne Metro Rail Project.

There's plenty more 'hidden' compensation like this, whereby the government is going to overpay for finance. I'm sure theres an agreement with the construction side of the consortium as well to give them some work at an inflated price as well. So $420m is a bullshit figure, it's really much more.

Surely today is a new low in Victorian politics, the government paying out a massive amount of money to not build a road :droy:

Edited April 15, 2015 by Tesla

jw1739 · April 15, 2015

The repercussions of this are going to hurt us for years to come.

$420m+ gone from the bottom line, and by rights should be added to the cost of the metro project, which I will be surprised if I live to see.

Next, sell the Port of Melbourne for peanuts and then find that you can't remove all those 50 level crossings after all...

What a disgrace.

cadete · April 15, 2015

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/daniel-andrews-makes-major-announcement-about-east-west-link/story-fni0fit3-1227304361140
$420 million plus for not building a road, less than expected but still a massive waste of taxpayer money and in the meantime our roads will get more congested

He said the Government would renegotiate with banks to take over a $3 billion credit facility the consortium set up.
The rates, fees, swaps and obligations related to the credit facility will now be worked through between the financiers and the state, Mr Andrews said.
That money will then be used to help fund the Melbourne Metro Rail Project.

There's plenty more 'hidden' compensation like this, whereby the government is going to overpay for finance. I'm sure theres an agreement with the construction side of the consortium as well to give them some work at an inflated price as well. So $420m is a bullshit figure, it's really much more.
Surely today is a new low in Victorian politics, the government paying out a massive amount of money to not build a road

I agree the road needs to be built and this contract stuff is a complete joke but the Liberals really must share some blame in this situation...

Victorians have since Kennett and the Brumby Government(s) have become used to Proactive State Governments from both sides of Parliament, but the previous Liberal Government did nothing but sit on their hands save a small amount of money and so all of their focus appeared to be purely on EW Link.

Andrews only had to focus on one Liberal Policy and then also made smart election promises like a public holiday for the Grand Final, Motorcycle Lane Splitting, Train Crossing Fixes and 24 hour weekend Public Transport... this is the kind of stuff Victorians have become accustomed to and want to see from a State Government.

I voted Liberal in the election because I will never vote ALP due to historical reasons... but I can say I was too unhappy with the outcome.

Shahanga · April 15, 2015

The repercussions of this are going to hurt us for years to come.
$420m+ gone from the bottom line, and by rights should be added to the cost of the metro project, which I will be surprised if I live to see.
Next, sell the Port of Melbourne for peanuts and then find that you can't remove all those 50 level crossings after all...
What a disgrace.

Dan's got 2 project cancellations under his belt now bet he's chomping at the bit for a third. I wonder if Sportsbet will run a book on it?

My advice - don't leave the job half done, would be a shame to not hit an unemployment target of 20% like he clearly desires.

Tesla · April 15, 2015

Ffs seriously need a media outlet to pick up on this BS, the government can borrow vast sums of money at like 2% or whatever it currently is, why are they needing this $3bn credit facility? At what rate will money be borrowed? You think these financiers have given away their right to compensation if that compensation won't come from the government taking over the credit facility?

And I'll believe the Metro is being built when I see it, so who knows what happens then (put these financing costs down as costs associated with planning the Metro?)

10/10 scam, what more would you expect from a union man.

Tesla · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Pete Heartspur · April 15, 2015

Seriously, who gives a shit? We now have a public holiday for the grand final parade!

Shahanga · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.

Was that $ 1500000000?

$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing.

Deeming · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.
Was that $ 1500000000?
$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing.

Not for 'nothing' for trying (pointlessly) to save the loss of inner city votes to the Greens

cadete · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.
Was that $ 1500000000?
$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing.

Not for 'nothing' for trying (pointlessly) to save the loss of inner city votes to the Greens

So true...

The ALP needs on a Nationwide Level needs to face facts that it is going to continue to lose these Inner City seats to the Greens because the PPL living in these places (I know as I live in such a place) are increasingly those with professional jobs and who dont have to worry about voting for their livelihoods anymore and so simply dont.

The fact Balmain which is across the Anzac Bridge went to the Greens in the recent NSW election in my mind if I was a ALP Strategist has to be the last straw to call for a major rethink on which seats to tackle.

The party needs to focus now on Lower Middle Class Australia where PPL and primarily families need Governments to help them and tackle the Outer Suburbs as that is where they are going to win elections. They need to forget about electorates where PPL are happy to throw their votes away on fictitious Political Parties.

Shahanga · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.

Was that $ 1500000000?

$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing.

Not for 'nothing' for trying (pointlessly) to save the loss of inner city votes to the Greens They won 3 of the 4 seats they were apparently worried about.

My numbers were wrong too. 2.5billion from Tony. So the tax payers paid about a billion for the alp to win each seat. Nice use of our money.

I know of nothing that compares to this. #victoriaaustraliaszimbabwe

cadete · April 15, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.
Was that $ 1500000000?
$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing. Not for 'nothing' for trying (pointlessly) to save the loss of inner city votes to the Greens They won 3 of the 4 seats they were apparently worried about.
My numbers were wrong too. 2.5billion from Tony. So the tax payers paid about a billion for the alp to win each seat. Nice use of our money.
I know of nothing that compares to this. #victoriaaustraliaszimbabwe

They did win a few of these seats narrowly but it be a brave man to say that next time they are going to be so lucky... the ALP needs to stop thinking Gough and more Hawke/Keating in my opinion in order to win more elections on the Eastern Seaboard and Federally.

I use to to my ALP friends the analogy of that focusing on Gough is like focusing on Gazza Snr and the Geelong sides of the 90's as a Cats fan. Gazza provided the greatest football I ever saw and still is my greatest hero TBH (After JFK) but ultimately never provided me anything like the true delight that the balanced Geelong Teams from 2007 to 2011 of providing sustained success.

Gough was the same with Medicare and few other good things he did... but he could not keep a successful government going.

Moderate Politics is what forms strong ALP Governments like what we saw with Brumby and Hawke... not pandering to the disenfranchised who can now afford to throw their votes away.

Edited April 15, 2015 by cadete

Tesla · April 16, 2015

The reason I'm onto this straight away is because the whole time what was being reported is that the construction side of the consortium was happy to just be paid the costs incurred, and forego compensation in exchange for more government work (obviously at an inflated price to provide them with the 'compensation') whereas the financial side of the consortium wanted the full compensation, as there really wasnt anything else for them to get from the government. But in the end Daniel Andrews has figured out how to do the same sort of deal with the financial side of the consortium as well, despite how ridiculously unnecessary it is. There's still probably $1bn+ compensation here, saying it's $340m is a load of bullshit.

Plus don't forget Tony's taking his cash back.

Was that $ 1500000000?

$2500000000 lost for ....... Nothing.Not for 'nothing' for trying (pointlessly) to save the loss of inner city votes to the GreensThey won 3 of the 4 seats they were apparently worried about.

My numbers were wrong too. 2.5billion from Tony. So the tax payers paid about a billion for the alp to win each seat. Nice use of our money.

I know of nothing that compares to this. #victoriaaustraliaszimbabwe Wasn't it 3bn from Tony? It wasn't all new money though, some was meant to go to finish the ring road upgrade but Napthine asked Tony to redirect it to the EWL. It would be nice if this fact was remembered and that money went back to finishing the ring road upgrade.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Tesla

Tesla · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones :hmm:

cadete · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

Edited April 16, 2015 by cadete

Tesla · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

I'm well aware of the inefficiencies of the government, it's basically what half my posts in this thread relate to and why I'm in favour of smaller government.

Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give Andrews shit for only cancelling things until he finally does undertake a project :up:

Deeming · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

I'm well aware of the inefficiencies of the government, it's basically what half my posts in this thread relate to and why I'm in favour of smaller government.
Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give Andrews shit for only cancelling things until he finally does undertake a project

Daniel Andrews boasted about the West Gate Distributor being "shovel-ready" so criticism on lack of doing anything is justified.

cadete · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

I'm well aware of the inefficiencies of the government, it's basically what half my posts in this thread relate to and why I'm in favour of smaller government.
Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give Andrews shit for only cancelling things until he finally does undertake a project

I am sorry but I really think you clearly do not understand about the mechanics of Government if you think that “Smaller Government” is going to see Public Works Programs like a Level Crossing Removals being done more promptly.

A quick look at History explains as such: wherever you want to go back as far back to The New Deal (Or similar programs done in Australia during the Depression) or more recently to things like the Building Education Revolution. (A program that I actually worked on - So I think I know what I am talking about.)

I am not saying this as a massive lover of Big Government either but its just a basic reality that Small Government is the worst possible way of achieving such programs as quickly as possible.

Tesla · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

I'm well aware of the inefficiencies of the government, it's basically what half my posts in this thread relate to and why I'm in favour of smaller government.

Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give Andrews shit for only cancelling things until he finally does undertake a project :up:

I am sorry but I really think you clearly do not understand about the mechanics of Government if you think that “Smaller Government” is going to see Public Works Programs like a Level Crossing Removals being done more promptly.

A quick look at History explains as such: wherever you want to go back as far back to The New Deal (Or similar programs done in Australia during the Depression) or more recently to things like the Building Education Revolution. (A program that I actually worked on - So I think I know what I am talking about.)

I am not saying this as a massive lover of Big Government either but its just a basic reality that Small Government is the worst possible way of achieving such programs as quickly as possible.

The point of smaller government is that the government (inefficient) is building less things, and the private sector (efficient) more things, so overall there is a greater efficiency.

cadete · April 16, 2015

So apart from cancelling shit, what has Andrews done? Where are his level crossing removals? I see work has started on the St Albans one, but that was started under Napthine, where are the new ones under Andrews? I guess I should be happy that Andrews didn't cancel the level crossing removals started under Napthine rather than expecting him to start removing some new ones

No offence mate, but you clearly have no concept of the business of Government or the Bureaucracy involved in Government if you are expecting such things to happen so quickly...

I can tell you that it takes a year to move a fucken Post Box across a road let alone start major works programs.

I'm well aware of the inefficiencies of the government, it's basically what half my posts in this thread relate to and why I'm in favour of smaller government.
Doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give Andrews shit for only cancelling things until he finally does undertake a project

I am sorry but I really think you clearly do not understand about the mechanics of Government if you think that “Smaller Government” is going to see Public Works Programs like a Level Crossing Removals being done more promptly.

A quick look at History explains as such: wherever you want to go back as far back to The New Deal (Or similar programs done in Australia during the Depression) or more recently to things like the Building Education Revolution. (A program that I actually worked on - So I think I know what I am talking about.)

I am not saying this as a massive lover of Big Government either but its just a basic reality that Small Government is the worst possible way of achieving such programs as quickly as possible.

The point of smaller government is that the government (inefficient) is building less things, and the private sector (efficient) more things, so overall there is a greater efficiency.

I see your point but this is not always the best solution... for stuff like operating PT then obviously its the right way to go because PT never makes a profit.

However there are also plenty of situations where it is not the best idea like obviously the Bats Scheme or even the lesser known Solar Panel Scheme for schools that Rudd setup.

Which saw me in my job trying to chase up important necessary documentation from Companies that were created by largely Migrants over night, who set up solar panels they knew nothing about on school's roofs, then did not even turn them on and then literally disappeared of the face of the earth in six months time.

I literally had emails bouncing back to me from companies whose official email addresses where shit like: dodgeykent@bigpond.com.au and then I had annoying PPL in Canberra on my arse because I could not supply them with the documentation from these companies who had disappeared of the face of the earth.

Edited April 16, 2015 by cadete

Tesla · April 16, 2015