The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Author
Message
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Does anyone have any specific examples where the Government are employing 20 people to do the work of 10 highly motivated people?

Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
My experience is we need more teachers, policeman, ambulance workers, nurses and doctors and bugger me sideways if they aren't all public servants
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
batfink wrote:
notorganic wrote:
batfink wrote:
WaMackie wrote:
No matter what political allegiance you may have, Julia Gillard is unfit to govern this country, and she must go immediately.

That is all;\.


this so much.....


To be replaced by who? By all measures that Gillard can be judged as "unfit", Abbott scores no better.



well malcolm turnbull would be my pick.....abbott as an individual scores no better , howvere the coalition scores better than the ALP on a per party basis....hands down.....

shame Abbott is the leader......


What do you think about Turnbull and his blatant lies about the NBN project? His complete lack of foresight in the scope of his ministry? His inability to articulate any actual policy?

Is someone who defies the laws of physics and blatantly lies to the public 'fit' to be a Prime Minister?

batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
Everyone knows what happens when the Govt 'cuts' Public Service right?

If you don't, it's that they always cut stupidly or too deeply, then need the actual people back, but they can't hire a full time worker because that'd screw up their 'we cut the waste' mantras. So they hire 'consultants', which cost three times as much and do less work and have no investment.

The next government figures out they are spending so much on consultants, so they start hiring full time again.

Which leads to the next 'waste cutting' where the cycle is repeated.




simple part of all this is....productivity in Australian workers is pathetic.....

the work ethic is gone......now it's all about what my rights are, and i don't give a toss about my obligations or responsibilities...........


You're missing the point. The work ethic has nothing to do with it, because the work still needs to be done. The point is that public service cuts are smokescreens that end up costing more than they ever save.

Edited by macktheknife: 20/8/2012 09:31:16 AM



of course work ethics have something to do with it......if you only need 10 highly productive people to carry out a task why employ 20?????? it's just waste.....

and as far as the NBN goes the principle is good but the design and implementation are woeful....

its also some thing that private companies would roll out far more efficiently and competetively........


Again you're missing the point. Work needs to be done, cutting to achieve 'waste reduction' merely hides the subsequent hiring of consultants which then becomes it's own problem, solved by more full time workers which then feeds into the next cycle of 'waste reduction'. The work needs to be done regardless of how many people it takes.

In a system as large as the public service there is little chance your 'hire 10 better workers instead of 20' will make any significant difference, because you won't have a hope in hell of getting 200% more productivity from half the number of staff. Because that's your viewpoint, 10 workers doing the work that 20 do now.

In localised areas it could be done, but the vast majority of tasks in all work (let alone the public service) fill the people and time allotted, and the relative productivity of someone doing a specific role doesn't change much at all regardless of who you get to do it. Especially in frontline services where public service are regimented and done by rote because of how huge the bureaucracy involved is, meaning you can't change the script because the script is worked by thousands of people.

Your NBN paragraph is woefully incorrect even with that lack of detail.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Joffa wrote:
Does anyone have any specific examples where the Government are employing 20 people to do the work of 10 highly motivated people?


:shock: :shock: your not serious are you Joffa.....
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Joffa wrote:
My experience is we need more teachers, policeman, ambulance workers, nurses and doctors and bugger me sideways if they aren't all public servants


wouldn't need more police or firies if they works 5 days on and 2 days off like the rest of the fucken population........

your kidding yourself if you think 100% of public sector workers pull their weight......


Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
batfink wrote:
notorganic wrote:
batfink wrote:
WaMackie wrote:
No matter what political allegiance you may have, Julia Gillard is unfit to govern this country, and she must go immediately.

That is all;\.


this so much.....


To be replaced by who? By all measures that Gillard can be judged as "unfit", Abbott scores no better.



well malcolm turnbull would be my pick.....abbott as an individual scores no better , howvere the coalition scores better than the ALP on a per party basis....hands down.....

shame Abbott is the leader......


What do you think about Turnbull and his blatant lies about the NBN project? His complete lack of foresight in the scope of his ministry? His inability to articulate any actual policy?

Is someone who defies the laws of physics and blatantly lies to the public 'fit' to be a Prime Minister?

batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
Everyone knows what happens when the Govt 'cuts' Public Service right?

If you don't, it's that they always cut stupidly or too deeply, then need the actual people back, but they can't hire a full time worker because that'd screw up their 'we cut the waste' mantras. So they hire 'consultants', which cost three times as much and do less work and have no investment.

The next government figures out they are spending so much on consultants, so they start hiring full time again.

Which leads to the next 'waste cutting' where the cycle is repeated.




simple part of all this is....productivity in Australian workers is pathetic.....

the work ethic is gone......now it's all about what my rights are, and i don't give a toss about my obligations or responsibilities...........


You're missing the point. The work ethic has nothing to do with it, because the work still needs to be done. The point is that public service cuts are smokescreens that end up costing more than they ever save.

Edited by macktheknife: 20/8/2012 09:31:16 AM



of course work ethics have something to do with it......if you only need 10 highly productive people to carry out a task why employ 20?????? it's just waste.....

and as far as the NBN goes the principle is good but the design and implementation are woeful....

its also some thing that private companies would roll out far more efficiently and competetively........


Again you're missing the point. Work needs to be done, cutting to achieve 'waste reduction' merely hides the subsequent hiring of consultants which then becomes it's own problem, solved by more full time workers which then feeds into the next cycle of 'waste reduction'. The work needs to be done regardless of how many people it takes.

In a system as large as the public service there is little chance your 'hire 10 better workers instead of 20' will make any significant difference, because you won't have a hope in hell of getting 200% more productivity from half the number of staff. Because that's your viewpoint, 10 workers doing the work that 20 do now.

In localised areas it could be done, but the vast majority of tasks in all work (let alone the public service) fill the people and time allotted, and the relative productivity of someone doing a specific role doesn't change much at all regardless of who you get to do it. Especially in frontline services where public service are regimented and done by rote because of how huge the bureaucracy involved is, meaning you can't change the script because the script is worked by thousands of people.

Your NBN paragraph is woefully incorrect even with that lack of detail.


Do tell about the NBN, seeing you know all......i have engineering mates and contractors who are laughing all the way to the bank and are telling me of the install methods and design, i am in communications......large sections of the NBN are purchsed redundant fibre paths that are already in the ground and about to be made obsolete....if that isnt stupidity then what is....??????



Edited by batfink: 20/8/2012 12:07:36 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
You're the guy saying it's inefficient and private companies can do it 'far more efficiently'. Where is evidence of that?

What 'install methods and design' is letting your mates 'laugh all the way to the bank'?

These fibre paths (which ones?) are about to be made obsolete by what?

Prove your statements.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
You're the guy saying it's inefficient and private companies can do it 'far more efficiently'. Where is evidence of that?

What 'install methods and design' is letting your mates 'laugh all the way to the bank'?

These fibre paths (which ones?) are about to be made obsolete by what?

Prove your statements.



i laugh when you guys asked for everything to be proved or statistics.......

if i remember correctly it still has been proven that smoking causes cancer....it only increases the chances.


you really must be naive to think the public sector isn't inflated and that the NBN is a well thought out network design........are you aware that optus and telstra sold fibre networks to the NBN company??????at huge expense to the government, and now telstra & optus are upgrading their own private fibre networks??????sounds like great vision by telstra and optus but not by Gillard.......

Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Rudd’s debt to burden future generations

Date August 1, 2009 Category Opinion Read later

Australians once left their children better off than themselves, but Labor’s wastrel ways have ended all that, writes the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull.

The 2012 Crash is Coming

ead This Before the Stock Market Crashes!


Kevin Rudd’s latest manifesto acclaims the years ahead as "the building decade". So far, all this Prime Minister has built is a mountain of debt. We are heading for $315 billion of total debt – the largest increase in borrowings of any government in peacetime.

This debt represents about $13,000 for every Australian – and never has so much public debt been accumulated with so little to show for it.

There has been $23 billion in cash handouts – borrowed, then given away. There has been $14.7 billion to be spent on Julia Gillard memorial assembly halls – coming to a primary school near you whether it is needed or not.

And despite all the nation-building rhetoric, there is no more investment proposed by Rudd in road and rail than was already committed to by the Coalition.

Advertisement

Labor’s wasteful spending is not only a poor use of Commonwealth funds. It also has the effect of denying future governments the opportunity to direct more taxpayer resources to areas of greatest need without imposing significant cuts or higher taxes.

This is a key point about Labor’s short-sightedness. As the nation ages demographically, and costs of health and pensions rise, the damage to public finances from Labor’s debt addiction will be profound and ongoing.

When working Australians are asked to repay the mountain of debt incurred by this Government – a massive task facing taxpayers for years to come – they will be entitled to ask: what purpose did it serve; how did our communities benefit; how did all this debt make our economy stronger and more prosperous?

Will they be satisfied by the 6000 words of tedious spin offered to readers of the Herald last weekend?

Rudd likes to style himself as a philosopher-king issuing edicts from on high about how the world should be governed. The fact is this Prime Minister is as poll-driven as any politician. He is forever adapting his message to suit the mood of the day. He changes with the seasons.

In 2007 he was an economic conservative – no daylight between him and his predecessor John Howard on economic matters.

By late 2008 he was a democratic socialist again, chastising Howard as a neo-liberal extremist and proposing that the only answer to the global financial crisis was to put government at the centre of the economy.

And now, as his essay last weekend showed, he is moving back towards the centre, warning about the dangers of excessive levels of government debt and the need to return budgets to surplus. Not so much a prime minister as a political fashionista.

If there is one consistency in his economic meanderings, it is a breathtaking, Orwellian disregard for truth.

Consider some of the falsehoods in his latest essay.

Once again he accuses the Coalition of being a leading force in an imagined neo-liberal experiment that brought on a global financial crisis.

So determined to cast himself as the Great Helmsman, he is unable to credit the Howard government for leaving Australia better prepared than most to weather the storm.

Nor could he pay tribute to his own Labor predecessors for their role in creating a more open, flexible and resilient market economy.

Instead, in Mr Rudd’s fantasy world the past 25 years have been a bleak period of free-market extremism in which not just John Howard but Labor leaders Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are cast as willing cohorts in a vast global conspiracy to impose on an unsuspecting world an ideology of unrestrained greed.

How, then, could it be that the prudential and financial regulation put in place by the Coalition government has resulted in Australia having, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the best regulated financial system in the world?

How could it be that, unlike the United States, Australia suffered no subprime mortgage crisis? Indeed subprime mortgages were less than 1 per cent of all mortgages outstanding versus close to 15 per cent in the US. And as the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, noted this week, mortgage defaults in Australia remain at historically low levels.

How could it be that Australia’s banks remain among the most secure and best capitalised in the world?

The answer, which Rudd cannot bring himself to utter, is that the Coalition left him with a national balance sheet free of debt and with cash in the bank.

While Rudd has piled billions of dollars of debt on to the shoulders of present and future generations, the Coalition paid off all government debt and reached across the generations by establishing the Future Fund and making provision for the payment of previously unfunded public sector pensions.

Regulation of the financial system established by the Coalition has proved its worth, withstanding the test of the global financial crisis. When we look at the origins of the global financial crisis, we see a US mortgage market in which governments encouraged, and in some cases directed, the making of subprime loans – lending money to people whose prospects of repayment were poor.

Two huge government-guaranteed mortgage funds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underwrote about 70 per cent of residential mortgages.

Rudd said in his summer essay for The Monthly that he wanted government to be at the centre of the economy; that government was the antidote to all global ills.

Well, the truth is that if government had not been at the centre of the US mortgage market, if the US government had limited itself to prudential regulation as the Howard government had done, then we may not have had a subprime crisis at all and, as a consequence, we may not have had a global financial crisis.

Another example of playing fast and loose with the facts is his boast that Australia’s public debt is low, as a percentage of gross domestic product, relative to other developed countries. This is no thanks to Rudd. Plainly, it is a consequence of inheriting a government with no net debt, and cash at the bank.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently summarised the size and composition of fiscal stimulus packages around the world for the years 2008 to 2010. Australia’s stimulus was the third largest, at 5.4 per cent of GDP, behind only South Korea and the US.

Another falsehood in Rudd’s economic narrative is his claim that Australia is experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

In fact, Australia faced far worse economic conditions in the early 1990s when, under Labor, unemployment was above 10 per cent for more than two years.

Of course Rudd’s constant rhetoric of crisis had a point. It enabled him to justify extraordinary levels of borrowing and spending. And it is in that borrowing and spending that we see the biggest barrier to speedy recovery. All that debt will have to be repaid.

Whichever way he tries to spin his message, the simple, brutal truth is that the higher the level of government debt, the greater will be the burden of taxes and interest rates people will carry.

For while you might think a lot can be said in 6000 words, the one unspoken truth in Rudd’s latest offering is that Australians are going to be paying a high price for Labor’s extravagant and poorly targeted borrowing and spending. Heavy debt will force governments to consider cuts or tax hikes.

Only this week his Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, flagged the likelihood of increasing taxes if Labor was to spend more on public health.

The Rudd Government’s debt-fuelled spending also risks reviving an inflationary spiral. Likewise, in the housing market, Rudd may well have cause to fear the impact on home affordability if interest rates pressures begin to mount. He complains in his essay that house prices have "soared far above the true long-term worth". What will he have to say to the thousands of young couples encouraged by his Government’s increase to the first-home owners grant to get into the market when interest rates were at a historic low? Will they thank him as the cost of their mortgage begins to spiral, putting stress on family budgets?

And the children of those young home buyers? As they reach working age they, too, will be burdened by having to pay higher-than-necessary taxes to meet the punitive interest costs of repaying the massive Rudd debt.

This is going to raise fundamental questions about whether Australia can continue to live up to what all of us have come to expect of our nation.

For at least 60 years, it has been a proud boast that every generation of Australians has left its children better off than their parents. As Rudd Labor’s debt piles up unrelentingly on the shoulders of taxpayers of the future, we have to ask the tough questions: will we be the first generation not to deliver on that dream? Will we, through reckless and irresponsible decisions, deny the next generation their fair share of opportunities in life?

For all his sermons and essays, Rudd will not be able to talk his way out of having to grapple with the consequences of his poor policy choices. Soon enough, he will have to confront the reality of a budget in crisis.

He knows there will have to be spending cuts. He knows the additional cost to the budget of spiralling government interest repayments will mean putting essential government services under the microscope. And what he won’t admit is that his policies will lead to higher taxes.

Roxon’s concession this week to the inevitability of rising taxes under Labor is the first signal from within government that it is beginning to comprehend the nature of the mess it has made of the budget, and the policy dilemmas arising from that failure.

It will do everything it can to tap dance through to the next election, but the day of reckoning for Labor cannot be forestalled forever.

For while it is clear that this is a Government adept at political spin, it has no credible strategy or plan to get Australia through the difficult conditions ahead.

If the Prime Minister has a detailed strategy to reduce Labor’s debt, why wouldn’t this be the centrepiece of debate at this weekend’s ALP national conference?

The truth is, Rudd has no plan. Meanwhile, the costs of Labor’s big spend become more apparent by the day.

Australians are not gullible. When they see Labor dispersing a record $124 billion in new spending, they will soon begin to ask whether the community is getting value for money.

There is now far greater scrutiny, for example, of the costs of the so-called building education revolution. The Commonwealth Auditor-General has this $14.7 billion program under investigation after evidence that it has been grossly mismanaged, that school communities are being provided with facilities they don’t want or need, and that far too much money is being wasted.

It is bad enough that Labor has destroyed the nation’s balance sheet, once the strongest in the advanced world, in little more than 18 months. But even worse is the growing likelihood that the nation will have little or nothing to show for it, other than $315 billion of Federal Government bonds to repay.

It didn’t have to be this way. Australia went into the global economic downturn in a far stronger position than most of the advanced economies – debt free, with a budget $20 billion in surplus, and unemployment and interest rates at historic lows.

One of the great achievements of the Coalition government over 11 years was to record economic growth averaging at 3.6 per cent a year. Unemployment fell from more than 8 per cent to about 4 per cent. Real wages grew 21 per cent.

This success story was in part a reflection of sound financial and economic management by government, and the willingness to make hard decisions. But, more broadly, it reflected the hard work and enterprise of millions of Australians.

Just as Rudd cannot bring himself to acknowledge the efforts of predecessors in government, he seems unable to acknowledge the efforts of the Australian people. He tells us that he will build a "sustainable growth strategy" because "in the past, Australia relied almost exclusively on the roller-coaster of the boom and bust of the mining sector on the stockmarket".

Does Rudd really believe that Australians have been lazing around, doing nothing over all these years other than waiting to be spoonfed by our mining wealth? Does he not understand what truly makes this nation’s economy tick?

Is he unaware of the extraordinary growth of Australia’s services sector, especially education and tourism, as major export earners? Or the development of the wine industry?

Does he not know of the success overseas of Australian architectural and legal firms, of our farm sector, and of the strong international reputation of our doctors, nurses, teachers and engineers? And does he think that mining itself is just some fun-park ride on the sharemarket rather than an Australian success story characterised by high levels of investment, hard work, innovation and professionalism?

Australia’s progress in the past decade or more was built on the energy, ingenuity and intelligence of millions of Australians, aided and encouraged by good government policies. It is because Australia’s progress was built on such solid foundations that there is optimism of a return to high growth in the next few years.

The Howard years marked an era of AAA performance by the economy. The intrinsic strengths of that economic performance have allowed Australia to stand comparatively tall during the global downturn.

The Rudd Government would have done better to acknowledge those fundamental strengths, and to work in a measured and disciplined way to ensure nothing was done to undermine our capacity to emerge from this downturn as strong as ever.

A smarter way forward for this nation involves less debt, less risk, more discipline and more responsibility.

In his essay, Rudd offers no plan to promote small business enterprise. This is one of his blind spots. His 6000 words reveal no genuine understanding of what actually drives growth and jobs in our economy.

In contrast, the Coalition has been meeting small-business people at Jobs for Australia forums around the nation.

Drawing on what we have learnt, we have proposed a number of measures – tax loss carrybacks, fairer insolvency rules, better incentives for hiring apprentices and a major assault on bureaucratically imposed regulation and compliance costs.

These are all practical, pragmatic measures to support jobs and businesses in challenging times, but have only a modest budget impact. They aim to foster growth where it matters most – in the many hundreds of thousands of small to medium businesses enterprises that count for much of the nation’s economic horsepower.

Instead, in his essay Rudd speaks airily about increasing productivity – yet without offering one practical measure to do so.

Flexible labour markets have added immensely to productivity – yet Rudd has made labour markets less flexible. Competition in financial services has also added to productivity – yet Rudd’s ill-considered unlimited bank deposit guarantee wiped out many non-bank lenders and contributed to a dramatic increase in borrowing costs for small business.

In his essay, Mr Rudd boasts about his plans for the future. But he has not explained how he will finance the $43 billion he intends to dedicate to the national broadband network, and no business plan on how to make it viable.

On water security, our biggest environmental challenge, he is abandoning the vision of investing $10 billion in increasing water efficiency in rural Australia by diverting these funds to buy back more and more water entitlements without regard for the impact of those buybacks on food security or the communities that depend on them.

As ever, Rudd is more interested in the next day’s headlines. He is not interested in bedding down the hard policy choices.

He spends most of his time merely playing for political advantage – while staking hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money, and the nation’s future economic security, on his belief that government always knows best.

This is proving a foolish and reckless gamble. Rudd is relying on the savings of foreigners to bankroll what is essentially a strategy to protect Labor politically, not an economic strategy to safeguard the nation.

This is why, for the Coalition, the economy and the rapidly deteriorating state of our public finances remains the main game – the only game – in federal politics. For who among us takes seriously the Rudd Government’s claim that it can provide the leadership and discipline to bring our public finances back under control?

As a ready reckoner of the scale of the challenges facing the federal budget after 18 months of Labor in power, it is worth noting that for every word Rudd published last Saturday in the Herald, his Government is planning to accumulate more than $50 million in Commonwealth debt.

We know the Prime Minister is never short of a word. But it is this Prime Minister’s actions for which Australians will pay the heaviest price.

Large deficits for the best part of a decade, and debt for as far as the eye can see, do not represent strong foundations for the nation’s future.

So when Kevin Rudd speaks of the next 10 years as the "building decade", we in the Opposition will continue to ask: what capacity has this Government provided for Australians to build a stronger, more secure, and more prosperous future? What do Australians have to show for this massive accumulation of Labor debt?

If a Prime Minister cannot answer those questions effectively in 6000 words, we can only assume he does not have the answers.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/ruddx2019s-debt-to-burden-future-generations-20090731-e4gh.html#ixzz243HPN8cp

Edited by batfink: 20/8/2012 01:05:19 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
Why is asking for evidence to prove outlandish statements unreasonable?
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Joffa wrote:
Why is asking for evidence to prove outlandish statements unreasonable?



well ok...then prove they are outlandish statements???????

you have to be kidding yourself if you think the public sector is running lean and keen......


Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
You're the guy saying it's inefficient and private companies can do it 'far more efficiently'. Where is evidence of that?

What 'install methods and design' is letting your mates 'laugh all the way to the bank'?

These fibre paths (which ones?) are about to be made obsolete by what?

Prove your statements.



i laugh when you guys asked for everything to be proved or statistics.......

if i remember correctly it still has been proven that smoking causes cancer....it only increases the chances.


you really must be naive to think the public sector isn't inflated and that the NBN is a well thought out network design........are you aware that optus and telstra sold fibre networks to the NBN company??????at huge expense to the government, and now telstra & optus are upgrading their own private fibre networks??????sounds like great vision by telstra and optus but not by Gillard.......


What is badly thought out about the NBN design?

Should be a simple answer if it's so obvious and I'm so naive.

Optus and Telstra agreed to transfer their HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coaxial) customers over to NBNco (they are keeping the HFC for pay tv transmission, which is what these networks were originally intended for). This actually improves the NBN business case as it guarantees more customers on the NBN from an earlier period, as opposed to having customers stick to end of life HFC for their internet for god knows how long after the FTTH build is complete.

The HFC networks are limited in deployment (to the best of my knowledge there is no Optus or Telstra HFC in Darwin, Canberra and an extremely limited deployment in Perth), and obviously not rolled out in regional areas. They may have upgraded their HFC in relation to speed (with DOCIS 3.0 tech) but that hasn't improved the scope of the rollout, and many areas are already congested on HFC. That upgraded speed is still very much limited compared to what will be released in the next year or two by NBN. NBN will release 1000/400 speeds, HFC is essentially limited to a maximum of 100/1.5 and only subject to congestion.

The NBN is getting high speed broadband to 100% of the population, 93% by FTTH (which is future proof and upgradeable far beyond any existing or potential future technology other than FTTH), and the other 7% by vastly improved (when compared to existing services) fixed wireless and fixed satellite.

It replaces a nearly obsolete patchwork network made up of decrepit copper, obsolete and limited HFC networks and obscenely expensive private fibre deployments (go look up Telstra prices in South Brisbane exchange, that's the prices you'll pay with private enterprise taking over FTTH rollout).

It also removes Telstra wholesale monopoly on the majority of the last mile network in Australia, which held back this countries, allowing competition at the retail level in a manner that is fair to everyone involved and results in similar pricing with better technology that will place this country back up to the forefront of internet usage and speeds across the world.

So how isn't that good vision? You do realise that it was the National party who first introduced the idea of a FTTH build right? Only once Labor built it (and the Liberals lost the election) did they change their tune. Funny that.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
LOL..............the principle of an NBN is great fully support it........

don't agree with the implementation of it...............it's a given that EVERYTHING this government manages turns to shit simple.............

I am not talking about the HFC, i am talking about fibre links between regional centres purchased by the NBN from telstra and optus.....

Edited by batfink: 20/8/2012 01:20:31 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
just got off the phone from the NBN company......very interesting...........

my area isn't looking to be connected to the NBN for at least 5 years......

and possibly by wireless or satellite....so happy days](*,) ](*,)

Edited by batfink: 20/8/2012 01:45:48 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
LOL..............the principle of an NBN is great fully support it........

don't agree with the implementation of it...............it's a given that EVERYTHING this government manages turns to shit simple.............

I am not talking about the HFC, i am talking about fibre links between regional centres purchased by the NBN from telstra and optus.....



What exactly is wrong with the implementation?.

Why won't you answer the question?

Also, do you have any source for your statement that the NBN is buying "fibre links between regional centres" from Telstra and Optus? From my quick search I can only find the NBN building it's own backhaul network as part of the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program.

batfink wrote:
The NBN does not supply Fibre to the home.............care to clarify that one???????


You are definitely going to have to clarify this one because I have no idea what you are talking about.

batfink wrote:
just got off the phone from the NBN company......very interesting...........

my area isn't looking to be connected to the NBN for at least 5 years......

and possibly by wireless or satellite....so happy days](*,) ](*,)


:roll: The NBN only has a 3 year rollout plan. They don't have any information released beyond this, and wouldn't tell some random on the phone.

Edited by macktheknife: 20/8/2012 01:50:42 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
batfink wrote:
LOL..............the principle of an NBN is great fully support it........

don't agree with the implementation of it...............it's a given that EVERYTHING this government manages turns to shit simple.............

I am not talking about the HFC, i am talking about fibre links between regional centres purchased by the NBN from telstra and optus.....



What exactly is wrong with the implementation?.

Why won't you answer the question?

Also, do you have any source for your statement that the NBN is buying "fibre links between regional centres" from Telstra and Optus? From my quick search I can only find the NBN building it's own backhaul network as part of the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program.

batfink wrote:
The NBN does not supply Fibre to the home.............care to clarify that one???????


You are definitely going to have to clarify this one because I have no idea what you are talking about.

batfink wrote:
just got off the phone from the NBN company......very interesting...........

my area isn't looking to be connected to the NBN for at least 5 years......

and possibly by wireless or satellite....so happy days](*,) ](*,)


:roll: The NBN only has a 3 year rollout plan. They don't have any information released beyond this, and wouldn't tell some random on the phone.

Edited by macktheknife: 20/8/2012 01:50:42 PM



well they just did buddy....very nice old duck told me what you told me it wasn't inside the next 3 years.......i asked to what would you guess and the answer was 5 years.....

7% of the populations is getting wireless or Satelitte.....wonder how they calculate the 7%....


Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
So he didn't actually tell you 5 years, he just randomly guessed.

As for how they calculate the 7% it's pretty basic: Any town with over 1000 premises gets FTTH, any town within a certain distance of a backhaul link that is 500+ will get FTTH, everywhere else gets Wireless or Sat.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
So he didn't actually tell you 5 years, he just randomly guessed.

As for how they calculate the 7% it's pretty basic: Any town with over 1000 premises gets FTTH, any town within a certain distance of a backhaul link that is 500+ will get FTTH, everywhere else gets Wireless or Sat.




i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
Joffa
Joffa
Legend
Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)Legend (86K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"
Edited
9 Years Ago by Joffa
macktheknife
macktheknife
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K, Visits: 0
And with that batfink slithers away from actually answering any of the questions put to him.
Edited
9 Years Ago by macktheknife
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
And with that batfink slithers away from actually answering any of the questions put to him.


sorry was occupied last night......what were they??
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



well unfortunately there are enough dumb arse voters to make that happen, as we are experiencing now......:-" :-"
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
No12
No12
Hacker
Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 486, Visits: 0
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



Two possibilities :
Asylum seekers will have enough people to form a government and run the country or we will be bankrupt and the Chinese will take us over.

Edited
9 Years Ago by No12
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
No12 wrote:
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



Two possibilities :
Asylum seekers will have enough people to form a government and run the country or we will be bankrupt and the Chinese will take us over.



i think the later........
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
RJL25
RJL25
World Class
World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



well unfortunately there are enough dumb arse voters to make that happen, as we are experiencing now......:-" :-"


It's not that the voters are dumb, it's that they where lied to, theres a difference.

Labor under Gillard prior to the election presented themselves to be a move back towards the Political centre compared to how they were under Rudd (who incidently himself promised to be more centre focussed and also turned out to be anything but) and made a number of promises that no matter what any rusted on Labor voters say, were electorate critical issues, but then post election quickly turned their back on those promises and actaully became one of the more left winged Governments in a generation.
Edited
9 Years Ago by RJL25
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
RJL25 wrote:
batfink wrote:
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



well unfortunately there are enough dumb arse voters to make that happen, as we are experiencing now......:-" :-"


It's not that the voters are dumb, it's that they where lied to, theres a difference.

Labor under Gillard prior to the election presented themselves to be a move back towards the Political centre compared to how they were under Rudd (who incidently himself promised to be more centre focussed and also turned out to be anything but) and made a number of promises that no matter what any rusted on Labor voters say, were electorate critical issues, but then post election quickly turned their back on those promises and actaully became one of the more left winged Governments in a generation.



not only left wing but bordering on socialist so in some respects a taste of what the grenns would be like if they held power........also not only lefties but without doubt the most imcompetent and wasteful.........
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
RJL25
RJL25
World Class
World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)World Class (6.5K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.4K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
RJL25 wrote:
batfink wrote:
Joffa wrote:
batfink wrote:



i got plenty to look forward to........a 3-5 year wait if all goes well and wireless.....yippeeeeee
\

Probably have another Labor Government by then....:-"



well unfortunately there are enough dumb arse voters to make that happen, as we are experiencing now......:-" :-"


It's not that the voters are dumb, it's that they where lied to, theres a difference.

Labor under Gillard prior to the election presented themselves to be a move back towards the Political centre compared to how they were under Rudd (who incidently himself promised to be more centre focussed and also turned out to be anything but) and made a number of promises that no matter what any rusted on Labor voters say, were electorate critical issues, but then post election quickly turned their back on those promises and actaully became one of the more left winged Governments in a generation.



not only left wing but bordering on socialist so in some respects a taste of what the grenns would be like if they held power........also not only lefties but without doubt the most imcompetent and wasteful.........


You left out cynical. Most of their incompetence has stemmed from rushing through policies on the run that they felt might improve their political standing.

Gillard's flip flopping on the carbon tax is a perfect example of this. When the political breeze was blowing in the direction of a carbon tax, she was supportive of Rudd introducing the ETS, when the political breeze changed direction, she and Swan forced Rudd to abandon that policy, then when she was asked by the Greens and independants to introduce the Carbox Tax in order to gain office, she again changed her mind and decided to bring it in.

The very definition of cynical politics.

Edited by RJL25: 21/8/2012 04:04:17 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by RJL25
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
And with that batfink slithers away from actually answering any of the questions put to him.




why bother with the fixed wireless network at all??????
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
ozboy
ozboy
World Class
World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)World Class (7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.5K, Visits: 0
Well if the newspolls keep trending the way they are, Labour will form a coalition with Greens to be in power for another term.
Greens' power keeps growing and growing and growing. :cool:
Edited
9 Years Ago by ozboy
catbert
catbert
Pro
Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)Pro (2.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K, Visits: 0
Why does everyone hate Julia Gillard? Seems like a perfectly resonable politician, by political standards anyway.

(this'll be interesting)
Edited
9 Years Ago by catbert
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search