I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.

Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets.

I realise there is another thread on this but I am focusing with this one on the need to give Abbott the Wake Up Call of a lifetime.

We need to let this bloke know that absolute power really does corrupt absolutely.

He has sold the lot of us down the river because there was NO MENTION at all of this programme when he was going for gold in the last Federal Election.

He needs to be told and told fast that the Electorate will not tolerate our assets being sold down the river to privateers.

These are our assets, our essential services which will be plundered by private companies who will then charge us the earth to turn on a light globe.

Write to the Federal Government, write to O'Farrell and tell them this is just not on, not for one bloody second! >:( >:( >:( >:(

Privatising everything has always been the LIB/NAT agenda...
so you really knew what would happen when they got in ....

what has been the disappointment is that the Labor Party was also going down this path by stealth.

So just what are the alternatives?

When will we get a Politician or Party the truly has the best interests of the population?

Going by the last 2 decades .... I'd say never.

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:14pm:

I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets.

;D ;D ;D ;D

How many times were you warned this would happen ? ... I suggest you find a friend and ask him to use that size 12 axe handle on you .... if he's truely a friend, he'll make the first shot count.

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:23pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets. ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times were you warned this would happen ? ... I suggest you find a friend and ask him to use that size 12 axe handle on you .... if he's truely a friend, he'll make the first shot count.

That's pretty much what I said in that post that was designated as spam.

:D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:23pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets. How many times were you warned this would happen ?

We warned them so many times about the dangers of voting in an Abbott Government, and they wouldn't listen.

It's been less than 7 months, and already they're starting to realise the huge mistake they've made.

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:23pm: red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets. How many times were you warned this would happen ? We warned them so many times about the dangers of voting in an Abbott Government, and they wouldn't listen. It's been less than 7 months, and already they're starting to realise the huge mistake they've made. ::)

Fear not.  In 3 years you can vote again.   8-)

The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place.

Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::)

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:52pm:

The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::)

This comment is absolutely spot on.

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:52pm:

The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::)

No , the real problem is that the libs and murdoch were feeding you crap for entree main and desert, and you went back for seconds for each course

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:52pm:

The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::)

Exactly the point, Red - the Tag Team are all cut from the same cloth.  They both did this in the just passed election, and that is why both are on the nose with the electorate, which is why the electorate is swinging back the other way in State elections.

Poor fellow, my electorate - running from one ambush straight into another and back again, with no other way out.

Time for that new party - who's with me?

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:52pm:

The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::)

The problem you have red, and your god-bothering ilk, is that you place too much emphasis on faith.

Faith blinds you to the realiity of liberal governments, who always try to sell off assets.

Costello's "surpluses" were all from asset sell off.  Unfortunetly, the liberals are going to run out of assets soon enough.

Medibank private for example was not sold off by Howard due to the very lucrative dividends it produces for the government.  Now short-term Abbott is going to sell it off.  Madness, but you voted for them because your based your vote on faith.

Never trust a politician.

Both labor and liberal parties have sold off assets and retain it as a plank in their policies.  I don't know how it can be some politically biased comment.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 9:21am:

Poor fellow, my electorate - running from one ambush straight into another and back again, with no other way out.

Could be worse - you could be in an electorate that is so safe that you know who's going to get in regardless of what swings there may be.  Makes me wonder what the point is in turning up to vote.

Well, there probably is a point to it if there's an upper house election....

The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101.

Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient.

Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency.

Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners.

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:23pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets. ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times were you warned this would happen ? ... I suggest you find a friend and ask him to use that size 12 axe handle on you .... if he's truely a friend, he'll make the first shot count.

That's not very nice John, everyone is entitled to change their mind. Red won't be the only one to turn against his beloved Libs. As a matter of fact I was talking to a rusted on yesterday, a Lib freemason through and through, he was warning me how dangerous this government is lol!!! I nearly fell over, had to ask him to verify he was talking about our government and not that of Thailand since we were discussing that country just minutes before.

He won't get away with putting shyte on the oldies, no way!

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:02am:

The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners.

Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise.

Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition?

The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more.

If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits?

Rubin wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 7:01pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:52pm: The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::) This comment is absolutely spot on.

This is why we will have one term state and federal governments for decades to come. They are the same so we vote one bad lot out just to replace them with another bad lot.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:21am:

Rubin wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 7:01pm: red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:52pm: The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::) This comment is absolutely spot on. This is why we will have one term state and federal governments for decades to come. They are the same so we vote one bad lot out just to replace them with another bad lot.

And they never seem to learn from their mistakes.

The Maggot's attempts to sneak the rotting, mouldering corpse of Work(no)Choices in
through the back door despite it being a primary reason for the fools losing power last
time, for example.

Labor (both federally and here in NSW) appears to be at least trying to, but all the Libs
are interested in doing is expanding and compounding theirs.

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:19am:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits?

First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals)

And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off.

And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting.

Kat wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:37am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am: Rubin wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 7:01pm: red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:52pm: The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::) This comment is absolutely spot on. This is why we will have one term state and federal governments for decades to come. They are the same so we vote one bad lot out just to replace them with another bad lot. And they never seem to learn from their mistakes. The Maggot's attempts to sneak the rotting, mouldering corpse of Work(no)Choices in through the back door despite it being a primary reason for the fools losing power last time, for example. Labor (both federally and here in NSW) appears to be at least trying to, but all the Libs are interested in doing is expanding and compounding theirs.

;D ;D ;D ;D

I am old enough to remember the pre-privatisation days and they are not quite as golden as you recall. Power blackouts, while not common pre se, were not Uncommon. Now they virtually only occur due to accidents such as cars taking down poles or the rare transmission failure after which the alternative supply lines come into play within minutes - something that is relatively recent.

Yes, it is more expensive now, but I think blaming private enterprise for that is a bit convenient. 

I remember banking when it was government regulated and partly government owned and getting a loan was a nightmare.  banking hours were between 1 and 2pm on alternative Fridays.

Water supply is now significantly more reliable and of better quality.

I say these things to remind those on here that there is no evidence privatisation is intrinsically bad.  There have been some bad examples but also some good ones, as identified above. The opinion expressed by many of you that somehow govt owned business is more effective, more profitable and more likely to innovate and provide better service is at all odds to history.

woody2014 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:41am:

Kat wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:37am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:21am: Rubin wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 7:01pm: red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:52pm: The problem is that you vote for a Party on their policies then they go power crazy and lose sight of what it was that put them in, in the first place. Labor self destructed in exactly the same manner. ::) This comment is absolutely spot on. This is why we will have one term state and federal governments for decades to come. They are the same so we vote one bad lot out just to replace them with another bad lot. And they never seem to learn from their mistakes. The Maggot's attempts to sneak the rotting, mouldering corpse of Work(no)Choices in through the back door despite it being a primary reason for the fools losing power last time, for example. Labor (both federally and here in NSW) appears to be at least trying to, but all the Libs are interested in doing is expanding and compounding theirs. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, yuck it up, clown, while you can.

The Emperor's lack of sartorial accoutrements is becoming more obvious by the day
and it's funny watching you fanbois still blindly supporting the unsupportable.

The 'swinging voters' are beginning to realise that they voted for an abject failure
but you rusted-ons will never see, because you won't look.

Give the grubs another year, and it's a fair bet that their only remaining supporters
will be the aforementioned ignorant rusted-ons.

the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests.

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:59am:

the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests.

And what interests are those?  Let me think: tax the rich, penalise the rich, nationalise their companies. Right?

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:41am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting.

That was Communism, not socialism.

Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s).

Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact.

Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer
under here and in the UK (for example).

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:52am:

I am old enough to remember the pre-privatisation days and they are not quite as golden as you recall. Power blackouts, while not common pre se, were not Uncommon. Now they virtually only occur due to accidents such as cars taking down poles or the rare transmission failure after which the alternative supply lines come into play within minutes - something that is relatively recent. Yes, it is more expensive now, but I think blaming private enterprise for that is a bit convenient.  I remember banking when it was government regulated and partly government owned and getting a loan was a nightmare.  banking hours were between 1 and 2pm on alternative Fridays. Water supply is now significantly more reliable and of better quality. I say these things to remind those on here that there is no evidence privatisation is intrinsically bad.  There have been some bad examples but also some good ones, as identified above. The opinion expressed by many of you that somehow govt owned business is more effective, more profitable and more likely to innovate and provide better service is at all odds to history.

So - we are to believe that:-

>  Improvements in technology etc, which could equally have gone ahead under government control of power, only make a difference to 'black-outs' when in private hands at prohibitive cost to the end user?

> Easier access to money in borrowing is a good thing, when the market shows signs of over-lending on too little hard collateral (property accumulation in the Alan bond mode)?

>   Improvements in technology etc, which could equally have gone ahead under government control of water, only make a difference when in private hands at prohibitive cost to the end user?

I think not, and I sincerely doubt we need 'CEOs' of the like of Arfur Sin of Dinos to organise our water at mega salary and $20million+ bonus for good work.

The structure to do any needed changes was already in place without 'privatisation', and his 'contribution' is to sit at the head and twiddle his thumbs as a reward for his years of loyal service to the Liberal party.

All costs associated are passed down to the end user.....

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:59am:

the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests.

Of course not, although they pretend they do. They have to answer to their global bosses, not us.

A moderate third party to represent our interests would be good, but it means if they came to power the multinationals wouldn't reap their usual profits.

As much as we love to think of ourselves as an independent and free nation, we're not. We have to do what we're told and take what we're given. We are just a little blob on the map which has excellent mineral resources and a compliant national management. 

A benign third party would be a threat to everything politicians stand for.

Kat wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:10am:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example).

Exactly ..... seems Ahovking hasn't heard of Fred Hilmer either. re. Open Competition Policy.

I say again .... supply of essential services should never be in the hands of private enterprise ..... as it should never be a  money making enterprise for greedy CEO's, Executives & Shareholders.

Kat wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:10am:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example).

If you think this is a fascist country and economic system then I weep for your education - assuming you had any.

mantra wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:18am:

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:59am: the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests. Of course not, although they pretend they do. They have to answer to their global bosses, not us. A moderate third party to represent our interests would be good, but it means if they came to power the multinationals wouldn't reap their usual profits. As much as we love to think of ourselves as an independent and free nation, we're not. We have to do what we're told and take what we're given. We are just a little blob on the map which has excellent mineral resources and a compliant national management.  A benign third party would be a threat to everything politicians stand for.

That sounds quite absurd and silly. what 'international bosses' do the ALP or Coalition bow to? I've seen none. What might be confusing to you is economic and global reality, but not subservience.

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:22am:

Kat wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:10am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example). Exactly ..... seems Ahovking hasn't heard of Fred Hilmer either. re. Open Competition Policy. I say again .... supply of essential services should never be in the hands of private enterprise ..... as it should never be a  money making enterprise for greedy CEO's, Executives & Shareholders.

I laugh when I read people who think govt can provide services cheaper, faster, better and more reliable than anyone else. It is as if they live in a parallel universe.

It's a proven fact that not all private companies can provide services cheaper, faster, better and more reliable than anyone else.

The contractors involved in the Pink Batt scheme were all private companies/businesses .......

what did they do better than anyone except be cheaper, faster, shoddier & highly dangerous?

Essential services have no place being at the mercy of private enterprises greed/ profit making.

Tell me again why the Victorian Govt had to take over the running of the rail system from private enterprise?

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:42am:

It's a proven fact that not all private companies can provide services cheaper, faster, better and more reliable than anyone else. The contractors involved in the Pink Batt scheme were all private companies/businesses ....... what did they do better than anyone except be cheaper, faster, shoddier & highly dangerous? Essential services have no place being at the mercy of private enterprises greed/ profit making. Tell me again why the Victorian Govt had to take over the running of the rail system from private enterprise?

That was not exactly a brilliant rebuttal of my point.  Rail services are losing operations world-wide. And the pink batt fiasco was a govt-directed one.

So if you want to make your point, use a few examples without such loaded bias.

The history of privatisation in NZ, is, to say the least, very mixed.

Worst examples are:

1) Air New Zealand: Sold in 1998 to a consortium. In 2001 it neared financial collapse. The Government injected new capital and became the dominant shareholder.

2) Tranzrail: sold in 1993 to a group including Toll Australia and some mega rich Kiwis. They ran it into the ground, forcing the government to buy it back.

Conservatives obsession with privatisation is very foolish and dangerous.

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:58am:

The history of privatisation in NZ, is, to say the least, very mixed. Worst examples are: 1) Air New Zealand: Sold in 1998 to a consortium. In 2001 it neared financial collapse. The Government injected new capital and became the dominant shareholder. 2) Tranzrail: sold in 1993 to a group including Toll Australia and some mega rich Kiwis. They ran it into the ground, forcing the government to buy it back. Conservatives obsession with privatisation is very foolish and dangerous.

Airlines and rail corps?  That's the best you can do?  Most savvy investors wont touch either of those for those same reasons.  Now... other privatised examples other than those already kissed with death either way?

Peter Freedman wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:58am:

The history of privatisation in NZ, is, to say the least, very mixed. Worst examples are: 1) Air New Zealand: Sold in 1998 to a consortium. In 2001 it neared financial collapse. The Government injected new capital and became the dominant shareholder. 2) Tranzrail: sold in 1993 to a group including Toll Australia and some mega rich Kiwis. They ran it into the ground, forcing the government to buy it back. Conservatives obsession with privatisation is very foolish and dangerous.

Yes Peter ... I've never met such a gullible bunch.

Also with Tranz Rail .... they let safety slide so badly that people were regularly being killed or injured on the job.....

which is another thing that is happening in Australia in the private sector.

Write procedures & put out safety alerts so as to make it look like they are safety conscious when in fact all they are doing is placing all the responsibility back on the employee, in the event of an accident they blame the worker & sack them. That is if they're not killed.

A real boon for WH&S is self regulation .... not!

How about Blue Scope Steel? They asked for taxpayer funded handouts?

How about all the financial institutions that caused the GFC & then got govt. bailouts & paid it out to CEO's & executives as bonuses?

How about all the private businesses that have been looking for govt. handouts to stay afloat?

There are too many to mention going down the gurgler everyday.

But I'd expect your respnse to be that's because the workers are getting paid too much. ::)

Maybe it's because of greed & pizz poor management skills & strategies.

The Corporate world is full of delegators who are capable of nothing but the gift of the gab.


Quote:

"If you can't dazzle with brilliance, you baffle with bullshyte."

Gnads wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:16pm:

How about Blue Scope Steel? They asked for taxpayer funded handouts? How about all the financial institutions that caused the GFC & then got govt. bailouts & paid it out to CEO's & executives as bonuses? How about all the private businesses that have been looking for govt. handouts to stay afloat? There are too many to mention going down the gurgler everyday. But I'd expect your respnse to be that's because the workers are getting paid too much. ::) Maybe it's because of greed & pizz poor management skills & strategies. The Corporate world is full of delegators who are capable of nothing but the gift of the gab. Quote: "If you can't dazzle with brilliance, you baffle with bullshyte."

Was that supposed to be a argument against privatisation? It it was, I would suggest  otherwise.

No doubt you would.

But that's how twisty Tories are ... especially religious Tories.

mantra wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:18am:

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:59am: the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests. Of course not, although they pretend they do. They have to answer to their global bosses, not us. A moderate third party to represent our interests would be good, but it means if they came to power the multinationals wouldn't reap their usual profits. As much as we love to think of ourselves as an independent and free nation, we're not. We have to do what we're told and take what we're given. We are just a little blob on the map which has excellent mineral resources and a compliant national management.  A benign third party would be a threat to everything politicians stand for.

i agree totally. a third party that isn't infested with extreme right or extreme left thinking and that wasn't started by a billionaire

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:04am:

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:59am: the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests. And what interests are those?  Let me think: tax the rich, penalise the rich, nationalise their companies. Right?

no don't be silly, only taxing the rich would apply.

scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:48pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:04am: scotty 1969 wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:59am: the working and middle class in this country is in dire need of a third party. none of the parties truly represent their interests. And what interests are those?  Let me think: tax the rich, penalise the rich, nationalise their companies. Right? no don't be silly, only taxing the rich would apply.

Pretty much proves my point. I wasn't expecting you to make it quite that easy.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:34am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:22am: Kat wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:10am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example). Exactly ..... seems Ahovking hasn't heard of Fred Hilmer either. re. Open Competition Policy. I say again .... supply of essential services should never be in the hands of private enterprise ..... as it should never be a  money making enterprise for greedy CEO's, Executives & Shareholders. I laugh when I read people who think govt can provide services cheaper, faster, better and more reliable than anyone else. It is as if they live in a parallel universe.

Well, if being wrong gives you a laugh, who are we to deny you that simple pleasure?

Maybe if it's that enjoyable for you, you should maybe be wrong a bit more often.

Oh, wait... you are.

Kat wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 2:46pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:34am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:22am: Kat wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:10am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example). Exactly ..... seems Ahovking hasn't heard of Fred Hilmer either. re. Open Competition Policy. I say again .... supply of essential services should never be in the hands of private enterprise ..... as it should never be a  money making enterprise for greedy CEO's, Executives & Shareholders. I laugh when I read people who think govt can provide services cheaper, faster, better and more reliable than anyone else. It is as if they live in a parallel universe. Well, if being wrong gives you a laugh, who are we to deny you that simple pleasure? Maybe if it's that enjoyable for you, you should maybe be wrong a bit more often. Oh, wait... you are.

A very cutting response, cleverly articulated and dismantled ever single one of my arguments.  You are a legend... in your own mind.

Hey Peter Freedman how are you going after your sad loss? Hope there is some sunshine in your life.

Good to see you posting....Red

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:45am:

And the pink batt fiasco was a govt-directed one.

nice play on words there B&B  :D :D :D :D, which in typical B&B fashion simply shoves your head further under the sand ... The Pink Batts were wholey private enterprise run ... the govt. simply subsidised the consumers.

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:45am: And the pink batt fiasco was a govt-directed one. nice play on words there B&B  :D :D :D :D, which in typical B&B fashion simply shoves your head further under the sand ... The Pink Batts were wholey private enterprise run ... the govt. simply subsidised the consumers.

Very soon, his feet will be all that remains visible.

Kat wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:10am:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:41am: Gnads wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:19am: Pantheon wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:02am: The less assets the Government owns the better, but at the same time, there needs to be check and balances to percent monopoly from developing, basic capitalism 101. Privately owned business and assets have a profit incentive to cut costs and be more efficient. If you work for a government run industry, managers do not usually share in any profits. However, a private firm is interested in making profit and so it is more likely to cut costs and be efficient. Also Often state own business and assets are open to Political Interference. They are motivated by political pressures rather than sound economic and business sense. For example a state enterprise may employ surplus workers which is inefficient. The government may be reluctant to get rid of the workers because of the negative publicity involved in job losses. Therefore, state owned enterprises often employ too many workers increasing inefficiency. Selling assets off will reduce the burden on government, If worst comes to worst, we can just re-nationalized it all from national and international owners. Essential services such as electricity, gas & water supply should never be in the hands of private enterprise. Since the introduction of the "Competition Policies" .... where have you seen any benefits to consumers in reduced pricing caused by "said" competition? The only saving & cost cutting is to the benefit of the company as they slash & burn to cut costs, increase profits & charge consumers more. If a claim(privatisation & increased competition = cheaper prices & more employment) is proven to be false then why do people like you keep espousing it's benefits? First what Competition Policies? All i see is regulation that benefit the large corporation and support current monopoly (both Labor and Liberals) And charging consumers more is counterproductive and only large corporation and monopolies are able to get away with that. If prices are to high you would just stop buying that product and your the cheaper competitor's produced, in our system of large corporation and monopolies we don't have that Luxury and there can be ripped off. And we can say the same thing about socialism, a system that has always payed its workers lest than capitalist counties have, made them work in worst conditions and of collapse after 80 years, compare to capitalist 250 years and counting. That was Communism, not socialism. Communism (or Socialism - capital S) is not the same thing as socialism (lower-case s). Not the same thing at all, no-where near it, in fact. Without an element of socialism, capitalism turns into the fascism we currently suffer under here and in the UK (for example).

I know that Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. But Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

Please explain to me where im going wrong...

Also fascism? This is why everyone needs to go to university, because only here would you get an actual education.

Fascism is National socialism.....different from Democratic Socialism and Marxist Socialism (Communism).

Yes of course the Pink Batts fiasco was all private enterprise's fault. KRudd had nothing to do with it. Peace in our time!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

red baron wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 6:17pm:

Yes of course the Pink Batts fiasco was all private enterprise's fault. KRudd had nothing to do with it. Peace in our time!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Who controls building regulations and licensing?  ;D ;D ;D ;D Go on Red, prove to me again what a genius you are  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Who controls building regulations and licensing?

Mostly State governments I think.

red baron wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 6:17pm:

Yes of course the Pink Batts fiasco was all private enterprise's fault. KRudd had nothing to do with it. Peace in our time!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D

Kevin Rudd was a complete failure both as a leader and person of integrity.....Tony Abbott seams to be someone who also puts himself above the party and acts without consulting his cabinet.....The problem is the Libs can never replace him because of the furore they made over Kevin Rudd's axing.....Kevin Rudd stood down because he was to arrogant to lose in a ballot but the Libs still claimed he was sacked.....King Tony is here to stay I am afraid!!!

:) :) :)

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:23pm:

red baron wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:14pm: I have supported Abbott all the way to his rise and rise to Prime Minister.Now I say that he needs a size 12 axe handle around the head, in his quest to have the States of Australia sell off their assets. ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times were you warned this would happen ? ... I suggest you find a friend and ask him to use that size 12 axe handle on you .... if he's truely a friend, he'll make the first shot count.

How many times were you warned prior to the 2007 election that Rudd/Swan would ruin the budget? Might have to save the axe for your neck...