The unions have no way to push the rank and file to vote for either. Bill will win the caucus and Albo will win the overwhelming majority of the members. I do admit that if Bill wins I will be furious.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
The unions have no way to push the rank and file to vote for either. Bill will win the caucus and Albo will win the overwhelming majority of the members. I do admit that if Bill wins I will be furious.
As far as I'm concerned Shorten isn't receiving anywhere near the amount of flack he should be. He has zero credibility with the electorate, and everyone knows him as a snake. I also fear that whoever takes over will do a Brendon Nelson and basically come in, try to get the party in order before having to make way for someone else.
That's possible although it is important to note that Brendan Nelson was a shit opposition leader. Albo is one of the most impressive figures in the Labor party.
So glad Roxon is gone, not so glad that she took Stephen Smith with her. What the ALP really needs to do is build up their core membership. That way they can bring some new people into parliament next election when there's a small to medium, but not fatal backlash against the Coalition because Australian's are reactionary and hate the government of the day. I was saying that before the election they shouldn't have brought back Rudd at all, because that way he could've had a proper shot in 2016. They brought the poor bastard back with an election looming with no chance to develop policy or you know, a proper campaign.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Nothin' but Arksy and hidys
I like it.
D.Lo
Member
Yeah, it was a poisoned chalice, it's actually to his credit he took it on and saved a good chunk of seats for a very very small chance of a win. If he'd been in since at least March he could have taken some charge and changed the course.
And I can't believe everyone (Labor) has forgotten Shorten's MAIN part in the biggest ever tactical mistake in Labor history - ditching a sitting first term Prime Minister.
I put all my preferences for this as thread title.
The thing that worries me about Shorten is that if he doesn't get his way, he may use the same tactics as Rudd.
Sorry, jumped the gun a little, checking on the AEC.
/edit well, I have no idea how to navigate the AEC site, but at 95% counted the ABC thinks the Sex Party will snipe the last spot.
You might as well forget about the NBN now. At least companies like Optus and TPG are now going to fill in the gap at least for metro/city users.
The gist of a few articles floating around yesterday was "Libs open NBN up to free market competition, NBN can't compete because private corps will devour the profitable areas meaning NBN has to subsist on unprofitable rural areas, Libs come in and laugh 'See how could anything government run ever work'"
Hang on a minute, why would private companies devour the profitable areas? Is it because they can deliver a better service, for a better price, mayhaps?
You're kind of begging the question about government efficiency.
Edit: Also, fuck increasing the GST, give the states the ability to levy income tax instead of the Federal Government and give the Federal Government the ability to tax goods as the system was designed to be and had been operating before WWII.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, at least. Forget about the parts of the country where the infrastructure would have the greatest utility and where the existing networks are poorest.
This government is a fraud.
Because they wouldn't be servicing the less profitable areas. Has nothing to do with being Government run or not, and everything to do with service provision not being predicated on the profit motive.
Can't: Expected completion March 2014 :|
The government network has to maintain the unprofitable sections of the network and hold themselves to some sort of standard when it comes to upkeep. So yeah, private companies doing it cheaper is basically a given. But after years of living under a Telstra HFC monopoly on my block, three to four of which has been spent convincing them that there is a fault (which they finally fixed this winter along with finally cleaning out the 50% of the pit worth of mud, though many field technician's reports got mysteriously lost along the way) I'm not exactly the most thrilled at the prospect of a private company running utilities "cheaply" again.
Well yes, but the point being that the urban areas were going to subsidise the unprofitable rural areas. With the private sector eating that market instead, costs for the rural areas (if it occurs at all) are probably going to rise.
It also depends on what you mean by 'efficiency'.
Anyway, on today's hitlist is pay rises for aged care workers. Although the money is going back into general aged care funding, apparently. Disparate views on what it will mean.
And the Climate Commission is back again, now in donation-funded form! Hooray- wait, what's this...
Well, I guess we'll see how far kickstarter money gets the Climate Council. Arksy should be happy though!
Because they could offer lower prices and hence gain market and profits because they don't have to subsidise rural customers. NBN has to subsidise rural customers by charging more for urban customers.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe it's a good thing though. If the NBN wasn't going to be as profitable on a percentage basis as cherry-picked small scale private investments then maybe it shouldn't have been made in the first place. I mean, it's not like any other vital and successful networks such as road, rail, phone, telegram or post were built using that sort of socialistic thinking.
D.Lo
Member
Perhaps we should only have roads in profitable areas? And Hospitals?
The NBN was about making information infrastructure an institution, not a business.
So instead of having money forcibly expropriated from everyone in order to subsidise what is essentially rich farmers asking for world class internet, we're going to have private growth which is going to create sustainable long term jobs in the broadband sector, lots of tax money from the profits of these companies to fill the government coffers and a cheaper, faster internet connection.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds good to me.
Rich farmers? Because everybody who lives in rural areas is a farmer and rich. Sometimes your ignorance shows through a bit man.
Poe's law?
Yes because I clearly meant everyone. They will benefit the most.
CrazedProfessional
Member
Does this thread's long life mean we should have a all year round Auspol thread somewhere in OT?
This is it, dawg
Ugh. I couldn't argue all year round against the entirety of AusGAF.
I legitimately thought your posts on this page were sarcastic.
I don't know man, private rollout of fibre so far hasn't been exactly crash hot. And the likelihood of a for-profit corp not gouging their exclusive markets is not strong.
Also, bad luck to those out in the rural areas who happen to live in rural towns etc. but aren't strong markets for private networks.
Yeah, you did imply that the only people benefiting would be rich farmers. If you are a citizen of Australia, in Australia, there are certain standards of infrastructure which should be provided. We are not talking about outback communities here, rural Victoria, rural NSW will be fucked by this.
Why would there be exclusive markets? That sounds just as terrible as a national subsidised industry.
D.Lo
Member
There is a point there though. We should be a bit more ruthless sometimes IMO. My job has taken me to many regional towns which have massive unemployment and really should be abandoned. The locals go on about 'connection to the land' and 'local tradition' but the ugly little towns are only 100 years old, we're not talking more than 3 generations here.
People used to have to live near the roads or they got cut off, perhaps they should live near the fibre now.
People used to have to live near the roads or they got cut off, perhaps they should live near the fibre now.
Once a company has rolled out fibre, so you think it will be financially viable for others to duplicate that roll out later in the same spot? This is why infrastructure should be done nationally by the government.
Towns with 20 or 30 thousand people are going to be left behind. They are necessary for primary production to continue.
I sincerely doubt private networks are going to bother rolling out fibre to places that already have them from other providers to try and compete directly when they could just go somewhere else and do it. De facto exclusivity.
I live in an exclusive market >.< Can only get Transact here.
Suburbs are being wired with only transact. Buildings, apartment complexes and such are being wired with only one service that you have to use if you want internets in your part.
Its all awful. Its terrible.
Its Hitler.
Suburbs are being wired with only transact. Buildings, apartment complexes and such are being wired with only one service that you have to use if you want internets in your part.
Its all awful. Its terrible.
Its Hitler.
Exactly.
There's clearly a big difference between having access to the rest of the country via a road and being able to download My Big Fat Greek Wedding in 10 seconds as opposed to half an hour.
You are forgetting about thousands of businesses that will need online connections to compete. And as products become more digital, ADSL ain't going to cut it. Or do you hate small business?
Yes, because Telstra was a shithouse national network my neighbourhood is so pair gained up that I can't even get ADSL1+ and because I live in a safe Liberal Electorate Labor decided to roll the NBN in my area in 2070.
My only option is Telstra Cable. Which is a shit situation.
Except we need people to.... make food.
I didn't realise small businesses required fiber optic cable to have an online presence. I shall concede to you good sir!
I didn't realise small businesses required fiber optic cable to have an online presence. I shall concede to you good sir!
LOL. Of course they don't need to serve content, but if you don't see that business requirements for data usage are increasing I don't know what to say.
"Privatised"
It was a dirty privatisation, they knew they still had the government at their backs if anything ever went wrong, and basically acted with impunity. This made it incredibly difficult for Optus, Vodaphone and 3 to compete. Telstra knew they could keep charging out people's backside and not have to worry about competition.
No.
They put a 900 pound gorilla into the market without whittling it down into competing chunks.
That and Australia isnt exactly suited to a telecommunications market like other nations.
They knew they didnt have to worry about competition because they were the market, they had all the infrastructure, and they had the resources.
They put a 900 pound gorilla into the market without whittling it down into competing chunks.
That and Australia isnt exactly suited to a telecommunications market like other nations.
They knew they didnt have to worry about competition because they were the market, they had all the infrastructure, and they had the resources.
- Status