Electricity going up...
|
Prev: Consumer News
Next: Consumer Info
From: Mr.T on 20 Apr 2010 20:20 "asdf" <asdf(a)nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message news:MPCdnQKpCrykrVPWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... > > The polls showed approx 80% of Victorians were against privatisation. > > There was NO vote on the issue. One electoral vote every three or > > four years does NOT constitute a vote an ANY particular issue. Only > > morons (and it's subset of politicians) ever claim that it does! > > > Victorians voted for Kennett, who was quite transparent about his intention > to sell off the SEC. Victorians still voted for him. They gave him a mandate > for the sell-off. Nope 50% voted against him, and his election campaign did not revolve around selling everything in sight anyway. Once he did so the Victorians rightly kicked him out, but by then the damage was done. Just look at how much more it now costs the Victorian taxpayers for his privatised "public" transport system! The majority of the costs are still borne by the taxpayer with profits having to be paid to the private companies, and no improvement in service. You will have to look long and hard to find any other Victorians who believes his sale of public transport or the electricity supply was anything other than a total disaster! And don't get me started on how unfair it is to have half our suburbs serviced by Freeways at everybody's expense (whether you use them or not), whilst half of the population must pay for Tollways as well!!! MrT.
From: asdf on 20 Apr 2010 21:26 Mr.T wrote: > "asdf" <asdf(a)nowhere.nowhere> wrote in message > news:MPCdnQKpCrykrVPWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... >>> The polls showed approx 80% of Victorians were against >>> privatisation. There was NO vote on the issue. One electoral vote >>> every three or four years does NOT constitute a vote an ANY >>> particular issue. Only morons (and it's subset of politicians) ever >>> claim that it does! >>> >> Victorians voted for Kennett, who was quite transparent about his >> intention to sell off the SEC. Victorians still voted for him. They >> gave him a mandate for the sell-off. > > Nope 50% voted against him, and his election campaign did not revolve > around selling everything in sight anyway. Once he did so the His and his party's privatisation desires were patently obvious before the election, and the electorate was duly warned. Make no mistake. I am *very much against* privatisation of public assets, but Kennett had a long history of arguing for privatisation including (unbelievably) schools when speaking during the Cain era, yet he and his cronies were still voted in. > Victorians rightly kicked him out, but by then the damage was done. ....after two terms in office. The privatisation of the SEC *and* the Gas & Fuel Corporation was started during his first term, *after* which he was returned for a second term by the electorate of Victoria with a 32 seat majority! It was a landslide victory, unfortunately. If that's not voting *for* privatisation, what is it? > Just look at how much more it now costs the Victorian taxpayers for > his privatised "public" transport system! The majority of the costs > are still borne by the taxpayer with profits having to be paid to the > private companies, and no improvement in service. > You will have to look long and hard to find any other Victorians who > believes his sale of public transport or the electricity supply was > anything other than a total disaster! I agree! Total disaster. What's even more astounding is that the billions and billions of dollars currently being spent on myki could easily staff every station on the met. train system, AND supply conductors on every tram for years to come. > And don't get me started on how unfair it is to have half our suburbs > serviced by Freeways at everybody's expense (whether you use them or > not), whilst half of the population must pay for Tollways as well!!! > What really annoys me is that we now pay tolls on *previously public* roads. The Calder/Tullamarine freeway between Bell St, Coburg and Royal Pde was a public road, now closed to non toll-paying motorists. ....and this will go on ad infinitum. Long ago, in fairer times (early 80s?), the tolls on the Westgate bridge were removed, because the bridge had been paid for. We'll never see that happen again, while private operators can still make a buck out of stinging every vehicle that travels over "their" road. > MrT.
From: Epsilon on 20 Apr 2010 22:00 asdf wrote: > > Make no mistake. I am *very much against* privatisation of public assets, What is a "public" asset?
From: Bernd Felsche on 20 Apr 2010 22:01 "asdf" <asdf(a)nowhere.nowhere> wrote: >B J Foster wrote: >> asdf wrote: >>> B J Foster wrote: >>>> Your stated assertion (now snipped, I see) was that private >>>> enterprise cannot produce services for a lower cost than >>>> government. Have fun explaining why the Soviet Union is >>>> defunct. >>> Of course private enterprse *can* produce services for a lower >>> *cost*. What they won't do is produce services for a lower >>> *price*. >> Sheer dogma. The Soviet Union produced crappy quality goods at a >> higher cost *to* *the* *consumer* than free enterprise in the west. >Nonsense. Everything ran at a loss. Prices were demonstrably >*cheaper* for the consumer, even though the costs were *higher*. What? e.g. 120,000 Mark for a Trabant in the GDR is cheaper? Or is 6000 Mark for a colour TV in the 1980's? I suspect that the cost of everything that wasn't deemed an "essential" by the Soviet was priced out of the range of the unwashed proletariat. When there is no reward for trying to do better, things steadily get worse; to the point of revolution. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that / \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization.
From: David Clayton on 22 Apr 2010 17:39
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:21:03 +1000, B J Foster wrote: > asdf wrote: >> B J Foster wrote: >>> David Clayton wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:02:49 +1000, B J Foster wrote: ........ >>>>> Printing money and living beyond your means is nominally a leftist >>>>> strategy. >>>>> >>>> Tell , sorry "Please explain", that to Pauline Hanson who proposed >>>> such a thing once..... > > Your point is? > She is hardly "leftist". > >>> Pauline Hanson? ROTFL. Cite please. >>> >>> >> You don't remember THAT? ROFL >> >> [snip] >> >> -- Regards, David. David Clayton Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have. |