Advanced  

Latest Result

Grand Final MCG
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 • 12:00 WST
West Coast Collingwood
11.13 (79) 11.8 (74)
Game Focus



WA State Election 2017

Discuss whatever you like, whenever you like, however you like

Moderators: Streaker, Mr Q

Who will you be voting for?

Liberal
6
27%
Labour
6
27%
Green
2
9%
One Nation
6
27%
Nationals
1
5%
Shooters, Fishers, Idiots
1
5%
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 22

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby farmer joe on Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:16 pm

Fat Side wrote:He could do something about his drunken sailor spending.

I agree. Lets claw back the significant structural changes that occurred to the budget by making our teachers/police/nurses/all other public servants the highest paid in Australia. That was the dumbest move that this government made and will hurt us for many, many years. The bluff should have been called on those that threatened to "go off to the mines".
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby farmer joe on Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:20 pm

Total Package wrote:
Fat Side wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-23/wa-last-place-in-states-and-territories-eceonomic-rankings/8202738

Western Australia continues to have the worst performing economy in the nation, with house prices tumbling alongside economic growth and investment contracts.


Barnett has run the strongest performing economy into the ditch. If he's re-elected we will be facing a $70-80 billion debt in four years. Up from $Billion in 2008.


I think Housing prices coming down is a good thing... they were artificially too high for far too long. Might not want to be what the real state investors want to hear... but that's the risk you take.

I also think the Mining collapse had something to do with the economy... and not sure Barnett could do much about that. This state will always rely on Mining.

Look into why NSW and Victoria are booming. It is entirely due to the construction activity that comes from the population ponzi. Limit, or slow, immigration and/or Chinese cash inflows into property and the "boom" in those states disappears.
We in WA should be very vocal in our disagreement to the population ponzi and the increase in house prices in those states.
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby WCE06 on Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:17 pm

WA was shafted by the federation. During the boom, a mass influx of people stretched our infrastructure past breaking point. So this "drunken sailor" spending on schools, health care, power system upgrades and transport - was needed. Then because of the boom the federation then decided to penalise us by diverting our GST, to the extent our rivers of "gold" were offset pretty much exactly by our loss of GST.

So while we were funding our own infrastructure spend to support mining and therefore prop up the country, we were missing out on billions (that are now being pumped into Victoria and NSW infrastructure projects). Then the construction boom ended and we are still getting screwed.
However strong or fast or skilled a knight is there are others who can match him. A man will win one tournament and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot on the grass may mean defeat, or what you had for supper the last night. A change in the wind may mean victory.
George R. R. Martin.
User avatar
WCE06
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:11 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby MrWoollie on Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:46 pm

WCE06 wrote:WA was shafted by the federation. During the boom, a mass influx of people stretched our infrastructure past breaking point. So this "drunken sailor" spending on schools, health care, power system upgrades and transport - was needed. Then because of the boom the federation then decided to penalise us by diverting our GST, to the extent our rivers of "gold" were offset pretty much exactly by our loss of GST.

So while we were funding our own infrastructure spend to support mining and therefore prop up the country, we were missing out on billions (that are now being pumped into Victoria and NSW infrastructure projects). Then the construction boom ended and we are still getting screwed.
At Federation, Perth voted comfortably but not overwhelmingly to join. Country areas (except goldfields and Albany) voted not to join. It was the huge population in the goldfields (nearly as great as Perth and mostly miners from Victoria) that enthusiastically and overwhelmingly voted for Federation, something like 15 to 1. This loyalty remained in place at the 1933 secession referendum where 44 of 50 electorates voted to secede and of the 6 that voted to stay, 5 were Goldfields and Kimberley.

All irrelevant but good fun history. What is more relevant is how the population of Perth has grown beyond any ability of infrastructure to keep up. I remember when the WA population reached 1 million (early 70's), then Perth overtook Adelaide, the only order change of Capital population so far since Federation, then Perth reached 1 million (early 80's?) and so on.
I cannot think of an established, significant city in the Western world that has had such growth in population numbers and percentage. More than 1 million and more than 100% population increase in just over 30 years. That's ridiculous in a stable western democratic city.

Some state governments have been better than others, some worse. Some have done better with infrastructure, others not so well. I cannot think of a State Government (or Federal for that matter) that has not squandered money in good times when they should be saving for the bad, or at least spending on useful infrastructure rather than offering tax cuts and rebates that end up remaining in place when the bad times return. ALL have struggled to keep up with the requirements of an increasing population where demand for services (schools, hospitals, roads etc.) will always lead the ability to raise revenue from that population.
I actually do not blame any WA Government for failing to anticipate the rate of and needs of the population growth. It's just in the managing of it as it has happened that some have been worse than shite.
2017 sponsor of #6 - Elliot Yeo. 2017 B&F, 2017 EFH POTY.
User avatar
MrWoollie
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:53 am
Location: Peak District National Park

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Hamburger on Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:55 pm

MrWoollie wrote: What is more relevant is how the population of Perth has grown beyond any ability of infrastructure to keep up. I remember when the WA population reached 1 million (early 70's), then Perth overtook Adelaide, the only order change of Capital population so far since Federation, then Perth reached 1 million (early 80's?) and so on.
I cannot think of an established, significant city in the Western world that has had such growth in population numbers and percentage. More than 1 million and more than 100% population increase in just over 30 years. That's ridiculous in a stable western democratic city.

Some state governments have been better than others, some worse. Some have done better with infrastructure, others not so well. I cannot think of a State Government (or Federal for that matter) that has not squandered money in good times when they should be saving for the bad, or at least spending on useful infrastructure rather than offering tax cuts and rebates that end up remaining in place when the bad times return. ALL have struggled to keep up with the requirements of an increasing population where demand for services (schools, hospitals, roads etc.) will always lead the ability to raise revenue from that population.
I actually do not blame any WA Government for failing to anticipate the rate of and needs of the population growth. It's just in the managing of it as it has happened that some have been worse than shite.


I agree with your synopsis. However, it is a rare government indeed that acts before demand arrives and recent history shows they can be caned for acting to head off problems before they occur. A prime example is what happened when the QLD state government commissioned a desal plant because all the forecasts suggested the water supply dams were going to dry....then the deluge filled the dams and the plant was put into mothballs. They were pilloried by the media for 'wasting money'. In the long run it will prove to be a wise investment.
Here the government was slow to react to the boom on many fronts simply because it was not predictable UNTIL the Chinese pumped huge sums of money into building infrastructure to create employment after the 2008 GFC. Without that there probably would have been fighting in the streets of Chinese cities. That artificial demand for concrete and steel to build roads to nowhere and empty cities drove an enormous bubble here. Problem is that Barnett, the wider government and the guy in the street believed it was the new 'status quo'. I arrived in 2007 and spent a lot of time suggesting to many people that the boom would not/could not last beyond 5-7 years. Responses ranged from 'No....it will go on for decades...to why don't you fuck off back where you came from?" I was pretty much on the money and that was not hard to do....the Department of State Development publishes quarterly reports and they consistently showed that most of the employment was in construction of the mining and O&G expansions but that when built the operation of those new facilities would require about 20% (mining) of the construction workforce and less than 10% for the LNG plants. I also worked in the area of environmental approvals which generally take about 5 years to get through the green/red tape. We could see in 2011 that things would fall off a cliff here in 2015 because of a lack of major projects in the pipeline. Now once the government decided the boom was the new black then all sorts of things became not only feasible/desirable but also essential. Hence the decision to build more accommodation in Port Hedland for example.....a decision that many said was 2 years too late to have any benefit.
The latest CommSec report has confirmed we are still bumping along the bottom of the post-boom trough. The situation would be much worse if this government had not initiated a series of major construction projects...e.g. the new stadium, Elizabeth Quay, lots of roads etc. However a lot of those decisions were influenced by planning forecasts that still anticipate this city growing to 1.5 million by 2050 which I think is fantasy.
Fact is population growth has currently slowed to a trickle here and there has been a net outward migration of many skilled people now there is no longer work for them. I am actually ok with that....this corner of the world cannot support as many people as those planning projections suggest. Problem is we still have a set of planning goals based on those projections.
I could go on about why we should be aiming for a sustainable population, and future proofing ourselves against the climate change which is already evident here.
But I will finish with the observation that the current government has shied away from any new approach to dealing with issues such as transportation, fuel costs, housing by reaching for the standard grab bag of cliches. That will not fix our problems....which are many.
Hamburger
Veteran
 
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 11:17 pm
Location: Bassendean sur le Mer

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Fat Side on Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:29 am

WCE06 wrote:Then because of the boom the federation then decided to penalise us by diverting our GST, to the extent our rivers of "gold" were offset pretty much exactly by our loss of GST.


The decision about the GST was made in 1999. The Govt had three years notice of any change of GST due to the three year cycle. Aside from that, Barnett stated when he won Govt in 2008 that our economy was not as good as people think. He was trying to dampen down the perception that everything was going gang busters. After announcing that, he went on a massive spending spree. He wanted his own stadium instead of the one previously planned. He wanted his own waterfront development instead of the planned model. Fiona Stanley hospital (FSH) was already planned and budgeted for.

The previous Govt built the Mandurah railway line including a blow out into the $billions, they blew out the cost of the Arena and planned and budgeted for FSH. Despite that the debt handed to Barnett was around $3 billion and a healthy budget surplus.

The infrastructure spent does not add up to a debt pushing towards $40 billion (an increase of more than 1000% in just 8 years). Now our annual budget deficit is almost the same as the debt this Govt inherited (we are effectively borrowing our 2008 debt each year). He has put up electricity by more than 80% and water by more than 60%. Unemployment has gone from the lowest in the country to the second highest. Many of the road building infrastructure projects were mostly funded by Canberra. The Perth City Link was largely funded by Canberra.

There is no excuse for this mess. Barnett and his Govt failed to see the writing on the wall and have spent like there is no tomorrow. I accept that the downturn means we must build infrastructure to boost employment. I accept that, by doing so, the debt will increase, but there is no justification for the economic vandalism that has occurred here in the past eight years. After all of this he is still throwing money around. It has to stop.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Crazy Dazz on Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:08 pm

Unless we are going to move into ultra high speed, or you are hauling iron ore, trains are ancient technology, absurdly expensive, and grossly inefficient.

Our metropolitan trains service is beyond despicable. 30 years ago I was in Singapore, and used a modern MRT system. Magnificent.
Then to see what we came up with? Disgraceful.

Lets be honest, the left-wing love of trains is purely idealogical. Roads are used by private cars, privately owned transport, and buses which are privatised. A Publicly owned rail-network is one of the last bastions of communism.

I actually thought Labour had some good ideas last time around. I'll wait and see what they come up with.

But for me there is also another problem. Labour would sell their own Grandmothers for a Green preference, and God help us if there is a hung parliament with Greens in the lower house.
I DESPISE the Greens. A Bunch of lying fascist hypocrites.
Reality for me is that the last thing I want to see is any government influenced by the Greens.
I would rather see a Coalition containing Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, and the Shooters & Dickheads party, than anything involving the Greens.
User avatar
Crazy Dazz
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Doing The Eagle Rock

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby WCE06 on Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:51 pm

I thought Pauline Hanson's description of our state as screwed was spot on. McGowan is an idiot, the Libs arrogant and out of touch and the Nationals a rabble. She's going to be a big player here I reckon.
However strong or fast or skilled a knight is there are others who can match him. A man will win one tournament and fall quickly in the next. A slick spot on the grass may mean defeat, or what you had for supper the last night. A change in the wind may mean victory.
George R. R. Martin.
User avatar
WCE06
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:11 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby farmer joe on Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:09 pm

Crazy Dazz wrote:But for me there is also another problem. Labour would sell their own Grandmothers for a Green preference, and God help us if there is a hung parliament with Greens in the lower house.
I DESPISE the Greens. A Bunch of lying fascist hypocrites.
Reality for me is that the last thing I want to see is any government influenced by the Greens.
I would rather see a Coalition containing Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, and the Shooters & Dickheads party, than anything involving the Greens.

Dazz. The Greens support and encouragement for the Population Ponzi says it all. They are far from the green tree huggers that they sell themselves as.
I think the lower house is going to get interesting. Hanson may win a seat or two depending on preferences and I would think the days of the Libs putting her last have past?
I am laughing about Fat Side's comments about the infrastructure spend. WA would be a complete mess if it hadn't happened. Problem is that most in WA don't understand asset recycling and how, if done correctly, can help maintain a state economy. Cut structural spending (wages, admin, subsidies) before you cut infrastructure spending particularly in the environment post the mining construction boom. Economics 101....
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Crazy Dazz on Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:57 pm

What shits me about the Greens & Lefties is this:
When it comes to important issues, such as protecting our country and society, they want to be all "liberal" and hands off. They're happy to let illegal immigrants, terrorists, paedophiles, and drug traffickers run amok.
But at the same time they want to regulate what car I'm allowed to drive, what opinions I'm allowed to express, my grocery bags, and how many litres of water I'm allowed to use to flush a turd.
User avatar
Crazy Dazz
EFH Legend
 
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:18 pm
Location: Doing The Eagle Rock

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Fat Side on Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:22 am

farmer joe wrote:
Crazy Dazz wrote:But for me there is also another problem. Labour would sell their own Grandmothers for a Green preference, and God help us if there is a hung parliament with Greens in the lower house.
I DESPISE the Greens. A Bunch of lying fascist hypocrites.
Reality for me is that the last thing I want to see is any government influenced by the Greens.
I would rather see a Coalition containing Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, and the Shooters & Dickheads party, than anything involving the Greens.


I am laughing about Fat Side's comments about the infrastructure spend. WA would be a complete mess if it hadn't happened. Problem is that most in WA don't understand asset recycling and how, if done correctly, can help maintain a state economy. Cut structural spending (wages, admin, subsidies) before you cut infrastructure spending particularly in the environment post the mining construction boom. Economics 101....


My post concedes that infrastructure is important and it also concedes that our debt had to rise in order to build infrastructure. Barnett has cut wages growth with little effect. My point is simply that Barnett has over-spent in infrastructure. He needed a longer term plan. Our credit rating has dropped two points from AAA which suggests that our debt is burdening and Barnett does not have the wherewithal or desire to rectify it. Barnett's economics is not sound. I also mentioned that Labor spent $billions on infrastructure and had a fraction of today's debt. Is a debt of say $500billion okay provided it is spent on infrastructure? What is reasonable?

Blind Freddy can see that Barnett's economic management of this state has been farcical. He has plenty of excuses and no answers.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby farmer joe on Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:29 am

Fat Side wrote:My post concedes that infrastructure is important and it also concedes that our debt had to rise in order to build infrastructure. Barnett has cut wages growth with little effect. My point is simply that Barnett has over-spent in infrastructure. He needed a longer term plan. Our credit rating has dropped two points from AAA which suggests that our debt is burdening and Barnett does not have the wherewithal or desire to rectify it. Barnett's economics is not sound. I also mentioned that Labor spent $billions on infrastructure and had a fraction of today's debt. Is a debt of say $500billion okay provided it is spent on infrastructure? What is reasonable?

Blind Freddy can see that Barnett's economic management of this state has been farcical. He has plenty of excuses and no answers.

The main issue with the budget is the structural spending. The decisions that are hurting us are not the infrastructure spend but the decisions that were made based around Iron Ore staying >$100/tonne and locking in long term wage increases, staffing levels and state government services. We are borrowing to live now through the impact of those decisions. Good for you if you are on the state payroll but not great for the rest of us plebs....
I am convinced that Barnett will sell the Stadium to Packer at a profit to the state. That has always been my view since the decision not to go ahead with the Subi upgrade. I am also a believer in selling things like Freo Port and the Power lines (which other states have done hence their lower debt levels) to pay down debt and fund future infrastructure. Asset recycling is a no brainer in a functioning, well developed economy. Unfortunately that is one step too far for lots of West Australians so living with a high state debt level is something we have to get used to.
farmer joe
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Total Package on Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:44 pm

farmer joe wrote:I am also a believer in selling things like Freo Port and the Power lines (which other states have done hence their lower debt levels) to pay down debt and fund future infrastructure. Asset recycling is a no brainer in a functioning, well developed economy. Unfortunately that is one step too far for lots of West Australians so living with a high state debt level is something we have to get used to.


Agreed... and now is the time they need to sell the power lines. Whilst that infrastructure is at it's most valuable.

Don't wait 10-15 years for Telsa storage technology to be affordable and in every home... and then suddenly try and sell the power infrastructure when it's worth has plummeted.
User avatar
Total Package
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:04 pm

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Mr Q on Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:22 pm

Crazy Dazz wrote:Unless we are going to move into ultra high speed, or you are hauling iron ore, trains are ancient technology, absurdly expensive, and grossly inefficient.


The iron ore trains should be the first indicator to you of the reality of rail v road. The iron ore industry in WA came about at a time of peak car - the 60s - and they built rail lines. Because they're way more cost effective methods of transport than roads. Trains can carry way more than trucks. They remove vehicles from the roads, which means that the roads are less congested. They even take up a lot less room than roads do - have a look at the footprint of the rail lines in the middle of the freeway compared to the freeway around them.

Crazy Dazz wrote:Our metropolitan trains service is beyond despicable. 30 years ago I was in Singapore, and used a modern MRT system. Magnificent.
Then to see what we came up with? Disgraceful.


The MRT system is, indeed quite impressive. Works brilliantly. For Singapore. Which has quite a different footprint to Perth - it's a very compact, very dense urban area. Incidentally, that compactness makes the transport system cheaper to build and operate, as you have a lot more boardings, and it can be commercially viable without subsidy.

Perth's rail system is actually extremely good. It's reliable. The trains appear pretty much exactly when they say they will. It's fairly modern (though the old A-class EMUs dating to 1991 are getting a bit long in the tooth now), very clean and the integration with the rest of the public transport system is absolutely brilliant (as long as your bus runs on time). We could do with a few more services most mornings, but the fact that the trains are usually filled to the brim is a sign that the services are very usable. It's interesting that Perth's northern and southern lines are often quoted as a best practice for new rail services in decentralised cities, as they function incredibly well.

What Perth's rail system does brilliantly is move cars off the roads. Given the propensity of cars to be single occupancy, imagine for instance the Mitchell Freeway in the morning if all those rail passengers drove to work in the city instead. It would be gridlock to the outer reaches of the city. I'd also point out that there are a reasonably high number of people who will catch a train that won't catch a bus - so rail increases the number of PT users in the city over a bus service covering the same area (which of course just get caught in the same traffic as every other vehicle).

Crazy Dazz wrote:Lets be honest, the left-wing love of trains is purely idealogical. Roads are used by private cars, privately owned transport, and buses which are privatised. A Publicly owned rail-network is one of the last bastions of communism.


Privatisation (and PPP implementation) of rail systems worldwide has been an absolute disgrace. It's a recipe for failure. Have a look at the PPP that the London Underground went through, and the fact that it ultimately involved the government bailing out the private sector and returning it to the public sphere. Have a look at the disaster that was the Connex outsourcing in Melbourne. A publicly owned rail network has a massive advantage for its user's over a privatised one - the operator's prime focus is operability, not profitability (and given that Perth is too decentralised for a fully profitable PT system, there's government subsidy anyway to make it happen).

Incidentally, after the Court government privatised the bus services in Perth, they went to shit for years. It took over a decade to clean up the mess. That said of course, the "privatisation" was only the operation and maintenance of the bus network: the actual buses are still owned by Transperth.

There was a reason that in nearly all the world the original private transport companies were all nationalised - it's just way more effective and efficient to run them that way.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Alternative facts, alternative facts, pants on fire....
User avatar
Mr Q
EFH Posting Lunatic
 
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Block 331

Re: WA State Election 2017

Postby Fat Side on Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:20 pm

Clough and Barnett are now arguing over the source of lead in the water at the new children's hospital.

All the while, the parking contractor is being paid $500k per month to....well, do nothing. The car park sits empty due to some diabolical agreement that essentially says that the Govt will pay despite the fact that Clough are constructing the hospital and the 12 month (to date) delay is down to them.
Make the switch now
User avatar
Fat Side
EFH Hall of Fame
 
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Board, Suggestions and Problems

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron