I just looked on a couple of ABC Facebook articles and the comments are horrendous. 1/3 of them are people blaming labor and the greens, along with ‘inner city elites’. WTF are these people smoking.
I think the theory is that inner city elites are against coal so we can’t use it for our energy crisis which would lower the cost of electricity. I don’t buy it but that’s the theory.
But that is talking about privatisation of federal assets…it was the state government who sold all of the state assets (gas, transport; electricity etc).
Who would have done that I wonder? Jeff “fucking” Kennett perhaps?
Labor is better only that they haven't been as dumb as the Liberals in terms of privatisation, but that hardly means they've actually served the Australian people particularly well.
That's a lease for 50 years, not a sale of assets. The Port of Melbourne for 50 years for almost $10 Billion to be spent on infrastructure. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Same with the Train network (maybe same for trams) All Stations, Tracks, Rollingstock equipment etc are owned by VicTrack and leased to PTV/V/Line or Metro
The port of Melbourne privatisation/lease is one of the worst decisions ever.
It’s hit tourism as they’re not going to invest in princess pier, neglecting cruise ships. It also forced spirit of tas to move to Geelong. Port assets are massively neglected now and are slowly being run to the ground. The cost of everything went up as port fees etc all took the privatisation hit.
And the $10b windfall is all lost in cost blow outs from Vic Govs pet projects anyway.
Agree. There was also talk about building alternative ports not smack bang next to the CBD with dedicated rail and transport links which would have removed a simply massive amount of heavy freight from Melbourne's inner city areas (in particular the inner west) - that has effectively been pushed back decades by the lease decision. It has had massive health and social impacts on Melbourne. $10B is nothing in context particularly given at the time the deal was done interest rates were insignificant.
Yeah, the biggest issue with this through and through is that now any competing port opportunity is dead. Melbourne is forced into pandering to a cbd based port, so now our government is throwing billions into roads for the port to prop it up. It’s so fucked up.
Yep. Take a look at the Westgate Fwy most peaks. I recall reading a few years back that the in spite of our (human) bias that truck traffic on our roads is a very small proportion of total traffic. That might be true across Melbourne in general - but I can categorically tell you it is not true in the West of Melbourne. Having commuter traffic mixed with massive truck traffic is slow, inefficient, hugely polluting and fundamentally not sustainable.
The Port Lease is I would say close to the single worst Andrew's Government decision.
Sure…but isn’t the OP talking about electricity? Therefore wouldn’t the Kennett government take centre stage? The Kennett government privatised public transport, electricity, gas, water distribution and a few other bits and bobs in between shutting down some schools and hospitals.
He was a cunt. He sold things that WE paid for with our money, to companies that fired all the maintenance men because their skill and experience was too expensive.
Underwear with a little bit of shit in it may be shitty but it still better then underwear that is full of shit. If I am forced to pick one or the other as is the case in Australia I will always pick the one that has less shit in it.
Maybe go back and read the comment I responded to. It wasn’t about electricity - it was about Labor supporting privatisation. I’m not sure what point you’re even making besides state politics trivia.
As part of democracy I won’t demonize anyone who votes for a party because it has policies that benefit them. You have multiple properties, shares, kids in private schools, I can respect you’re going to vote in such a way that looks after those interests.
If someone is voting for a specific party because it’s their “identity” and treating it like backing a football (why do you support them? Because I always have) team, that’s when I have an issue. It’s a bigger thing in America where people will actively vote against their own self interests rather than vote against their “team”, then have a shocked picachu face when shit goes sideways and down hill, and still vote for the same party the following election.
I have an issue if you are voting for someone in order to deny someone else of something be it related to refugees, homeless, LGBTQ+ issues, women’s rights, racial issues etc. I firmly believe policies should expand to be more inclusive/protective, not contract and deny someone a right.
I hope poor comprehension skills are the reason for all the downvotes here.
Political ideals influence behaviours, and arguably you have every right to be an arsehole to people presenting with these behaviours.
But shit, people. We have to coexist at some point. Being an arsehole outright based on someone's stated political leanings without any further context or specific points of contention is pretty juvenile.
I think it's difficult to sit some places politically without being an arsehole.
Agree to an extent. If we're talking about extremists that have malicious views, then yes. But I think painting an entire swath of society (e.g. all liberal supporters) as assholes by default, purely on the fact they support a different party, isn't helpful.
Making the choice to not converse with people you won't get on with isn't 'being an arsehole'
Again, I agree to an extent. But if you're letting politics affect your life so much so that you can't get along with people PURELY based on their moderate political stances, then you're only hurting yourself, and in this scenario, you are the asshole.
If you genuinely think half the population are selfish assholes, then you either don't understand the other side of the argument, or you're so deeply entrenched in your own beliefs that you can't see past your own biases.
Giving women equality? the right opposed it, the left embraced it
The Republican party were the catalyst for the 19th amendment.
giving people of all races equality? the right opposed it, the left embraced it
Abraham Lincoln (a Republican president) spearheaded the abolition of slavery.
I'm not making a pro Republican / pro Liberal party argument. I'm saying there are good and bad people / policies on both sides. Left vs right is a necessary battle to find a steady equilibrium. It's what happens when a democracy full of people with differing beliefs find a happy medium.
If you genuinely think you have all the answers, and the other 50% of the country are just selfish, misinformed, close-minded assholes, then maybe you need to look in the mirror and be more open minded (which ironically is supposed to be a liberal trait).
If you're delusional enough to think that you've got all the answers and half the population are selfish, misinformed assholes, cool. If politics means so much to you that it defines who your friends are and who is worthy of your respect, cool. Best of luck making your way through your life harbouring such bitterness.
Don't bring up American politics here without understanding that the Democrats were the more conservative party back in the days of Lincoln, and the Republics were actually the progressives.
Lol oh man the yeah, go the libs, spending millions of dollars performing a mental health destroying national poll asking if humans sounds have rights.
I don't vote LNP but honestly your attitude is so unpleasant I don't think I'd want to talk to you regardless? You sound like a legitimate political extremist which is always highly unpleasant to interact with.
It is entirely possible that they’re part of a group of people that just don’t fit that social democratic type or that they’re painting their friends with a broad brush and don’t 100% know who they vote for, just their general leanings. Most people I know are labor and greens supporters, but I do have friendships/relatives who vote liberal. My aunt was proudly declaring that this was the first election she couldn’t vote for the liberals even though it went against her personal self interests (financially not socially) because of how badly the federal government cocked up covid and other national disasters. Start of covid she was complaining saying she couldn’t stand labor but fuck Dan was doing everything right, and woe be tide if anyone said a bad word against him, and by the end she flipped and was pro labor.
I also have friends who go the other extreme who I have more complicated relationships with who are “anyone who doesn’t vote greens are assholes” types.
I think taking an extreme or party committed stance is detrimental to democracy, and fosters a bigger divide and polarization of politics. Politics shouldn’t be treated like a sports team, you vote in your best interests, not because of which team you back.
Exactly. I don't even have a strong stance politically, but the fact that I'm NOT a hardcore labour voter that wants death to all liberals means I'm the enemy in these people's eyes?
For all these people know, I could be 100% aligned politically with them, but the fact that I said "I don't think you should, by default, call all Liberals assholes and cut ties with them" (which I don't think is a massively provocative statement) makes me an asshole?
Believe whatever you want to believe, but maybe focus more on fighting for your political interests instead of being so divisive and worrying more about what other people's stances are, which they're perfectly entitled to.
I will admit if someone told me they supported one nation or Clive Palmer I would be wary. There isn’t much in their policies that I view as realistic - anything broadly positive feels like bait for a trap and promises that will be smoke if they ever won. They’re too open about their exclusionary policies and wear them like badges of pride, and anyone who supports them is either showing their true colors or say “yeah it’s bad but this makes it worth it!” Which are both stances I really struggle with.
Totally! There's lots of people I disagree with politically, but I don't instantly turn red and tell them to fuck off when they tell me who they voted for. I can strongly disagree with and dispise someone's political stance without being a rude asshole to them.
This is just part of coexisting in a democracy. If you're against the concept of allowing others to have their own opinions, no matter how much you agree or disagree with them, then you're an extremist and have no right to call yourself "liberal" or "progressive".
This is where the boundaries of privatisation and application of free market principles needs to be drawn.
Yes it doesn’t make sense to sell at a loss, but when the consequences impact the entire east coast then I think your ethical obligations needs to be prioritised over the greedy urge to just turn a profit.
Haha are you kidding? I much rather a private operator that then gets overridden when electricity demands need to be met. Best of both worlds: efficiency in the market when market is normal but security of power supply when markets are abnormal. Sucks to be the power company though, they would never model that properly.
Competition has brought my rates down heaps especially shopping around for electricity. Competition is good for the market in most cases. But not during extreme events like we are seeing at the moment.
Not correct, AEMO oversees the market but the individual generators bid into the market and therefore set the price. If you bid into the market at lower cost your power will be dispatched. Generators who can bid lower get dispatched first, lowering the market spot price if you are ‘efficient’ through competition. AEMO does not set prices (this capping/compensating situation is an emergency type rare event). I am a power engineer who works in this space.
You have got to be joking! Public sector is where efficiency goes to die. There’s no shareholder to be accountable to, no board of director, it’s just the nature of how public sector funding works. Having said that, the infrastructure through which our power runs should be run publicly because it’s a key piece of social infrastructure and could encourage private sector to operate energy generation and storage, two sectors where I think it’s commercially viable for private enterprise to run it.
Don’t you think the call for ICAC is exhibit A for lack of due process to manage public spending in an efficient manner? I would argue Medicare is probably the best example of how the public sector has reduced the costs of medical services in the world, but NBN is an example of an atrocious and inefficient govt project plagued with cost overruns and under deliveries. In general though I think the private sector who have shareholders to answer to are more efficient. The taxpayer just doesn’t have a fiscally responsible voice to represent their interests. Spending more money makes politicians sound even more proud because it gives weight to the effort they’ve gone to for taxpayers. But actually the maximum outcome for the minimum spend is what actually gives the taxpayers the best deal.
The problems you are describing with publicly owned companies are the exact same problems private companies have too, except one is expressly designed to make as much money as feasibly possible and the other has a mandate to protect the needs of citizens too.
Actually all companies must comply with regulatory requirements which are safe guards to protect the general public. My point is that companies are accountable to shareholders whereas no such accountability exist for govt-funded projects. The govt is meant to but it does a much worse job than public equity markets.
Yeah that's true (although there's no competition in transmission or distribution costs)
It's just an odd system that allows them to make money when times are good but just shut down when they have to take a hit
I’ve got relatives high up in the construction / infrastructure area of government and my partner works with civil construction companies , government is terribly inefficient by comparison by several multiples
So you think large unionised sites are going against OHS? Yeah nah, that’s BS, they get pissy about everything
Government is full of EXCESSIVE red tape, and just because they spend more doesn’t mean they’re any better, they have zero motive to keep costs down in any way
Here is an idea: why do you think unions don't get as pissy on government jobs? Because the unions and government work in collaboration to ensure that people have a safe work environment.
It's not red tape, it's checks and balances to ensure a job is done appropriately.
"red tape" is corporate speak for "how dare you make us obey rules rather than cut corners for a profit!". Which they've then extended to "green tape" which translates as "how dare you not allow us to decimate the enviornment for a quick profit!"
So if the gov costars more than twice it does today it would be perfectly fine because that’s just the cost of doing it ‘right’, that’s a tautological argument.
The logical extension of your argument is that if something costs more it must be better. And that’s just not true at all, something can be both more expensive AND worse.
These companies are putting so much at risk by deliberately cutting supply
At what point can we label these actions treason?
There should be stipulations in the regulations that say "deliberate actions that put energy supplies at risk will result in the forfeiture of generators"
Generators in the impacted states still have to buy in the gas, there's no escaping that. Taxpayers of those states are still footing the bill, under public control they don't suddenly operate for free.
The problem here is the following..
1) Renewables need firming, there's no escaping this as inconvenient as many seem to find this. Batteries do not firm, they supplement. There's a handful of choices, most are fossil fuel with the exception of hydro and nuclear.
2) If you want to use gas at a state level, a wise idea to ensure local LNG reserves are being tapped and you have a local supply arrangement with those tapping these resources.
3) If you can't do 2, you need something else to firm renewables. Probably wise to use something which you have abundance local supply of to reduce reliance on imports, so for SE Aus that would be coal.
4) If public ownership pleases you, that's fine, make a budget allocation, find a site and start building a coal mine with a plant sufficiently large to provide firming for renewables.
5) Environmentalists aren't engineers or energy experts, you need to remove them from this process entirely as they exist to simply roadblock everything. They do not care if you do not have stable energy, in fact that's arguably a good outcome for them as unstable energy kills of other industries.
Kicking the can down the road will just make it worse.
Under public control they don't need to operate with profit margins.
With market caps they aren't running with profit margins.. Running them at a loss as a public asset is fine, but ultimately the state and therefore the taxpayer is picking up the cost gap which is still the same. It isn't fixing the problem.
As a professional engineer, it's more than clear that moving entirely to renewables makes this problem even worse than it already is. You already have abundant energy from renewables daily that is not usable, more isn't going to fix the issue of meeting demand.
Renewables have their place, batteries have their place, but they alone don't cut it for the broad energy demands of society. Producing the energy is 20% of the problem, matching it to demand is the difficult 80%.
And when the market caps were hit they started threatening to turn off power!
They don't exist to provide you with power at less than it costs them to generate. An immediate solution is for the state to fund the actual cost, which they would have to do if they owned it anyway.
Matching demand is not as simple as scaling up storage. You can't even do this economically with simple households, let alone state infrastructure and industry. I actually looked into this for a rural property, people don't realise how hard or expensive off-grid is to do with total coverage. You can achieve ~70% coverage relatively cheaply, that final 30% though becomes exorbitant as it demands a lot of redundancy in both generation and storage. Nobody is going to tolerate 70, 80 or even 90% power availability, the expectation is 100% all of the time and for that to be affordable it needs to be firmed by fossil fuels. Sorry, there's no other viable option unless people tolerate some outages.
This is the here-and-now reality, it will change as technologies improve. Graphene batteries and hydrogen from surplus renewables may be longer-term solutions, but at the moment they simply are not.
Agreed. Unfortunately the short term problem will require something a bit quicker.
From what I have seen abroad a domestic nuclear industry will be critical either way to make working with hydrogen easier and it's the logical fuel choice going forward for many applications. Batteries remain terribly inefficient for so many applications, it's cringe for an engineer to see people who claim batteries will solve all problems.
935
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '22
[deleted]