Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.

[QuietB]

Norway also has enormous wealth from oil and we are 25x larger in area.

We have equal or more wealth from resources - but we went the UK route and sold it for cents on the dollar.

Someone is making a fortune - sadly it is not Australians.

 

[nut]

We have equal or more wealth from resources - but we went the UK route and sold it for cents on the dollar.

Someone is making a fortune - sadly it is not Australians.

And we have to sign up to Aukus to protect ourselves from evil states that might come for our natural resources ….
So effectively we are actually paying the US corporations so they can come and dig up everything ….

What we need to realise is we’ve been sold. We have no sovereignty …
Until we take back our natural resources we are nothing.

 

[The Punter]

Baillieu/Napthine also cut down the Regional Rail Link scope to the bare minimum, basically a 10 year horizon for rail projects which are usually 20, minimum. Considering it was only finished 10 years ago, it's already become a constraint on the network including de-scoped overpasses becoming at-grade junctions which were clearly going to struggle. That's on top of next-to-no planning or delivery of anything else.

The Baillieu/Napthine Governments ran on the premise that the budget must be in surplus, and when the bottom fell out of revenue in early 2011, Baillieu spent the first half of the year locked in 1 Treasury Place finding the savings to preserve the surplus. That's why a bunch of projects were reduced, delayed or cancelled. It was also the genesis for the brand for Baillieu of being "do nothing" which was not able to be refuted before the 2014 election.

 

[The Punter]

There still needs to be change from the majors in the public transport space.
Theres still very much a car centric attitude and reactive when it comes to public transport.

SRL is a rather proactive for a change.

Free will only work when frequency is there.
Brisbane is actually giving good data on it.
The frequent stuff has explored in patronage. The not so frequent stuff hasn't as much.
Paying for it will be a different too. Queensland can lean on its mining to pay.

The SRL (the entire thing from Werribee to Cheltenham) is fine as a visionary project. It's just absolutely not what should be next - that should be quadrification and electrification from Melton, and plenty of independent experts have said the same thing.

And as I have said before, getting people out of their cars also requires a more nuanced approach than "eat your vegetables". I say this as a lifetime user of public transport.

 

[Saint]

The Baillieu/Napthine Governments ran on the premise that the budget must be in surplus, and when the bottom fell out of revenue in early 2011, Baillieu spent the first half of the year locked in 1 Treasury Place finding the savings to preserve the surplus. That's why a bunch of projects were reduced, delayed or cancelled. It was also the genesis for the brand for Baillieu of being "do nothing" which was not able to be refuted before the 2014 election.

Yeah, well the inability of the leader of a $40bn organisation being unable to plan 10 years in the future because of a short-term revenue shortfall was a huge part of the problem and has always been the problem for conservatives. A refusal to look into the future and a steadfast commitment to the past. It's practically why the party exists and how 90% of its members and MPs behave and govern.

Would any private company abandon a 1-year product launch because the week 1 figures don't meet expectations?

Robodebt was the same thinking. Let's traumatise a million people for a theoretical billion in savings.

Net Zero is the same thinking. Why should I pay a little more for energy now, just to stop a whole bunch of awful consequences in the next 20 years?

It got more traction when people could save for a house in a year, didn't take much fore-sight. Now you have to not only save for 5-10 years, but also invest your savings wisely to keep up with inflation. Anyone with a <5 year outlook is doomed. Which is exactly the problem of the Conservatives, never want to look more than the next election into the future.

 

[QuietB]

Yeah, well the inability of the leader of a $40bn organisation being unable to plan 10 years in the future because of a short-term revenue shortfall was a huge part of the problem and has always been the problem for conservatives. A refusal to look into the future and a steadfast commitment to the past. It's practically why the party exists and how 90% of its members and MPs behave and govern.

Would any private company abandon a 1-year product launch because the week 1 figures don't meet expectations?

Robodebt was the same thinking. Let's traumatise a million people for a theoretical billion in savings.

Net Zero is the same thinking. Why should I pay a little more for energy now, just to stop a whole bunch of awful consequences in the next 20 years?

It got more traction when people could save for a house in a year, didn't take much fore-sight. Now you have to not only save for 5-10 years, but also invest your savings wisely to keep up with inflation. Anyone with a <5 year outlook is doomed. Which is exactly the problem of the Conservatives, never want to look more than the next election into the future.

Are there any examples anywhere in the world of austerity actually making any economy better?

 

[The Punter]

Yeah, well the inability of the leader of a $40bn organisation being unable to plan 10 years in the future because of a short-term revenue shortfall was a huge part of the problem and has always been the problem for conservatives. A refusal to look into the future and a steadfast commitment to the past. It's practically why the party exists and how 90% of its members and MPs behave and govern.

Would any private company abandon a 1-year product launch because the week 1 figures don't meet expectations?

Robodebt was the same thinking. Let's traumatise a million people for a theoretical billion in savings.

Net Zero is the same thinking. Why should I pay a little more for energy now, just to stop a whole bunch of awful consequences in the next 20 years?

It got more traction when people could save for a house in a year, didn't take much fore-sight. Now you have to not only save for 5-10 years, but also invest your savings wisely to keep up with inflation. Anyone with a <5 year outlook is doomed. Which is exactly the problem of the Conservatives, never want to look more than the next election into the future.

On the other hand, we do have our $2m per day interest bill, servicing debt which a sizable portion of it is not due to infrastructure spending but the bloated levels of the upper public service, executives on $500k salaries, providing no service to the public but all recurrent expenditure with no acquisition of an asset at the end of it.

Infrastructure spending was ticking up under Napthine, who commenced the level crossing removal project. Andrews took it to the next level, and made it needlessly more expensive by choosing CFMEU labour over AWU labour.

 

[nut]

On the other hand, we do have our $2m per day interest bill, servicing debt which a sizable portion of it is not due to infrastructure spending but the bloated levels of the upper public service, executives on $500k salaries, providing no service to the public but all recurrent expenditure with no acquisition of an asset at the end of it.

Infrastructure spending was ticking up under Napthine, who commenced the level crossing removal project. Andrews took it to the next level, and made it needlessly more expensive by choosing CFMEU labour over AWU labour.

Who are we paying that $2m a day to?

 

[The Punter]

Who are we paying that $2m a day to?

Whomever lent the Victorian Government the money.

 

[Saint]

On the other hand, we do have our $2m per day interest bill, servicing debt which a sizable portion of it is not due to infrastructure spending but the bloated levels of the upper public service, executives on $500k salaries, providing no service to the public but all recurrent expenditure with no acquisition of an asset at the end of it.

Infrastructure spending was ticking up under Napthine, who commenced the level crossing removal project. Andrews took it to the next level, and made it needlessly more expensive by choosing CFMEU labour over AWU labour.

What is this thing where you keep talking about the AWU like they'd be the saviour of the debt or construction blowout problems?
a) I don't know why you think the AWU are cheaper or better than the CFMEU. Are the AWU considered squeaky clean by the Libs or something. What makes you think they're better than the CFMEU?
b) I don't know why you think it's not the financiers, construction companies and Govt agencies who are mostly responsible for cost blowouts.
c) Who are the execs providing no service?

 

[The Punter]

What is this thing where you keep talking about the AWU like they'd be the saviour of the debt or construction blowout problems?
a) I don't know why you think the AWU are cheaper or better than the CFMEU. Are the AWU considered squeaky clean by the Libs or something. What makes you think they're better than the CFMEU?
b) I don't know why you think it's not the financiers, construction companies and Govt agencies who are mostly responsible for cost blowouts.

The CFMEU contracts are more generous than the AWU contracts. AWU workers were well paid. It's why infrastructure is cheaper in other states. It was a conscious decision of the Andrews Government and is the thing that is not like the other thing. The financiers, construction companies and government agencies are all alike across jurisdictions.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the AWU don't like 19 year old kids in sheds for four hours for the mistake of working for the wrong company. Kids who kill themselves that evening.

 

[Saint]

The CFMEU contracts are more generous than the AWU contracts. AWU workers were well paid. It's why infrastructure is cheaper in other states. It was a conscious decision of the Andrews Government and is the thing that is not like the other thing. The financiers, construction companies and government agencies are all alike across jurisdictions.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the AWU don't like 19 year old kids in sheds for four hours for the mistake of working for the wrong company. Kids who kill themselves that evening.

The CFMEU are the Construction Union, where the majority of construction workers work and work on most non-Govt construction builds as well across Victoria.

They're not a great Union, seems like not many (if any) are. But the Conservatives are hardly cleanskins when it comes to mis-treating workers at work (Linda Reynolds, Alan Tudge, Barnaby) or caring about peoples' mental health: Robodebt)

But this whole "If only the Govt chose the AWU instead of CFMEU, there wouldn't be any construction project problems" just seems more like wishful thinking than based on evidence.

Tunnelling costs more in Victoria because of the ground conditions. What other infrastructure is cheaper interstate? Is there any evidence behind any of this?

It sounds more like the RAFFWU v SDA battle. Where I don't think it really matters which Union is involved for the teenager flipping the burgers on the end outcome, but the SDA is full of twats and no doubt the CFMEU is too.

 

[The Punter]

But this whole "If only the Govt chose the AWU instead of CFMEU, there wouldn't be any construction project problems" just seems more like wishful thinking than based on evidence.

This is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. But what I have identified is clearly a problem that was only of the Andrews Government making and easily avoidable.

There are plenty of commercial construction jobs for the CFMEU where they have traditionally plied their trade, and companies were happy to make commercial decisions with their own money on whom to employ. It's a little different when it is taxpayer's money.

 

[Saint]

This is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. But what I have identified is clearly a problem that was only of the Andrews Government making and easily avoidable.

There are plenty of commercial construction jobs for the CFMEU where they have traditionally plied their trade, and companies were happy to make commercial decisions with their own money on whom to employ. It's a little different when it is taxpayer's money.

Aren't they on the same Award, working in construction whether they're AWU or CFMEU?

For a 9-5 shift, the highest minimum wage is $53. There's a bunch of loading and add-ons, but all the construction companies were paying a hell of a lot more than that during the boom, so not sure how the Union would matter more than the company's pay rates.

 

[The Punter]

Aren't they on the same Award, working in construction whether they're AWU or CFMEU?

For a 9-5 shift, the highest minimum wage is $53. There's a bunch of loading and add-ons, but all the construction companies were paying a hell of a lot more than that during the boom, so not sure how the Union would matter more than the company's pay rates.

They are all on enterprise bargaining agreements.

 

[Saint]

They are all on enterprise bargaining agreements.

What % difference do you think there is between the AWU EBAs and the CFMEU EBAs?

And what % of these job costs are labour?

And, if we follow Liberal logic, shouldn't we be paying the best wages to get the best workers from interstate to move to Victoria. Shouldn't the Liberals be celebrating that we pay the highest wages so that we get the best workers? That's what their execs tell us about their wages. Why are site workers any different?

 

[The Punter]

What % difference do you think there is between the AWU EBAs and the CFMEU EBAs?

About 50% in base rates.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

The Baillieu/Napthine Governments ran on the premise that the budget must be in surplus, and when the bottom fell out of revenue in early 2011, Baillieu spent the first half of the year locked in 1 Treasury Place finding the savings to preserve the surplus. That's why a bunch of projects were reduced, delayed or cancelled. It was also the genesis for the brand for Baillieu of being "do nothing" which was not able to be refuted before the 2014 election.

It can't be refuted after the 2014 election either - the public sector of the state's economy just stopped and that meant mass redundancies in many industries, including the one I was in at the time.

Labor swung the pendulum as far as possible the other way, which has led to massive overspending and debt - but it did at least get the economy moving again which the Liberals could/would not do.

 

[Sttew]

What % difference do you think there is between the AWU EBAs and the CFMEU EBAs?

And what % of these job costs are labour?

And, if we follow Liberal logic, shouldn't we be paying the best wages to get the best workers from interstate to move to Victoria. Shouldn't the Liberals be celebrating that we pay the highest wages so that we get the best workers? That's what their execs tell us about their wages. Why are site workers any different?

Highest wages to get the best workers? Bikies using standover tactics, threatening contractors not approved by the CFMEU, endorsed "ghost shifts"...

The CFMEU is a a melting pot of corruption and industrial thuggery. Have you not read any of Nick McKenzie's reports?

 

[The Punter]

It can't be refuted after the 2014 election either - the public sector of the state's economy just stopped and that meant mass redundancies in many industries, including the one I was in at the time.

Labor swung the pendulum as far as possible the other way, which has led to massive overspending and debt - but it did at least get the economy moving again which the Liberals could/would not do.

I have been making the point that Baillieu prioritised fiscal discipline over almost everything else.

The issue right now is the Victorian economy is very much a public sector economy. That money has to come from somewhere, and it now comes in ever increasing amounts from landowners, car park operators, accommodation venues, and of course, money lenders.

I'm not an economic expert, but if the private sector, particularly that part which can thrive without significant financial government intervention, can grow as part of the Victorian economy, then theoretically revenue can increase without the rate or scope of taxes increasing.

The above is not a mistake, it's a strategy.

 

[QuietB]

What is this thing where you keep talking about the AWU like they'd be the saviour of the debt or construction blowout problems?
a) I don't know why you think the AWU are cheaper or better than the CFMEU. Are the AWU considered squeaky clean by the Libs or something. What makes you think they're better than the CFMEU?
b) I don't know why you think it's not the financiers, construction companies and Govt agencies who are mostly responsible for cost blowouts.
c) Who are the execs providing no service?

The number of engineers on these big build jobs is obscene.

There are the consulting engineers doing the actual design.

There are the construction engineers monitoring the construction - and the construction companies don’t have a whole lot of motivation to make this particularly efficient - contracts are cost plus after all. The more engineers the more the cost - the more the cost the higher the margin.

Then there are a whole bunch of government engineers adding SFA to the process - mostly just slow everything down and make it more inefficient. Again - the more the cost the higher the margin.

The high costs are not necessarily a CFMEU problem. The entire delivery model is inefficient - or at least does not reward efficiency by its nature. Engineers are just one example.

Which is weird because I always thought the private sector did things more efficiently

Just to add a little salt to the wound, majority of the construction companies eligible for big build are foreign owned

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

The SRL (the entire thing from Werribee to Cheltenham) is fine as a visionary project. It's just absolutely not what should be next - that should be quadrification and electrification from Melton, and plenty of independent experts have said the same thing.

And as I have said before, getting people out of their cars also requires a more nuanced approach than "eat your vegetables". I say this as a lifetime user of public transport.

Theres nothing stopping them doing both at the same time.
Electrification of an existing line isnt hard in the grand scheme of things.
That side of town does have Sunshine as an issue and capacity through it.

Electrification will be rather underutilised until the rebuild of the station and track layout happens

 

[The Punter]

Theres nothing stopping them doing both at the same time.
Electrification of an existing line isnt hard in the grand scheme of things.
That side of town does have Sunshine as an issue and capacity through it.

Electrification will be rather underutilised until the rebuild of the station and track layout happens

Isn't their a skill shortage issue on them doing both at the same time? I understand the money thing isn't an issue, the government can just borrow more to do both at the same time.

If there is a priority list, and if one thing should be done before another, there is no argument that the SRL should come before significant primary expansion of public transport to poorly serviced areas in the west.

 

[nut]

Whomever lent the Victorian Government the money.

So for all the infrastructure we are building the interest payments are 33 cents per person a day…. Seems too good to be true.

 

[Saint]

Highest wages to get the best workers? Bikies using standover tactics, threatening contractors not approved by the CFMEU, endorsed "ghost shifts"...

The CFMEU is a a melting pot of corruption and industrial thuggery. Have you not read any of Nick McKenzie's reports?

Have you read about the investigations of Shorten and Gillard at the AWU?

I'm not saying the CFMEU is better. I'm just pointing out that when people say the problem is that the AWU was sidelined for the CFMEU and that's the bulk of the problem, it's clearly not the bulk of the problem. Conservatives think all Unions shouldn't exist, but the moment they take on any capitalist bent (like maximising profit for their members) the Conservatives are up-in-arms.