WA election costings row escalates

Date
    March 1, 2013

   

The row over the price tags on West Australian election commitments has escalated, with the opposition pouncing on Treasurer Troy Buswell for betting on hefty federal government contributions for the Liberals' transport projects.     :-?

Mr Buswell said he expected half of the projects - the MAX light rail, a heavy-gauge rail line to Perth's airport, and the Perth-to-Darwin highway - would be paid for by the federal government.

He said that was "pretty consistent" with commonwealth investment in other metropolitan projects, including the Gateway road project.

Funding from the federal government's Nation Building Program had been included in current forward estimates, he said.


"There is plenty of evidence that that money will flow and it will flow into those projects because they are the government's priority projects," Mr Buswell told reporters on Friday.

"I would be looking at the commonwealth to fund at least half of those projects."

But opposition treasury spokesman Ben Wyatt said the admission was extraordinary and showed the Liberals' key election pledges were "nothing but empty promises".     :(

"It casts serious doubt over these major Liberal Party promises and highlights a massive black hole in their budget," Mr Wyatt said.     :(

"They will only proceed if the federal government picks up more than half of the tab."

Mr Buswell said he would submit all of the Liberal Party's election commitments to treasury for independent costing on Friday afternoon.

They would appear on the treasury website by Thursday at the latest, he said, adding the Liberals were "very confident and comfortable" with the figures they had provided for validation.

If the party had made mistakes, that would be made clear in the Treasury documents, Mr Buswell said.

Meanwhile, treasury revealed its assessment of Labor's Metronet rail project, costing it at $4.335 billion, compared with the party's $3.8 billion estimate.

The Liberals had said Metronet would cost $6.4 billion.

Mr Wyatt defended the party's decision not to hand over all its election commitment costings to treasury - saying the Liberals had done the same while in opposition in 2008.

"We'll be submitting the aggregates of our costings to treasury so they can then inform us what impact that has on the net debt level of the state," he said.

Mr Buswell accused Labor of being "all over the shop" with its costings and called on the party to fully inform voters about its plans.

He said there were "risks" around operating costs for Labor's Metronet, pledges relating to police and building an AFL stadium in Subiaco by 2018, as well as an alternative plan for developing Perth's waterfront.

Opposition leader Mark McGowan initially said the alternative waterfront plan was "good" but later denied he had adopted it.

Mr Buswell also said Labor's plan to abolish the Tariff Equalisation Contribution levy to reduce household power bills could cost up to $250 million a year.

He said he had not met anyone other than Mr McGowan who believed Labor's plans were deliverable.

Mr McGowan said Labor would build Metronet, because the city's roads would choke if it didn't.    



Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/wa-election-costings-row-escalates-20130301-2fbk0.html#ixzz2MKovIdR5

One thing with all pollies..if their lips are moving..they are lying.

It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises

They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years.

It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises

You have this in the West a corresponding Black hole federally, the atrocious Behaviour of the Liberals in Qld and NSW breaking promises, sacking as many people as they can and lying about the states finances with worse performance still in Vic.

The Liberals primary reliable skills set seems to be breaking promises sacking people and a financial black hole.

This looks to be consistent in all their current efforts as well as their recent past.

Quote:

The Liberals primary reliable skills set seems to be breaking promises sacking people and a financial black hole. This looks to be consistent in all their current efforts as well as their recent past.

Dnaever



And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ????

stryder wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:33am:

Quote: The Liberals primary reliable skills set seems to be breaking promises sacking people and a financial black hole. This looks to be consistent in all their current efforts as well as their recent past. Dnaever And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ????

Name a state, Stryder.

Quote:

Name a state, Stryder.

MOTR


Im asking Dnaever the question,


Quote:

And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ????

by me  :)

you dont come to my mind im sorry

stryder wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:33am:

Quote: The Liberals primary reliable skills set seems to be breaking promises sacking people and a financial black hole. This looks to be consistent in all their current efforts as well as their recent past. Dnaever And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ????

you could start with about 10 000 public servants in QLD.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:19am:

It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years.

And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue??

At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:37am:

stryder wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:33am: Quote: The Liberals primary reliable skills set seems to be breaking promises sacking people and a financial black hole. This looks to be consistent in all their current efforts as well as their recent past. Dnaever And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ???? you could start with about 10 000 public servants in QLD.

O'Farrell cuts 900 jobs from Hospitals - over 80% front line staff. (Just Hospitals)


Quote:

Despite the Health Minister claiming only bureaucrats would be sacked under her $3 billion funding cut to the health system, the documents show 739 of the 902 health job cuts this year will come directly from Local Health Districts. Local Health Districts are responsible for everyone from clinicians, nurses, radiographers, Emergency Department clerks, nursing unit managers, cleaners, porters and catering staff.

http://www.sangbad.com.au/latest-news/nsw-workers-fight-ofarrells-15000-job-cuts-and-disgraceful-attack-on-family-leave-and-basic-conditions/


Quote:

Public sector workers from across NSW have today united in protest against the O’Farrell Government’s unprecedented decision to sack 15,000 workers and dump family leave, shift penalty rates and other basic conditions.

QLD Newman cuts 14,000 jobs.

Vic Ted Baillieu cuts 3,500 Jobs (this time).


And just who are the liberals sacking or did sacked DNAEVER ????

Just about everyone they could by the looks of it.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it.

Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard?

Geez you're a complete fool.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:53am:

At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it.

What sort of doublespeak is this?

Sounds like just a weak justification for LNP broken promises to me.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL? Geez you're a complete fool.

i thought the same thing when I read it ... he hasn't a clue

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL? Geez you're a complete fool. i thought the same thing when I read it ... he hasn't a clue

He really doesn't. He's dropped his gold_medal nickname, came back as longie, and all of a sudden has dropped to the level of Maqqa.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool.

among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days.

Maybe it is time to pitch in the federal labor torago. Give ourselves plenty of time to get a good one and pimp it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. What sort of doublespeak is this? Sounds like just a weak justification for LNP broken promises to me.

ita a parallel to the real life that SOME of have. The life with work and family and extra-curricular involvement where sometimes you promise something you simply cant do. It was well-intentioned but not possible. But there are also promises you make that are unbreakable no matter what and you move heaven and earth to make sure you fulfill it. Thats a core promise.

If some of you had lives and relationships and families this wouldn't have to be explained to you. It is just life.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days.

says you .....

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 11:53am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it.

that there are major election promies that are immovable

There will never be a GST under any government I lead - (Q Never) A: Never Ever. - John Howard.

The biggest tax gouge in Australian History.

Quote:

you could start with about 10 000 public servants in QLD  john smith QLD Newman cuts 14,000 jobs. Vic Ted Baillieu cuts 3,500 Jobs Dnaever

So your telling me from these well rounded numbers that these gov departments are going to collapse from within because they wont have the same THAT VERY SAME WELL ROUNDED NUMBERS, I MEAN DOWNSIZING HAPPENS EVERYDAY AND WHY SHOULDNT TAXPAYERS DEMAND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ?????

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:26pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. What sort of doublespeak is this? Sounds like just a weak justification for LNP broken promises to me. ita a parallel to the real life that SOME of have. The life with work and family and extra-curricular involvement where sometimes you promise something you simply cant do. It was well-intentioned but not possible. But there are also promises you make that are unbreakable no matter what and you move heaven and earth to make sure you fulfill it. Thats a core promise. If some of you had lives and relationships and families this wouldn't have to be explained to you. It is just life.

isn't a little early to be so drunk????

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days.

among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one.

The Carbon tax statment probably cost her votes, many people voting for her wanted action on climate change.

or are you refering to Howards GST promise where it did secure his political future, without that commitment he would have never been PM?

According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich...

stryder wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Quote: you could start with about 10 000 public servants in QLD  john smith QLD Newman cuts 14,000 jobs. Vic Ted Baillieu cuts 3,500 Jobs Dnaever So your telling me from these well rounded numbers that these gov departments are going to collapse from within because they wont have the same THAT VERY SAME WELL ROUNDED NUMBERS, I MEAN DOWNSIZING HAPPENS EVERYDAY AND WHY SHOULDNT TAXAYERS DEMAND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ?????

just this morning i was reading a story in the GC bulletin (not my copy so I cannot reference it ... tried to find it online but haven't had any luck) about a woman who went into hospital for surgery, and within 5 days there was only 1 nurse left  in the ward (due to Newmans downsizing) ... this patient was bleeding from the stomach and in pain, and buzzing for the nurse but as the nurse was on her own attending other patients it took half an hour for the nurse to get to her

downsizing sounds nice in theory, but it is not always the right thing to do . If they need 10 nurses, they need 10 nurses, it's rather simple ....... you do not 'downsize' because it is the current economic fad.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days. says you .....

i believe the polls and the ongoing political angst with her breach of promise proves my point. And since you cant even recall what the non-core comment was in relation to, that also proves my point.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:26pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. What sort of doublespeak is this? Sounds like just a weak justification for LNP broken promises to me. ita a parallel to the real life that SOME of have. The life with work and family and extra-curricular involvement where sometimes you promise something you simply cant do. It was well-intentioned but not possible. But there are also promises you make that are unbreakable no matter what and you move heaven and earth to make sure you fulfill it. Thats a core promise. If some of you had lives and relationships and families this wouldn't have to be explained to you. It is just life. isn't a little early to be so drunk????

hit a nerve, did I?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. The Carbon tax statment probably cost her votes, many people voting for her wanted action on climate change. or are you refering to Howards GST promise where it did secure his political future, without that commitment he would have never been PM?

Howard made that comment in 1995 and two elections later - one of which was a referendum on the GST, implemented one. Gillard on the other hard said there would be no carbon tax under her govt on the Thursday before the election and then reneged on the Monday morning after. The differences are the difference between Howards integrity and Gillards opportunism

Quote:

just this morning i was reading a story in the GC bulletin (not my copy so I cannot reference it ... tried to find it online but haven't had any luck) about a woman who went into hospital for surgery, and within 5 days there was only 1 nurse left  in the ward (due to Newmans downsizing) ... this patient was bleeding from the stomach and in pain, and buzzing for the nurse but as the nurse was on her own attending other patients it took half an hour for the nurse to get

John Smith



In no disrespect to what you felt.


But even under the last labor government here in NSW, under Carr to keanelly before o'farrell and the libs, despite more spending in health in NSW under labor, they were also very sad and horrific cases of patient neglect even under NSW LABORS WATCH.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:26pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. What sort of doublespeak is this? Sounds like just a weak justification for LNP broken promises to me. ita a parallel to the real life that SOME of have. The life with work and family and extra-curricular involvement where sometimes you promise something you simply cant do. It was well-intentioned but not possible. But there are also promises you make that are unbreakable no matter what and you move heaven and earth to make sure you fulfill it. Thats a core promise. If some of you had lives and relationships and families this wouldn't have to be explained to you. It is just life. isn't a little early to be so drunk???? hit a nerve, did I?

yeah, the one more commonly known as the funny bone .

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:34pm:

According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich...

Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon.

This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars.

stryder wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:46pm:

Quote: just this morning i was reading a story in the GC bulletin (not my copy so I cannot reference it ... tried to find it online but haven't had any luck) about a woman who went into hospital for surgery, and within 5 days there was only 1 nurse left  in the ward (due to Newmans downsizing) ... this patient was bleeding from the stomach and in pain, and buzzing for the nurse but as the nurse was on her own attending other patients it took half an hour for the nurse to get John Smith In no disrespect to what you felt. But under the last labor government here in NSW, under Carr to keanelly, despite the big spending in health in NSW, they were also very sad and horrific cases of patient neglect even under NSW LABORS WATCH.

sure, and I will be the first to admit that it can happen in any system regardless of the number of staff ... but that is precisely why you should do your best to try and prevent these occurrences and not add to the pressures that create these circumstances. Every nurse taken away from the wards means more pressure on existing nurses, every cop not on the front line means more pressure on those that are there, every roads worker not repairing roads mean less roads get repaired ... the govt. should be trying to minimise these events, not adding to them . I've no problem with them cutting fat of the bureaucracy ... no need for 10 department heads when 7 will do ... but to try and save money by cutting services rather than initiating real change is just not the answer ... not long term anyway .. you'll save now, pay later

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:52pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars.

"No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion..

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 11:53am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:19am: It Casts Serious Doubt Over Liberal Party Promises They had no credibility anyway, the non core thing made sure that no Liberal commitment has had any serious intent since John Howards early years. And Gillards blatant breach of election promises is somehow not an issue?? At least Howard acknowledged what everyone else already knew... that there are major election promies that are immovable (unless u r Gillard) and then there are other promises which are subject to the real life that afflicts us all - like being able to pay for it. Aside from the fact that she had said they were determined to price carbon, how can you say that line and then cry about the shift towards a carbon tax? THERE ARE PROMISES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICUTS US ALL.  Oh gee... let me think... minority government situation... is that REAL LIFE THAT AFFLICTS US ALL?  Or did that only apply to the rodent, Howard? Geez you're a complete fool. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. Every thing Gilard has ever done has been about getting her own way and climbing the ladder. And as a result, Labor is heading to a defeat that will make the Whitlam years look like the good-old-days. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. The Carbon tax statment probably cost her votes, many people voting for her wanted action on climate change. or are you refering to Howards GST promise where it did secure his political future, without that commitment he would have never been PM? Howard made that comment in 1995 and two elections later - one of which was a referendum on the GST, implemented one. Gillard on the other hard said there would be no carbon tax under her govt on the Thursday before the election and then reneged on the Monday morning after. The differences are the difference between Howards integrity and Gillards opportunism

Excuses excuses.

Howard would not have been Liberal Leader in 1996 without the commitment to no GST, It was a condition of his leadership as the Liberals didn't really want him in the job. among the reasons for breaking a promise, 'securing your own political future' isn't a valid one. It was your claim and what Howard had done.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion..

"No carbon tax under the government I lead" but I am determined to put a price on carbon ... why miss half the quote namnugenot? are you afraid of the truth?

Tell me, carbon tax has been in place for over 6 months now, how much tax have you apid ?

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion..

ever pay one cent of carbon tax

no one pays a cent...now that is delusion

Can you see the difference between what I said and what you have attributed to me?

You think that is honest?

Who do you know who will pay money in carbon tax?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 12:52pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars.

the best you can do is say it isnt a tax because YOU arent paying it - directly. but the 10% carbon tax impost on electricity prices isnt a tax?  you sound rather silly now and a bit hysterical. Perhaps it is the impending flogging your beloved ALP is about to get along with the end of the NBN and Carbon tax along with the Mining tax?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. the best you can do is say it isnt a tax because YOU arent paying it - directly. but the 10% carbon tax impost on electricity prices isnt a tax?  you sound rather silly now and a bit hysterical. Perhaps it is the impending flogging your beloved ALP is about to get along with the end of the NBN and Carbon tax along with the Mining tax?

Exactly, spot on.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 1:07pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 1:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion.. ever pay one cent of carbon tax no one pays a cent...now that is delusion Can you see the difference between what I said and what you have attributed to me? You think that is honest? Who do you know who will pay money in carbon tax?

everyone who pays a power bill. play with the words all you like but the trouble is you are playing with something else at the same time.

And how much will DA reduce electricity prices?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:22pm:

And how much will DA reduce electricity prices?

not really relevant is it.the thread is about election promises and how they re worthless from Gillard.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 3:22pm: And how much will DA reduce electricity prices? not really relevant is it.the thread is about election promises and how they re worthless from Gillard.

It's perfectly relevant and also uncomfortable for you.
Apart entry the reason we hate Gillard is a broken promise which has cost us money.
When asked how this promise costs us money we get the good old electricity price, which btw was 8% rise the other10% was the usual but eh accuracy doesn't matter does it.

So now we have Tone promising to axe the tax which would imply we will pay less,
So how much less is a pert image question and he bloody well better deliver it or I expect you and the rest of the numpties to be as angry and vocal over that broken promise actually more so as your savior will have proven himself no better than the incumbent.

Sorry about the auto correct

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 3:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 3:26pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 3:22pm: And how much will DA reduce electricity prices? not really relevant is it.the thread is about election promises and how they re worthless from Gillard. It's perfectly relevant and also uncomfortable for you. Apart entry the reason we hate Gillard is a broken promise which has cost us money. When asked how this promise costs us money we get the good old electricity price, which btw was 8% rise the other10% was the usual but eh accuracy doesn't matter does it. So now we have Tone promising to axe the tax which would imply we will pay less, So how much less is a pert image question and he bloody well better deliver it or I expect you and the rest of the numpties to be as angry and vocal over that broken promise actually more so as your savior will have proven himself no better than the incumbent.

how about we wait until we get actual detailed polices for the 2013 election before we rehash old ones. Or shall we discuss Medicare Gold for example?

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion..

How much carbon tax have you paid then?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. the best you can do is say it isnt a tax because YOU arent paying it - directly. but the 10% carbon tax impost on electricity prices isnt a tax?  you sound rather silly now and a bit hysterical. Perhaps it is the impending flogging your beloved ALP is about to get along with the end of the NBN and Carbon tax along with the Mining tax?

it is a levy put on SOME businesses .... some businesses have passed on all of the costs, some part of the costs and some none .... either way you have been more than adequately compensated for the $2 per quarter this may have increased your electricity bill ...my electricity hasn't gone up so's I can notice, I doubt yours has ... you just use this argument because it's all you've got left ... this time last year righties were complaining cakes and bread were going up, tv's, shirts ... it was going to put up prices on everything ... now that argument has proven to be a load of sh it you hang on to your last one for all it's worth ... not because of any real affect, but because it's the sort of rise no one can prove either way.

John Smith wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 2:29pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. the best you can do is say it isnt a tax because YOU arent paying it - directly. but the 10% carbon tax impost on electricity prices isnt a tax?  you sound rather silly now and a bit hysterical. Perhaps it is the impending flogging your beloved ALP is about to get along with the end of the NBN and Carbon tax along with the Mining tax? it is a levy put on SOME businesses .... some businesses have passed on all of the costs, some part of the costs and some none .... either way you have been more than adequately compensated for the $2 per quarter this may have increased your electricity bill ...my electricity hasn't gone up so's I can notice, I doubt yours has ... you just use this argument because it's all you've got left ... this time last year righties were complaining cakes and bread were going up, tv's, shirts ... it was going to put up prices on everything ... now that argument has proven to be a load of sh it you hang on to your last one for all it's worth ... not because of any real affect, but because it's the sort of rise no one can prove either way.

It's also amazing how much time they have spent coming up with all these new definitions on what can be regarded a broken promise ;D

.

If you believe anything any pollie tells you you're a bloody idiot

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. the best you can do is say it isnt a tax because YOU arent paying it - directly. but the 10% carbon tax impost on electricity prices isnt a tax?  you sound rather silly now and a bit hysterical. Perhaps it is the impending flogging your beloved ALP is about to get along with the end of the NBN and Carbon tax along with the Mining tax?

the best you can do is say it isnt a tax

I didn't say that it isnt a tax.

But it clearly isn't a real tax like the one Abbott suggested where we would all pay tax.

because YOU arent paying it - directly

No... Because nobody is paying it directly. The ATO gets nothing

As comparted to Abbotts option where everyone pays it directly and the ATO gets the lot.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 4:27pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 1:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion.. How much carbon tax have you paid then?

how much GST have you paid? unless you are a business owner you dont pay GST at all.  same deal. carbon tax is effectively added to the power and other bills - just liek GST. but you dont actaully PAY it is a tax to the ATO.

now can we move beyond this pedantic and stupid discussion and admit that we - normal people - end up paying the carbon tax?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 7:32pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 1:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion.. How much carbon tax have you paid then? how much GST have you paid? unless you are a business owner you dont pay GST at all.  same deal. carbon tax is effectively added to the power and other bills - just liek GST. but you dont actaully PAY it is a tax to the ATO. now can we move beyond this pedantic and stupid discussion and admit that we - normal people - end up paying the carbon tax?

Silly, I know that from every dollar I spend on a good or service I have to pay 10cents to the business for their GST.

Now, how much am I paying for the carbon tax?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 7:32pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 4:27pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 1:00pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:52pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 12:34pm: According to Gillard you can say your doing one thing emphatically prior to an election and do the exact opposite afterwards and according to some there is no problem with that. So it's more than a bit rich... Do you really think it is the exact opposite. It is barely a tax - only by the slightest technicality when there was always a commitment to price Carbon. This is not a real tax in the way that the Abbott suggestion was a real tax (pay at the bowser pay in you electricity bill etc). An  Abbott tax would have been paid by you and me and all the rest of us instead of a fixed price paid by none of us. You don't know anyone who will ever pay one cent of carbon tax but elect Abbott and we get to pay every cent of his direct action plan from our tax dollars. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" not followed by any sort of qualification sounds fairly conclusive. Really...comon...no one pays a cent...now that is delusion.. How much carbon tax have you paid then? how much GST have you paid? unless you are a business owner you dont pay GST at all.  same deal. carbon tax is effectively added to the power and other bills - just liek GST. but you dont actaully PAY it is a tax to the ATO. now can we move beyond this pedantic and stupid discussion and admit that we - normal people - end up paying the carbon tax? Silly, I know that from every dollar I spend on a good or service I have to pay 10cents to the business for their GST. Now, how much am I paying for the carbon tax?

actually that is not true. YOU are not charged the GST. the business is charged it. You never personally remit money to the ATO for GST. since everyone wants to wank on about the CT then it is exactly the same. we dont pay CT directly; it is added to our products and services by business.

now, can we get beyond this stupid, stupid pedantic waffle and accept that yes, we DO pay the carbon tax indirectly just as we pay GST - indirectly.