Sensational-Adelaide.com

I think it is also coming clearer that Abbott has no intention of honouring in principle agreements with state governments.

seems like a dangerous ploy.

Waewick wrote:I think it is also coming clearer that Abbott has no intention of honouring in principle agreements with state governments.

seems like a dangerous ploy.

Its been done many times before by governments of both sides.

He has a strong enough mandate and will probably have a 2-term government. 2 Elections from now these shenanigans will be all but forgotten.

muzzamo wrote:

Waewick wrote:I think it is also coming clearer that Abbott has no intention of honouring in principle agreements with state governments.

seems like a dangerous ploy.

Its been done many times before by governments of both sides.

He has a strong enough mandate and will probably have a 2-term government. 2 Elections from now these shenanigans will be all but forgotten.

It is an easy target as well. I'd suggest a good 95% of the state won't care about the rail line.

It will be interesting whose side the Advertiser will take? is it Abbotss fault for taking the money or Jays fault for delaying it so long the money got removed?

Waewick wrote:It is an easy target as well. I'd suggest a good 95% of the state won't care about the rail line.

It will be interesting whose side the Advertiser will take? is it Abbotss fault for taking the money or Jays fault for delaying it so long the money got removed?

Wasn't it delayed because the federal money that was originally allocated to it got yanked for the Queensland flood crisis?

Nathan wrote:

Waewick wrote:It is an easy target as well. I'd suggest a good 95% of the state won't care about the rail line.

It will be interesting whose side the Advertiser will take? is it Abbotss fault for taking the money or Jays fault for delaying it so long the money got removed?

Wasn't it delayed because the federal money that was originally allocated to it got yanked for the Queensland flood crisis?

wasn't that the O'Barn?

weren't we all having a laugh at the federal senate notes bagging SA for delaying the works without paying the cash back?

muzzamo wrote:

Waewick wrote:I think it is also coming clearer that Abbott has no intention of honouring in principle agreements with state governments.

seems like a dangerous ploy.

Its been done many times before by governments of both sides.

He has a strong enough mandate and will probably have a 2-term government. 2 Elections from now these shenanigans will be all but forgotten.

As I recall, after the 2007 election, Labor boosters were crowing that the ALP would be in for at least three terms. That worked out well for them, did it not?

Anyone trying to predict past the next year politically these days is pushing the bounds of credulity imo. Given the expenses issue, the post election dithering about the economy (it was supposed to be an emergency, remember), the boats still coming, and this sort of announcement, I would again, most respectfully suggest that trying to predict the next election - be that in 2016, or even earlier if there were a double dissolution, would be a little fraught. Maybe the Coalition will pick up, there is plenty of time for that. And conversely, maybe it will not prove any better in Government than Labor did (Not an especially high bar imo), in that case Tony Abbott could well be renamed Tony Wunterm. Point is, who knows at this stage?

As for a mandate. I don't think one can extrapolate broad dissatisfaction with a previous government down to the level of a mandate for one particular project or the other by the next government.

Wayville station - last week:










Goodwood - Monday:

[Shuz] wrote:

bay transit wrote:You guys seem to forget that thanks to the previous Federal labor Government and its huge debt,the new Federal Government cannot afford to keep on spending like we would all like them to.

If anything in the recent week is anything to go by, the Feds have just increased government debt by 66% to $500bn, and just threw away $8.8b to the Reserve Bank for no real reason whatsoever. So much for responsible fiscal management.

I agree with the sentiments of others, this is a flagrant act of bastardry by Abbott and his Coalition cronies. Fuck them. Bring on 2016.

Agree with Shuz.
What budget emergency? Hockey has been busily borrowing and increasing the debt limit to $500 billion. Meanwhile funding has been cut to many charities, programs and infrastructure projects, including rail and the Clean Energy Fund has been killed off and the NBN is being trashed. Medibank Private and Australia Post will be sold off and possibly students' HECS debt. The River Murray is also at risk from winding back solutions and funding.

Electrification of our rail system is great for the environment and an important part of the upgrade of public transport. I am outraged by this decision. It's just political, designed to whack the current state government. They released the news to the media first. And the Opposition's response?

Marshall has no ideas or vision that he cares to share with us, just negativity. Chapman just bleats and gloats.
Will the Opposition ever put SA first and stand up to Abbott and Hockey and fight for South Australia? This is critical infrastructure spending. It should have bipartisan support. Electrification of our rail network is well on the way. To have the Federal funding rug pulled away like this is a disgrace.

What next? Our state share of GST on the block?

rubberman wrote:As for a mandate. I don't think one can extrapolate broad dissatisfaction with a previous government down to the level of a mandate for one particular project or the other by the next government.

Abbott keeps bleating on about having a mandate to do this and a mandate to do that. In my opinion, as I've said before, he doesn't have a mandate to do anything. If the Australian people wanted him to have a mandate, they would have given him the senate. Instead, they have told him that they don't trust him or his policies, but they prefer him over the Labor Party at the moment. I suspect even that is changing as we speak.

[Shuz] wrote: If anything in the recent week is anything to go by, the Feds have just increased government debt by 66% to $500bn, and just threw away $8.8b to the Reserve Bank for no real reason whatsoever. So much for responsible fiscal management.

I agree with the sentiments of others, this is a flagrant act of bastardry by Abbott and his Coalition cronies. Fuck them. Bring on 2016.

Actually what they did was increase the DEBT CEILING to $500 billion.

They have setup a committee or whatever they are calling it, with people like Amanda Vanstone on it, to examine government spending and recommend where to make cuts.
The cuts they do make they will place the blame on the previous Labor governments. Stock standard stuff.

bay transit wrote:You guys seem to forget that thanks to the previous Federal labor Government and its huge debt,the new Federal Government cannot afford to keep on spending like we would all like them to.

Bay Transit, what huge debt? It may have seemed huge to us ordinary folk, but it was manageable. There was no debt crisis..the Liberals may have wanted you to believe there was an imminent debt crisis in Australia, but Australia is far from seeing the turmoil in Europe and America.

Labor may have racked up a debt again, but the Liberals just raised the debt ceiling.
I'm putting my money on Australia's debt being even higher when the next federal election comes around.
They will blame Labor for being forced to make cuts, they will blame Labor for having to spend more to fix something.
That is their number one tactic. Blame Labor and run a scare campaign.
And people are stupid enough to believe them.

I cant wait for them to start bullshitting on about nation building.

And if you think funding for other infrastructure will get any easier before the next state election, think again.
Cutting funding for electrification of the line was purely a political move aimed at hurting the state Labor party by making things more difficult for them.

But hey, at least Tony Abbott is a volunteer firefighter. He's Australia's version of Russia's action man Vladimir Putin.

Waewick wrote:

Aidan wrote:
The economy depends totally on spending, and Australia owns the Reserve Bank so our credit is unlimited. Therefore until private sector spending makes a full recovery, the government can't afford not to keep spending.

Besides, Tony Abbott says he wants to be remembered as an infrastructure prime minister. That requires the government to invest in infrastructure!

you have been watching a few of those American financial system shows on youtube?

Not lately - I've heard enough silly conspiracy theories about fractional reserve banking. Still your comment is encouraging - it suggests that the more sensible people are starting to get their message across.

our credit isn't unlimited, especially under the reserve bank act of 1959.

Which section of that act do you think limits our credit?

Ever since Hawke and Keating floated the Aussie dollar, Australia's credit has been unlimited. The RBA can create the money out of thin air, and one of its functions is to be the lender of last resort, so it will always need to lend to the government if the need arises. But plenty of others are clamouring to lend to the Australian government. In fact most of our recent economic problems are the result of too little money being borrowed from the RBA. Banks borrowing from overseas have pushed our dollar to unsustainable levels making our manufacturers uncompetitive, and the RBA is not making the huge profits that it should.

bay transit wrote:You guys seem to forget that thanks to the previous Federal labor Government and its huge debt,the new Federal Government cannot afford to keep on spending like we would all like them to.
Tony Abbot made it very clear before the election that his was an Infrastructure Government and would not be spending funds on local rail projects or public transport as that was a State Government responsibility.

Don't fall prey to myth-making about our debt. Moreover, don't underestimate the challenges for states in funding infrastructure -- much of which you would presumably support. So long as vertical fiscal imbalance exists in our federation, the Commonwealth government simply must spend money on rail projects and public transport else such infrastructure cannot be maintained and developed at the pace necessary. There just isn't enough money in the state kitty, especially while GST revenues are deflated. And it's not a sustainable proposition to allow stagnancy in the transport systems of our nation's cities, which are, after all, the engines of economic growth. Why Abbot hasn't been forced to justify his roads obsession confounds me; it's just not a defensible policy in the 21st Century.

SRW wrote:

bay transit wrote: Don't fall prey to myth-making about our debt. Moreover, don't underestimate the challenges for states in funding infrastructure -- much of which you would presumably support. So long as vertical fiscal imbalance exists in our federation, the Commonwealth government simply must spend money on rail projects and public transport else such infrastructure cannot be maintained and developed at the pace necessary. There just isn't enough money in the state kitty, especially while GST revenues are deflated. And it's not a sustainable proposition to allow stagnancy in the transport systems of our nation's cities, which are, after all, the engines of economic growth. Why Abbot hasn't been forced to justify his roads obsession confounds me; it's just not a defensible policy in the 21st Century.

I agree, its just idiotic. All over the western world, including some of the most right-wing US cities are investing in public transport. We have gone back to the 1960s with this new federal govt. Its cringeworthy. The whole premise of the Coalition during the election was a scare campaign of making up lies of how bad a shape we were in and it was all Labors fault. Ive never seen a political party spin so much lies and nonsense, and so many fell for it, helped by News Ltd. Just incredible, but quite bad for South Australia

State Labour only has itself to blame it should never have delayed electrification of any of the lines. The backbone of our network is the railway lines and they should be a priority to providing an efficient and more frequent service.
One thing that is very clear in this whole mess is that Infrastructure spending whether it be at a Federal or State level should be planned and managed by an independent body that is not effected by electoral pork baralleling and personal petty agendas.

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:

Aidan wrote:
The economy depends totally on spending, and Australia owns the Reserve Bank so our credit is unlimited. Therefore until private sector spending makes a full recovery, the government can't afford not to keep spending.

Besides, Tony Abbott says he wants to be remembered as an infrastructure prime minister. That requires the government to invest in infrastructure!

you have been watching a few of those American financial system shows on youtube?

Not lately - I've heard enough silly conspiracy theories about fractional reserve banking. Still your comment is encouraging - it suggests that the more sensible people are starting to get their message across.

our credit isn't unlimited, especially under the reserve bank act of 1959.

Which section of that act do you think limits our credit?

Ever since Hawke and Keating floated the Aussie dollar, Australia's credit has been unlimited. The RBA can create the money out of thin air, and one of its functions is to be the lender of last resort, so it will always need to lend to the government if the need arises. But plenty of others are clamouring to lend to the Australian government. In fact most of our recent economic problems are the result of too little money being borrowed from the RBA. Banks borrowing from overseas have pushed our dollar to unsustainable levels making our manufacturers uncompetitive, and the RBA is not making the huge profits that it should.

Banks have got SFA to do with the current $AUD position. You can thank the mining investment boom and RBA having a higher interest setting than its peers (Europe USA BOE etc) which has encouraged both speculators and investors (both currency and real property ).


The purpose of the RBA promote economic stability. If it was to do what America did would go against that.