Cut and thrust... - The Commonwealth Navies - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Cut and thrust...

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
jim3au	Bad Economic Managers	#11	[-]
Posts: 1392 (25-Mar-2008 14:18:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The accusation of bad economic management has scarred the Labor Party. They have promised to be good and they are determined to do that. John Howard has sensibly ensured that the cupboard is bare. The Labor people have to balance the budget. The tax cut, the one really big expenditure that would have affected interest rates is sacrosanct.The defence budget is so big and growing that it has to come in for a look. On top of that is the salutary lesson from the USA. Kevin Rudd does not want to look like George Bush.he does not want to be an ineffectual Prime Minister. No one is blowing up the Opera House. Given a terrorist distaster, Australia will find the money. Presently the US, Great Britain, Japan and Italy, amongst others could be headed to recession. Australia will not be unaffected and neither will China.
CliffS		#12	[-]
Posts: 497 (26-Mar-2008 05:47:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jim3au wrote: The accusation of bad economic management has scarred the Labor Party. They have promised to be good and they are determined to do that. John Howard has sensibly ensured that the cupboard is bare. The Labor people have to balance the budget. The tax cut, the one really big expenditure that would have affected interest rates is sacrosanct.The defence budget is so big and growing that it has to come in for a look. On top of that is the salutary lesson from the USA. Kevin Rudd does not want to look like George Bush.he does not want to be an ineffectual Prime Minister. *No one is blowing up the Opera House. Given a terrorist distaster, Australia will find the money.* Presently the US, Great Britain, Japan and Italy, amongst others could be headed to recession. Australia will not be unaffected and neither will China. Jim - re counter-terrorist ops, I'm afraid the Howard govt were guilty of the "Ssssh! - Don't wake the baby!" approach. The baby in this case being the complacent Australian public. Make no mistake - intelligence-driven "turnarounds" at our international airports are a fact of life. Known or suspected terrorist reconnaissance missions occur quite regularly, and are as regularly - and discreetly - thwarted by the authorities. The travelling public are entitled to whinge about our stringent screening procedures - they make international travel a gross inconvenience - but I think a little more public education wouldn't go astray. Like publication of the statistics regarding turnarounds of unacceptable overseas visitors. And you're quite right - Australia will find (or already has found) the money to respond to major terrorist incidents. One good thing that Howard did was to spend wisely in this area. Cheers, Cliff
JBG.historypolitics...		#13	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 30 (28-Mar-2008 23:51:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	CliffS wrote: jim3au wrote: I am always a little sad that someone can think that the public service is dumb enough to have a thousand staff sitting around doing nothing and if they are abolished things will go on the same excepting all that money will be saved. Dead right, Jim. What do people think public servants do - lick stamps and make coffee, perhaps? Multi-skilling and multi-tasking have been part of PS recruitment for years now. Any cuts from here on in will find no fat - you'll be excising muscle, and finishing up with a Public Service incapable of doing its job. Talk of "finding efficiencies" is just that - talk. The efficiencies were established years ago, and can go no further without serious loss of capability. Cheers, Cliff As a public servant I couldn't agree more. The cost of the process also works against any purported savings. A bunch of highly paid consultants will recommend staff cuts. Redundancies are offered but are often offered equally to all so the experienced old heads often take the money and run. The re-organisation of the new staff to keep doing the old jobs/tasks ( the consultants can't usually get rid of these ) takes time and money. Then later it is discovered that they have gone to far and so a recruitment drive takes place and the new staff all have to be trained to do what a bunch of people who left because they had money thrown at them could do in their sleep. You end up with a loss of corporate knowledge and so poorer service delivery. In my Department they got rid of most of the inspectors because a "genius" computer monitoring system ( which of course merely affected/guaranteed revenue not compliance otherwise ) was to make their role redundant. Some years later we now have more inspectors than ever before, many of whom were senior and/or experienced police officers. The cost of this tooing and froing is mind boggling at times. Jonathan
Starviking		#14	[-]
Posts: 142 (30-Mar-2008 17:35:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	JBG wrote: As a public servant I couldn't agree more. The cost of the process also works against any purported savings. A bunch of highly paid consultants will recommend staff cuts. Redundancies are offered but are often offered equally to all so the experienced old heads often take the money and run. The re-organisation of the new staff to keep doing the old jobs/tasks ( the consultants can't usually get rid of these ) takes time and money. Then later it is discovered that they have gone to far and so a recruitment drive takes place and the new staff all have to be trained to do what a bunch of people who left because they had money thrown at them could do in their sleep. You end up with a loss of corporate knowledge and so poorer service delivery. In my Department they got rid of most of the inspectors because a "genius" computer monitoring system ( which of course merely affected/guaranteed revenue not compliance otherwise ) was to make their role redundant. Some years later we now have more inspectors than ever before, many of whom were senior and/or experienced police officers. The cost of this tooing and froing is mind boggling at times. Jonathan Not only in the public sector. The last native Belfast department store, Anderson & McAuley's were facing financial problems in the late 80's (Well...above and beyond the Troubles). Someone decided that the best people to solve the problems were accountants, so one was appointed as Chairman of the Board. Soon all the unnecessary spending was cut - staff bonuses, annual trips to the seaside, family days. The only problem was - the staff were pissed, they felt like the company didn't care about them any more. Customers no longer got a good vibe from the staff, and as the cuts bit - they didn't get good service. They shut their doors before the new Chairman served out his term. I think, in defence and other endeavours - you really have to focus on the product - and you have to realise what is part of that product... Starviking
JBG.historypolitics...		#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 34 (31-Mar-2008 12:49:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Indeed Starviking, whether you are selling white goods or issuing restaurant liquor licences. I must admit though with regard to some species of bean counters I take my natural lawyers' position that accountants were, at least in part, created to absolve lawyers of having to dirty their fingers with mundane financial mechanics. And so are tools, not sources of advice or insight!! Jonathan
NewGolconda		#16	[-]
Posts: 3240 ( 2-Apr-2008 23:11:31) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	DEFENCE Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is scrambling to guarantee the future of Adelaide's new army battalion after uncovering a $700 million funding shortfall. The Federal Government has uncovered yet another defence budget "black hole" and is reassessing plans to expand the army. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told The Advertiser detailed Budget papers showed the Howard government had underfunded the two new battalions to the tune of $700 million over 10 years. The first of the two new units was to be a light armoured battalion at Edinburgh and the second an infantry battalion in Brisbane. The new Adelaide battalion of 1100 soldiers and their families is due to be in place by the end of 2010. "I want the two battalions but now I have to find this extra money," Mr Fitzgibbon told The Advertiser. "This is another stuff-up that I have inherited." The new battalions are part of a push to boost army troops from 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers. The relocated battalion would enhance Adelaide's standing as the nation's defence capital, with new Air Warfare Destroyers and submarines scheduled to be built over the next 15 years. Dozens of hi-tech industries have sprung up on the back of the defence boom and the battalion would add hundreds of civilian support jobs and fuel a new property boom. The defence budget has already been hit with a $1 billion-a-year administrative savings target for the next decade. Last month, Mr Fitzgibbon was forced to cancel a $1.3 billion contract for 11 Seasprite helicopters and he also exposed a $6 billion budget black hole in personnel and operating costings. 'The controversy has prompted Defence Secretary Nick Warner to issue a warning to bureaucrats to lift their game. The battalion funding shortfall includes an unfavourable land deal for the Defence Department in Adelaide's north, near the Edinburgh RAAF base. In 2006, Defence paid $12 million to buy back 59ha of a 500ha parcel of land it had sold to the State Government in 2005 for just $6 million. The deal represented twice the money for one-tenth of the land. Mr Fitzgibbon said the full sale payment had yet to be transferred. He signalled he would insist Premier Mike Rann transfer the land free. "Why didn't the previous government call in the cash instead of buying back one-tenth of the land for twice the price?" Mr Fitzgibbon said. The sale was signed off by then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson and Finance Minister and South Australian Liberal Senator Nick Minchin. When the land adjacent to the Edinburgh base was sold in 2005 Defence included a "buy back" clause. Despite the plan to expand the army in SA pre-dating 2005, no alarm bells sounded over the possible penalty to taxpayers of such a clause. The Howard government announced the formation of two new battalions in August, 2006. Since 2005, land values have risen dramatically in one of Adelaide's fastest-growing industrial and residential areas and the 500ha block is dotted with new factories and warehouses. The head of infrastructure and asset development for Defence, Brigadier Bill Grice has confirmed that Defence had first option to buy back the land from SA for a "commercial rate". Meanwhile, Mr Rann's office last night contacted the Federal Government after The Advertiser sought a response to Mr Fitzgibbon's comments. In an emailed statement, Mr Rann said he had "received assurances from the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister's offices that the battalion would be coming to Adelaide". Mr Fitzgibbon's office contacted The Advertiser at the same time to add: "Despite the Howard government's shortfall, the Rudd government is absolutely committed to delivering the new battalion." In his statement, Mr Rann said the Edinburgh precinct was "perfect for the needs of the defence forces and this was confirmed with me by the army last week. "The project has been announced and re-announced. "We know that SA is the right place for the new battalion. "For years the experts - that is the leaders of our Australian Defence Forces - have told us that from the point of view of the defence and security needs of Australia this makes perfect sense. "Everyone acknowledges this
jim3au		#17	[-]
Posts: 1407 ( 4-Apr-2008 00:03:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In summary, we want and will have the two new battalions, no thanks to the poor planning of the previous administration. When the two new battalions are established, Labor should get the credit, especially if you are a voter in South Australia. It happened before and it will happen again. New government comes in and blames all problems on the old government and the [poor old] public servants. Personally, I would have reneged on the promised tax cut because of the parlous state of the economy and advice from Treasury. I would still have cut programs like the Seasprites and done a bit more moaning about everything going bad. Then in year two I would have come in like Santa for the constituencies like the universities and education generally. I would have made some announced to take away the reputation of the former government in areas like defence. Some new big-ticket items would be the way to go and I would try to spend some real money to make the enlisted personnel happy. And I would secretly as possible expand the public service. The public service saves money. To enforce Centrelink policies you need more staff. To ensure the defence purchases work, you need more staff. To get more tax revenue without increasing taxes, you need more staff. I thought that Howard was wrong to push as far as he did with Work Choices. He got carried away with his own cleverness. I have no idea what Rudd is up to. He should be thinking about the next election now. Rubbishing the old government for a year or so is a good idea but soon he needs some policy. Precisely, the may budget is when some announcements will be needed.
skipper101	Cut & thrust	#18	[-]
Posts: 1485 ( 4-Apr-2008 22:47:58) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	And this is where the wheels fall off this thing. Does anyone remember when labor last had a policy. Trashing the previous government for labors own mistakes and handing out welfair like candy, is only gonna fly so much.
jim3au	Trashing the Previous Government	#19	[-]
Posts: 1408 ( 5-Apr-2008 02:35:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In Australian politics [and I have no doubt in other places as well] it is standard practice to bad mouth the previous government. They really have no choice. A new government has to keep faith with its supporters. They can't turn around and say, "We can't improve anything." A new government wants to keep the honeymoon period going as long as possible and the only way to do that is to blame problems on the previous government. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has come in for a roasting this morning from the Murdoch press for his comments on interest rates. He basically said that it would not be a bad thing if the banks raised interest rates further. And then the banks did. He also said that there is a case for raising taxes. If taxes were higher, interest rates would be lower. He has pretty much painted the picture. What he got on the front page of The Daily Telegraph was "Is This The Most Useless Man In Australia?" Australia has a structural deficit courtesy of the previous Liberal Government. It is not just my opinion but the opinion of the Governor. We are, as a direct result, going to have excessive demand in the economy which will fuel inflation, increase interest rates and increase foreign borrowings and foreign ownership of Australian assets. It is also going to play havoc with the exchange rates. They are too high in part because of the fiscal profligacy of Mr Costello and especially Mr Howard. The fiscal hole that we are in is easily larger than the one left to the incoming Liberal Government by Mr Keating's government. In point of fact, the fiscal position then was structurally balanced. I only mention this so that you can see that there may not be candy handed out. The previous government deserves a good bad mouthing. Let economic growth slip back to near zero and then see the size of the budget deficit. I expect that the Rudd Government will follow to some degree the policy of the previous Howard Government and count on economic growth staying solidly positive. Consider this in Kellyville [an area of new housing in North Western Sydney] today people living in large, new homes are losing them because they cannot keep up the payments. This is happening while economic growth is high and there is a shortage of labour severe enough that Australia is importing many thousands of guest workers every month. What is going to happen if unemployment goes back up from the current 4% to 8%? What is going to happen if interest rates have to go up some more because of a falling Australian Dollar? I would not be so quick to rubbish welfare payments. This May budget should give an indication of policy initiatives and the following one should define them more clearly. I say again, the Labor Government feels constrained to keep the tax cuts and to be seen as sound economic managers. Every government department is being placed under fairly pointless pressure as a result. The policy presently is to reduce spending whilst keeping all the "me too" commitments.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply