Its coming...

**Ramjet** · 18-03-10, 08:22 PM

Got a heads up from an article in the Fin. Review today...P.8 Looks like they have gone for pay for content so found another source. Politics aside, this shit is coming whether we like it or not...

**ageno2gen1** · 18-03-10, 08:37 PM

Yeh heard on the radio this morning, up to 64% increase in 3 years. Cant believe they let it happen!!

**fandtm666** · 18-03-10, 09:00 PM

yeah and what a lot of shit if you are regional with country enery as i am we get the biggest slug.

Their excuse the carbon tax well fk me it hasnt even passed through the senate and probably wont but hey what the fk lets rip all of them a new ass for the sake of it.

and piss weak government for having the power to say no and they just said ohh ok , would love to see what little trinkets they got and will get for christmass from the power mob

**Joey** · 19-03-10, 04:22 AM

Well people make sure you thank the all those that are trying to make Global Warming / Climate Change real, the more convincing they get and more it is talked about as being fact the more easily people will accept that these price rises are justified to protect the planet.
"IPART said EnergyAustralia bills will rise 60 per cent under a CPRS"

The reality is price rises could be 1000% but the difference it will make in terms of climate change is 0% .
The Ironic thing is that there are tens of thousands of solar power systems going onto peoples homes , some of which is being fed back into the grid yet you will be expected to pay a higher price for electricity based on it contributing to C02 production / pollution when clearly there is none coming from this part of the power they are selling you. , the amount of electricity being produced by non carbon producing means is growing at a faster rate than ever before.
Everything needed for a client to send power back to the suppliers is at the clients cost yet they are claiming higher production , network and infrastructure costs ?

There has been no mention of suppliers taking responsibility for any of their so called increased operating costs , they are not going to look at ways to lesson the impact by reducing their horrendous profits , there is no mention of reducing power costs because a larger percentage of what they can sell to you is being produced by clean methods.

What will happen? prices will rise it , the rich wont give a toss , the poor will become poorer and the people that are struggling will have to struggle harder.
I really feel for pensioners and the people that can barely make ends meet already. This is just wrong!

**weirdo** · 19-03-10, 07:02 AM

come on guys, they're only doing it for the poor shareholders

**Globe** · 19-03-10, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by weirdo

come on guys, they're only doing it for the poor shareholders

Indeed, I'll be adding energy to my portfolio.

**Ramjet** · 19-03-10, 10:25 AM

They even state in the article that 90% of the increase is for upgrades to aging infrastructure assets. So in other words we would have a 10% increase if they hadn't sat on the privatised assets for 15 to 20 years, raped it for all its worth with minimal maintenance, and woke up one day and discovered all their infrastructure is shagged.

Why did we privatise all this?

**markfs** · 19-03-10, 12:03 PM

Why? Because we let accountants loose. the old adage used to be if the account wore tattu clothes he may be of use to you if he wore a saville row suit where was the money going

**dogsbreath** · 20-03-10, 09:41 PM

Down here in the country we have to pay more for petrol due to transport costs. I live close enough to a large Victorian power station I could just about throw an extension lead over. Surely there would be less losses in the system and less infrastructure etc to supply local consumers. Do you think it would be justified in asking for a discount in supply charges based upon this...? They want a user pays society but they want it all their way when it comes to slugging people with a bill.

**intelliGEORGE** · 20-03-10, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ramjet

Why did we privatise all this?

It's just old fashioned plunder as practised by the Vikings, Mongols, etc. Revenue generating assets are being sold off for no better reason than to line the pockets of private investors, bankers and stockbrokers.

I believe we, the taxpayers, are the rightful owners of these assets as we have paid for them through taxes and hefty bills and I don't think the government has the right to sell them without some form of consent from the general public.

But that's just the problem, no one is willing to stand up and fight for common sense in this country.

**SCT** · 21-03-10, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by intelliGEORGE

I believe we, the taxpayers, are the rightful owners of these assets as we have paid for them through taxes and hefty bills and I don't think the government has the right to sell them without some form of consent from the general public.

But that's just the problem, no one is willing to stand up and fight for common sense in this country.

(My bold added)
The consent from the public is implied when we vote a government into power.
Governments will always use the fact that they were elected by the public as a blanket mandate to do almost anything they want.

**gordon_s1942** · 21-03-10, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by SCT

(My bold added)
The consent from the public is implied when we vote a government into power.
Governments will always use the fact that they were elected by the public as a blanket mandate to do almost anything they want.

This is exactly what being elected implies and unless there is a major groundswell against a proposal, it goes ahead.
Sometimes a possibly unpopular measure is proposed to see who is watching and if there is an expected negative reaction, it can be dropped like the proverbial Hot Potato and something else substituted that was the preferred option.
I dont think we do it here but it seems the Yanks play this game by loading one Bill with numerous others to the point of idocy.
The only other time pressure can be applied is at election time but even that is fraught with danger as we found to our dismay when Howard declared 'NO GST' and as soon as his Bum hit the chair, He and Costello introduced it.

Today electricity is almost as important as Blood and even if we collectively reduced our consumption to almost ZERO, they would just increase the cost to the level they percieve they need.
I am not being defeatist, just stating an obvious reality.
If I could afford to install some type of alternative power supply and come off the Grid I would but that's basically impracticable for most town/suburban dwellers and even rural like me isnt much of an option.

**hogwort** · 22-03-10, 11:34 AM

Time to break out the genny!!!!!!

**markfs** · 22-03-10, 11:47 AM

need to correct that Little Jonny siad no gst in his first elestion which he lost, the next election, which he won he made no mention of gst. So he was then able to introduce it. Just because every assumed his first round of promises would still apply in the next campaign 3 years later