TOPIC:

Wafl4ever wrote: Put Barnett back in and have him skyrocket Utility costs again,short memories you mob.

Wafl4eva, what your forgeting is the fact that Gallop & Carpenter artificially held the cost of utilities down to unsustainable levels for their own cynical election reasons which then left the next Govt no option but to increase rates. make no mistake, if carpenter had won that election the utilities would have gone up just as much, they had no other option. The only criticism of Barney & the Libs is that they did it too quickly. That aside there is absolutely no question that it had to be done.

Senior Seagull wrote:

Wafl4ever wrote: Put Barnett back in and have him skyrocket Utility costs again,short memories you mob.

Wafl4eva, what your forgeting is the fact that Gallop & Carpenter artificially held the cost of utilities down to unsustainable levels for their own cynical election reasons which then left the next Govt no option but to increase rates. make no mistake, if carpenter had won that election the utilities would have gone up just as much, they had no other option. The only criticism of Barney & the Libs is that they did it too quickly. That aside there is absolutely no question that it had to be done.

Also because of the idiot who runs the country Gillard has put in place a carbon tax which also had an impact on utilities.

I think the fact that during there years in power both parties have done dishonest
things (ray oconnor gaol etc)but I look at what being done for the average joe and
I dont think the libs care to much about the common people, and about the corrupt
years of the eighties what about the penny easton affair, now forget about lawrence
who only opened her mouth at the wrong time and get to the reason that penny deicided
to part this world, it was her invovlment with the likes of ross lightfoot,richard
court and our possible deputy prime minister julie bishop having there little weekend
******, that was being broadcast around that made her do what she did, corruption or
what she was doing weekends what was worse, you may note that the names are all
liberal people, you choose!

po.cocko wrote: I think the fact that during there years in power both parties have done dishonest
things (ray oconnor gaol etc)but I look at what being done for the average joe and
I dont think the libs care to much about the common people, and about the corrupt
years of the eighties what about the penny easton affair, now forget about lawrence
who only opened her mouth at the wrong time and get to the reason that penny deicided
to part this world, it was her invovlment with the likes of ross lightfoot,richard
court and our possible deputy prime minister julie bishop having there little weekend
******, that was being broadcast around that made her do what she did, corruption or
what she was doing weekends what was worse, you may note that the names are all
liberal people, you choose!

Ho hum, boring, one upmanship, your gunna get fried at the election get over it.

I am sure your mate Rudd cares about the little guy living in his palace and throwing scraps to the masses to keep them happy.

A lot of "common" people vote for the Libs as well buddy. I will be one of them.

So talking football you dont care what happened to penny easton or why?
would you say the same if it were labor people who caused her death!

How is it relevant to todays election.

Its not. Its blokes like your goodself hanging their hats on the past bottling it up with hatred and bitterness.

Vote for who you want, nobody really cares because they are all the same really.
Common man, dole bludger, rich bugger, the rank and file, were all the same. You get out of life what you put in.

Did you ever think maybe that bloke on the dole is actually happy with his lot and the rich bloke who works 60 hours a week is happy with his lot.
Just because your full of bitterness doesnt mean we all are. Build a bridge

I was once anti Subi and in favour of building a new stadium at a new site free from restrictions but Burswood is going to be mostly inaccessible by car and I don't like the idea of having no real option but to catch public transport and Barny only wants to build it to 60 000 seat capacity and leave it for some government down the track to increase it's capacity. That is the same mentality that sees freeways built with 2 lanes that become carparks in peak hour and peak hour on freeways nowadays starts at about 6.30 in the morning and about 2.30 in the afternoon thanks to our bottle necked outdated freeways and what that means is years of puss and pain putting up with lane closures while they expand it to 3 lanes and the costs of modifying things later down the track is probably at least 4 times the cost of building things bigger the first time around.

There is no excuse for either leader after this election not to build at least a 75 000 seat stadium no matter where it is. Perhaps to appease the Eagles and Dockers they can make it members only in the best viewing seats and the pay as you go punter gets the rest?

hanging there hats on the past.......your quote, I only came on here about this subject because one of you right wingers mentioned the 1980s is that hanging there hats on the past?

Johnno wrote: I was once anti Subi and in favour of building a new stadium at a new site free from restrictions but Burswood is going to be mostly inaccessible by car and I don't like the idea of having no real option but to catch public transport and Barny only wants to build it to 60 000 seat capacity and leave it for some government down the track to increase it's capacity. That is the same mentality that sees freeways built with 2 lanes that become carparks in peak hour and peak hour on freeways nowadays starts at about 6.30 in the morning and about 2.30 in the afternoon thanks to our bottle necked outdated freeways and what that means is years of puss and pain putting up with lane closures while they expand it to 3 lanes and the costs of modifying things later down the track is probably at least 4 times the cost of building things bigger the first time around.

There is no excuse for either leader after this election not to build at least a 75 000 seat stadium no matter where it is. Perhaps to appease the Eagles and Dockers they can make it members only in the best viewing seats and the pay as you go punter gets the rest?

Pretty much agree with that. I'm mostly concerned that public transport won't be able to cope with it and extra money will need to be spent to sort it out later.

That will become an expensive exercise. They should know - they claim to be the experts on costing public tranport at present.

I think Subi with 2 train stations on only one line, and pretty good bus access, just gets by.

Consider 60,000 coming out of Burswood, a higher ratio of these needing to catch a bus or train, diabolical!

Thats why this stadium is stopping at 60,000 - they know they can't cope with a higher number of spectators coming out of the ground.

DaveRoyal wrote:

Johnno wrote: I was once anti Subi and in favour of building a new stadium at a new site free from restrictions but Burswood is going to be mostly inaccessible by car and I don't like the idea of having no real option but to catch public transport and Barny only wants to build it to 60 000 seat capacity and leave it for some government down the track to increase it's capacity. That is the same mentality that sees freeways built with 2 lanes that become carparks in peak hour and peak hour on freeways nowadays starts at about 6.30 in the morning and about 2.30 in the afternoon thanks to our bottle necked outdated freeways and what that means is years of puss and pain putting up with lane closures while they expand it to 3 lanes and the costs of modifying things later down the track is probably at least 4 times the cost of building things bigger the first time around.

There is no excuse for either leader after this election not to build at least a 75 000 seat stadium no matter where it is. Perhaps to appease the Eagles and Dockers they can make it members only in the best viewing seats and the pay as you go punter gets the rest?

Pretty much agree with that. I'm mostly concerned that public transport won't be able to cope with it and extra money will need to be spent to sort it out later.

That will become an expensive exercise. They should know - they claim to be the experts on costing public tranport at present.

I think Subi with 2 train stations on only one line, and pretty good bus access, just gets by.

Consider 60,000 coming out of Burswood, a higher ratio of these needing to catch a bus or train, diabolical!

Thats why this stadium is stopping at 60,000 - they know they can't cope with a higher number of spectators coming out of the ground.

No hassels moving 80,000 at the "g" though is there?, yer very few people drive there! Subi battles to get 35,000 away as it is!!