Tristan,

That is where the major misconception is. Virtually nothing of what the coalition is installing will have to be replaced. Nearly all of the upgrades will be required eventually in the NBN.

The additional $37bn is to replace the final cables to individual houses will attract interest at current treasury bond rates of $2.6bn a year or nearly $400 per household.

At a very optimistic take up rate of 80% (considering that 20% don't have computers) this is $40 per month on interest per household. Pay back over 10 years (a long time for any project) would be a further $60 per month.

So just to cover the installation costs over 10 years the cost to the consumer would be $100 per month per house hold before the maintenance or actual provision of internet access is included.

This is going to make the BER look like a picnic. Just like the lane cove and cross city tunnels, the NBN company is going to fold and the only one to pick up the tab will be the tax payer.

Considering that nearly all infrastructure such as roads has desperate needs right now, paying billions for needs that may or may not materialize in a few decades is a joke.

I also see you are still ducking the BER issue.

Quick note re: BER.

This was investment AND stimulus.

Because of the stimulus motive: There was standardisation in order to get projects off the ground quickly.

Things would have been different were it not for the GFC.

As it is, despite the problems, schools across the nation have assets that will be of value to them for decades to come.

Tristan,

You offer a lot of excuses for a lot of mediocrity by Labor. Thank heavens half of the population does not agree with you, or a lot more money would be wasted and spent as if it grew on trees.

Good ideas implemented badly is bad policy.

Only a rusted on leftie like Tristan could try and pretend the BER and insulation programs were anything other than a display of incompetence.

Chris; You're right that without an Opposition there would be no pressure on governments to perform at their best.

There are definately things Labor could have and should have done better.

And from a Left-critical perspective there are issues as well - eg: failure to provide for pattern bargaining, need to fulfil the promise that no worker be worse of under modernised Awards. More too - eg: need for tax reform, respond to an ageing population, proliferationof low-paid work - in light of this hence the need to reform welfare and strengthen the social wage...

So there are issues with the government. But the risk of a Abbott government is just too great to vote against Labor; even if ideally the government should be held a account in areas where they should have done better.

Under Abbott the mining tax would go. There would be cuts in health and education. The Liberal Parental Leave scheme would see poor households subsidising the wealthy. Gillard's support for parental leave for fathers is good policy too; and a good response to Abbott's policy.

There are many positive reasons for voting Labor too, despite areas in which the government should have done better.

Tristan,

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Coalition win. I would be not so sure of your claims. Although I think tough times are coming for the economy because of what may happen overseas(I hope i am wrong), it is worth remembering that welfare spending reached record levels under Howard (despite some welfare reform). This was despite strong levels of economic growth

Also, environmental spending went down under Rudd when compared to Howard's last years, at least looking at 2009-2010 data.