March Election

[Blue Red and Gold]

Suprised there hasnt been a thread on this yet (if there is,my apologizes, I didnt see it)

I am not an overly political person, I was always told not to bring up the subject of religion or politics, however I think it will be an interesting one, at least it is shaping up as a bit closer than the last couple.

Will Michelle Chantelouis (sp?) have a big impact? Personally I think she is just a drama queen, who is trying to stretch out her 15 minutes of fame, appears to be a vendetta and she is coming across a tad pathetic.

Im really not sure who I will be voting for just yet, but with todays announcement with the southern expressway I may be leaning Labors way. Redmond and the Liberals highlighted today that maybe they are not as ready as they claim to be.

any thoughts?

 

[jo172]

Big swing to the Liberals built around Chantelois, general arrogance of Rann + Team and fatigue of government.

Not enough to win government but hopefully enough to force either side into a minority government and allow a bit of accountability in state government again.

 

[Vader]

The ACT now has a minority government, with the Greens having the balance of power. It's a wonderful thing, as it means that the government is now accountable for their actions. Prior to this, Jon "Nero" Stanhopeless ruled the land like a minor dictator, doing his level best to create his own private socialist utopia. The ALP held a majority of seats and there was no way of keeping him accountable - needless to say, the power went to his head (just as it did with Howard when he finally got control of the senate).

I'm no great fan of the Greens, and I'd rather it wasn't they who held the balance of power. Even so, they do their best to keep him in check and it clearly annoys the #### out of Nero, so they're obviously doing a good job.

It really doesn't matter which side holds power for the most part. The overwhelming majority of decisions have bipartisan support. What IS important is that there must be a means of holding the government to account (and not just at the ballot box every 3 years).

For the record, I voted Labor at the last Federal election and Liberal at the last Territory election. Make of that what you will.

 

[brucetiki]

I reckon Labor will win the next election with a reduced majority.

Sadly, some people will be gullible enough to vote against them because of serial pest Michelle Chandelois (who I'm surprised wasn't out claiming to have had an affair with Tiger Woods). If only the media ignored her childish behaviour...

Labor's announcement of the duplication of the Southern Expressway has given them a big boost, especially now that the Libs are running scared. I doubt if they actually had a duplication plan - they did, after all, create the farcical expressway so it would be quite the backflip if they did announce duplication plans.

The Libs made a complete mess of their previous run in government - the second term was scandal ridden with the Motorola affair and the Hindmarsh Stadium fiasco (which IMO is still somewhat of a white elephant due to it's small capacity). It was because of Hindmarsh Stadium the Rann government refused to fund the eastern stands development at Adelaide Oval in 2003. This is also why I am very sceptical of the Liberals city stadium plan - even if they do keep their promise and build it (which I highly doubt), they will almost certainly completely botch it.

If the Libs get in, Adelaide will well and truly become a backwater.

 

[jo172]

brucetiki what you just wrote makes about as much sense as voting against the ALP due to the state bank disaster. If you're looking for a flawless political party I'd suggest you vote informally

Vader Rann 1.0 was a minority government which had mixed results. It certainly kept rann, Foley, conlon's arrogance and stupidity in check (I excluded Atkinson as his arrogance and stupidity have never been in check). However it did let Peter Lewis who turned out to be more of an absolute loon then people were already aware have unprecedented power in the state. Was truly embarassing and sometimes scary.

The thing that concerns me with the Libs is most of their relative anonymity. With the exceptions of Redmond, Lucas and Chapman I have no idea what most of their jobs are. Having said that I'd prefer anonymity to the arrogance of pretty much the whole cabinet bar Weatherill and Hill

 

[brucetiki]

brucetiki what you just wrote makes about as much sense as voting against the ALP due to the state bank disaster. If you're looking for a flawless political party I'd suggest you vote informally

And to think I didn't even mention the Liberals 2006 'campaign'

I was merely pointing out the disaster it was when the Libs were last in power - not to mention they had three leaders in that 8 years (Brown, Olsen and Kerin). Having said that, they've been even less stable in opposition with 4 leaders since their 2002 defeat (Kerin, Evans, Hamilton-Smith and Redmond). The Liberals are unstable and have been for the past 15 years.

Of course the ALP isn't perfect, but IMO they're more stable and reliable than the rabble that are the Libs.

 

[jo172]

What exactly is so important about stability in government apart from politically/electorally?

Out of curiosity did you vote Federal ALP in Oct 07? I would have thought not since they fail your stability test

Also FWIW you're kidding yourself if you think a re-elected ALP would be stable. Foley learnt Costello's lesson. You can't wait for a handover you have to take it. Blokes like Weatherill in the left will be less than pleased by a Foley Premiership let alone if the minority government thing happens.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't understand how people can change which party they vote for from election to election. Surely your beliefs and values align closer to Liberal or Labour and nothing changes them.

 

[brucetiki]

What exactly is so important about stability in government apart from politically/electorally?

Out of curiosity did you vote Federal ALP in Oct 07? I would have thought not since they fail your stability test

Also FWIW you're kidding yourself if you think a re-elected ALP would be stable. Foley learnt Costello's lesson. You can't wait for a handover you have to take it. Blokes like Weatherill in the left will be less than pleased by a Foley Premiership let alone if the minority government thing happens.

Yes, Federal Labor had a period of terrible instability over about 5 years from 2001-2006 (Beazley, Crean, Latham, Beazley, Rudd), and they were smashed in the 2004 federal election and trailing badly in the polls as a result. However, Rudd brought stability to the Federal Labor party and within 12 months had won government and has maintained that stability (though having a very weak opposition helps).

Also, federal Labor, with the exception of Latham, have changed leadership to improve their chances at an election, not because of scandal. The state Libs have often had to change leaders due to a scandal - Olsen (and half his front bench) and Major Bungle spring to mind.

The challenge Labor face if re-elected is how long will Rann stay as Premier. Howard lost the 2007 Federal election (and his own very safe seat) because he stayed in the top job way too long (and allegedly broke a few promises to Costello), and I'm sure Labor would be aware of that. Rann has now been Labor leader for 16 years and I reckon there's a chance, probably sometime in 2012, that there will be a quick, relatively quiet changeover to refresh the party in time for the 2014 election.

 

[Alex99]

I’m going to vote for whom ever builds one of these screens.

 

[jo172]

Yes, Federal Labor had a period of terrible instability over about 5 years from 2001-2006 (Beazley, Crean, Latham, Beazley, Rudd), and they were smashed in the 2004 federal election and trailing badly in the polls as a result. However, Rudd brought stability to the Federal Labor party and within 12 months had won government and has maintained that stability (though having a very weak opposition helps)..

So 12 months is the magic litmus test for 'stability' in leadership?

I must admit it seems a bit arbitrary to me!

Also, federal Labor, with the exception of Latham, have changed leadership to improve their chances at an election, not because of scandal. The state Libs have often had to change leaders due to a scandal - Olsen (and half his front bench) and Major Bungle spring to mind.)..

I would suggest that Bannon and Rann have faced far more significant scandals in living memory.

Also, surely your not alleging the dodgy documents was the impetus to change leader? Surely Redmond was elected to improve electoral chances.

The challenge Labor face if re-elected is how long will Rann stay as Premier. Howard lost the 2007 Federal election (and his own very safe seat) because he stayed in the top job way too long (and allegedly broke a few promises to Costello), and I'm sure Labor would be aware of that. Rann has now been Labor leader for 16 years and I reckon there's a chance, probably sometime in 2012, that there will be a quick, relatively quiet changeover to refresh the party in time for the 2014 election.

Howard had a margin of about 4%, Rann has one of about 80%, I think he'll be safe

Having said that I'd be fascinated to know how many of the 90% of the vote he gets is aware he lives in Stepney. Loves a safe Labor seat, can't stand the sight or smell of Labor voters.

 

[Vader]

I don't understand how people can change which party they vote for from election to election. Surely your beliefs and values align closer to Liberal or Labour and nothing changes them.

They do.. but sometimes other considerations become more important.

My vote in the federal election was more or less irrelevant, noting that my seat is about as safely Labor as it's possible to get.

The ACT has a different voting system, with only 3 electorates but multiple candidates being elected for each electorate (5, 5 & 7). We (along with Qld and the NT) also have only 1 house of parliament, the Legislative Assembly. The Feds and most of the states (including SA) have 2 houses, with laws needing to be passed by both if they are to come into effect. It's relatively rare for the upper house to be controlled completely by the same party which forms government in the lower house. There are usually a sufficient number of minor party members and independents to keep them accountable.

John Howard's biggest problem was that he got a majority in the senate as well as the lower house and the unbridled power went to his head - the end result was WorkChoices, which cost him the election and his own seat.

In the same way, I had (and still have) grave concerns about our own little dictator having too much power, as such I voted for the opposition. I knew there was zero chance of the Libs getting in, but there was a good chance that Labor might lose their majority and be forced into forming a minority government where they would be held accountable.

The ACT's governance has been MUCH better since the last election than it was previously, due to the little dictator being held in check.

 

[KUNG FU]

Should be a comfortable Labor majority, with a number of reduced margins across the board. There are very few Labor marginal seats that are within striking distance for the Liberals. The eastern suburb seats of Norwood, Morialta, Hartley & Newland are all a reasonable chance of falling, but that will not be enough. I’m not inspired by some of the Liberal nominees in those seats either, so we’ll see. Frome should go back to the Liberals as well. The former blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Bright is well and truly beyond the breach now, as is Adelaide. The outer metropolitan/rural seats of Mawson & Light will be interesting. Demographics will help Labor to hold on to its most marginal seats, but they are certainly vulnerable. Labor’s handling Southern Expressway extension announcement was an absolute gold move yesterday and in my opinion will be a sign of the campaign to come. Labor is likely to pick up Grey, and the Liberals’ two genuine metropolitan seats Morphett & Unley are certainly within striking distance with some demographic shifts.

At the back of my mind I have Bracks' first victory. Anything is possible. But despite all the angst against Rann, he is still a popular premier who has an huge campaign slush fund and is armoured with a surging economy, low unemployment and a tonne of stimulus funds still left unspent. Chantelois is a non-factor, that kind of issue only really makes a difference in conservative rural electorates where the Liberals hold as much as they can already. Redmond hasn’t been given the flexibility to build her own platform and lacks a genuine support from her parliamentary party (both in personnel & policy), so there will be a lot of pressure on her. Having said that she is a solid media performer and will have a chance better than most of attracting the metropolitan votes the Liberals need (with the exception of an untainted MHS imo).

 

[KUNG FU]

I don't understand how people can change which party they vote for from election to election. Surely your beliefs and values align closer to Liberal or Labour and nothing changes them.

I use to think like this, but now I've come to appreciate the value of being a swinging voter. If we were voting for individuals, rather than parties, I think I would change my vote election for election. Unfortunately, there are some candidates that I would prefer, that I simply cannot vote for because they are aligned with a party that has some dubious elements.

 

[brucetiki]

Having said that I'd be fascinated to know how many of the 90% of the vote he gets is aware he lives in Stepney. Loves a safe Labor seat, can't stand the sight or smell of Labor voters.

I may be the only one, but I'm in Ramsay and I know he lives in Stepney

You're right though - Ramsay, Taylor, and Napier are about as safe a Labor seat as you can get - the Libs rarely bother to put anyone in Taylor, and the last one in 2006 was an ex-Labor Party member with the motto 'Make Taylor Marginal' (pretty much conceding defeat before they started).

 

[brucetiki]

John Howard's biggest problem was that he got a majority in the senate as well as the lower house and the unbridled power went to his head - the end result was WorkChoices, which cost him the election and his own seat.

This is the reason why I never vote for a major party in the upper house.

Problem is since the Democrats sold their souls for the GST, there isn't a decent central party that will 'keep the bastards honest' - you've now got the extreme left Greens and the extreme right Family First.

 

[jo172]

This is the reason why I never vote for a major party in the upper house.

Problem is since the Democrats sold their souls for the GST, there isn't a decent central party that will 'keep the bastards honest' - you've now got the extreme left Greens and the extreme right Family First.

I find the Gamers 4 Croydon party alluring.

I especially like their **** Michael Atkinson policy

 

[Jars458]

As a geneal points incumbent Government's are quite hard to shift unless there is a really defining issue that has them on the nose. Labor has a very good majority and whilst some see the Govt as being arrogant and out of touch there is no real issue where tehy have been completely exposed.

I expect Libs to gain 2-5 seats but nowhere near enough for Government.

Interesting to see how the campaing unfolds though.

I also agree with teh point on the Upper House. The Leg council is vital to controlling whichever side gets in in the Lower House. An interesting balnce up there at the moment which is likely to tip slighty more to Labor but not enough to give them anywhere near a majority.

 

[relapse]

I have been a labor voter all my life, but there are some issues that have soured my alligence to them.

1. The liberals have the best plan for the city (inner city stadium)
2. Adelaide Oval is apparently a empty promise that will more than likely never eventuate and the Government have an out clause by saying that the SANFL and SACA couldnt agree
3. Labors push towards censorship both state and federal, Atkinson's ridiculous stance with R rated video game classification, the ridiculous law R rated movies which now draws even more attention to them. Dont even get me started on the clean feed.
4. The Rann's scandal IMO makes me believe that he has lied to the state about it, if he admitted it publicly and took it on the chin I would have respected that far more.
5. The overal arrogance of the party

 

[jo172]

I also agree with teh point on the Upper House. The Leg council is vital to controlling whichever side gets in in the Lower House. An interesting balnce up there at the moment which is likely to tip slighty more to Labor but not enough to give them anywhere near a majority.

Hopefully the Legislative Council continues to be made up so that it can continue to thwart Rann's attempts to abolish it.

 

[jo172]

1. The liberals have the best plan for the city (inner city stadium)
2. Adelaide Oval is apparently a empty promise that will more than likely never eventuate and the Government have an out clause by saying that the SANFL and SACA couldnt agree
3. Labors push towards censorship both state and federal, Atkinson's ridiculous stance with R rated video game classification, the ridiculous law R rated movies which now draws even more attention to them. Dont even get me started on the clean feed.
4. The Rann's scandal IMO makes me believe that he has lied to the state about it, if he admitted it publicly and took it on the chin I would have respected that far more.
5. The overal arrogance of the party

Good list, I would add on:

6. ICAC ICAC ICAC! Anyone telling me South Australia doesn't have corruption has got rocks in their head.
7. Law and Order - I Miss the days where there was a bit of respect shown by the government for the rule of law and judicial independence.
8. The Marj - I don't really give a damn if it's rebuilt where it is or somewhere else, just not in the location currently proposed!

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Will vote the Libs,
but Labor will get in.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

4. The Rann's scandal IMO makes me believe that he has lied to the state about it, if he admitted it publicly and took it on the chin I would have respected that far more.

This, I couldn't care less if he did the deed or not, but it is becoming increasingly more likely that he did, I would have had much more respect if he had the balls to just come out and say it.

 

[dbcrow]

This, I couldn't care less if he did the deed or not, but it is becoming increasingly more likely that he did, I would have had much more respect if he had the balls to just come out and say it.

And this is what I can't understand.

If he had come out and say that it was true, then really, what has he done wrong? He wasn't married - was he even going out with his now-wife?

I thought at the time that he mustn't have done anything because he didn't have much to lose in admitting it.

Now I'm starting to think that he did it. Lying about it to the state about it is much worse that what he actually did.

 

[jo172]

If he had come out and say that it was true, then really, what has he done wrong? He wasn't married - was he even going out with his now-wife?

He was going out with her.

What made me instantly suspicious (well apart from my prejudice) is how Rann and his closest supporters (Farrell/Foley/Bolkus/Koutsitonias) had their stories change in the first 48 hours. They went from "it doesn't matter, he was single, who cares" to "he didn't do it" after a day or two's solid press conference.

I dare say their initial, un-press planned response may have been more honest than the party line which has been admirably toed since.