Remove this Banner Ad

March Election

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jo172 said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
I've been avoiding the media and have just gone by re curcirculated promises that I've seen here

but today listening on the radio to the advertisement

Rann just pisses me off

I hate smear campagains! :mad:

and Redmond sounds confident and it sounds that she beleives what she's saying instead of talking crap

and honestly, I dont care about my personal electrate
I'm racist and wouldn't vote Labor on principal (in this case)
But if I look at it as Labor vs Liberal like I am I can make an informed decision

Legislative Council on the other hand

1. AbortSA
2-5th last - insert randoms
4th last - Greens
3rd last - Labor
2nd last - Liberal
last - Family First
 
jo172 said:
Hahahha, completely irrational.

If she wins what quite frankly was an impossible victory when she takes over the Libs will have a messiah complex and she'll be more likely to be able to run the party like a despot!

I think you're confusing factional systems, whilst the Libs exist, they're no where near as entrenched or as powerful as the ALP.



Care to elaborate?

(As a Norwood resident you should educate yourself about Bunton v Cicarello to get a full grasp on the woman)
Click to expand...

Yes, of course its irrational:rolleyes:. You obviously haven't been following state politics for long have you? This is a party that ditched its leader in 1994, who 12 months earlier had destroyed, demolished the ALP to nothing more than a cricket team. This is the same party that has changed its leaders when in both government and opposition on a regular basis. This party has form so don't believe it isn't likely to happen, as the saying goes "it's in their nature".

I have been following politics for some 30 odd years. I am not a member of any party but consider myself to have liberal (not conservative) progressive views. I don't particular like Rann and his spin but am not convinced of Redmond's longevity as leader. What is a political scholar to do?

One thing I will say is even though the ALP does have its factions it has been relatively stable with its leadership given for the past 31 years it has only had 3 leaders - Bannon, Arnold and Rann.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

kirky said:
Yes, of course its irrational:rolleyes:. You obviously haven't been following state politics for long have you? This is a party that ditched its leader in 1994, who 12 months earlier had destroyed, demolished the ALP to nothing more than a cricket team. This is the same party that has changed its leaders when in both government and opposition on a regular basis. This party has form so don't believe it isn't likely to happen, as the saying goes "it's in their nature".

I have been following politics for some 30 odd years. I am not a member of any party but consider myself to have liberal (not conservative) progressive views. I don't particular like Rann and his spin but am not convinced of Redmond's longevity as leader. What is a political scholar to do?

One thing I will say is even though the ALP does have its factions it has been relatively stable with its leadership given for the past 31 years it has only had 3 leaders - Bannon, Arnold and Rann.
Click to expand...

You understand in this context past behaviour nears no relation to future behaviour?

And the idea that you'd compare the current Liberal Party to the Olsen/Brown feud blows my mind. If Evans or Chapman was the leader, yeah I could see enough personal grudges there to make a term of government uncomfortable.

But what your ignoring with Redmond is that whilst she doesn't have set factional allies, nor does she have any distinct factional enemies. And the factions in the Libs do not exist like Labor Unity for the sheer purpose of maintaining power, they have the distinction of attempting to prevent the other side from getting power, it's just that usually this has the side effect of one of their members being in power.

Having said that, should Redmond lose on Saturday all bets are off, 4 years is a lot of time (particularly after 8 years beforehand) to sit on your hands in opposition silently backing up the new leader.

As for the ALP factions, in this state it's a bit of a misnomer. Something like 75% of them are in Labor Unity, the Right has such an effective grasp of control due to the SDA votes that their leadership is as stable as the leadership of the SDA wants it to be.
 
jo172 said:
You understand in this context past behaviour nears no relation to future behaviour?

And the idea that you'd compare the current Liberal Party to the Olsen/Brown feud blows my mind. If Evans or Chapman was the leader, yeah I could see enough personal grudges there to make a term of government uncomfortable.

But what your ignoring with Redmond is that whilst she doesn't have set factional allies, nor does she have any distinct factional enemies. And the factions in the Libs do not exist like Labor Unity for the sheer purpose of maintaining power, they have the distinction of attempting to prevent the other side from getting power, it's just that usually this has the side effect of one of their members being in power.

Having said that, should Redmond lose on Saturday all bets are off, 4 years is a lot of time (particularly after 8 years beforehand) to sit on your hands in opposition silently backing up the new leader.

As for the ALP factions, in this state it's a bit of a misnomer. Something like 75% of them are in Labor Unity, the Right has such an effective grasp of control due to the SDA votes that their leadership is as stable as the leadership of the SDA wants it to be.
Click to expand...

Is this written by a lawyer?

I'm sorry but I beg to disagree. This is a party that dumped its leader just over 6 months ago - they have continually history of doing the same thing and we can go back over 40 odd years let alone the Brown/Olsen days.

If she does get in, she won't last 12 months, bookmark it.
 
kirky said:
Is this written by a lawyer?

I'm sorry but I beg to disagree. This is a party that dumped its leader just over 6 months ago - they have continually history of doing the same thing and we can go back over 40 odd years let alone the Brown/Olsen days.

If she does get in, she won't last 12 months, bookmark it.
Click to expand...

They dumped their leader because he stuffed up big time and would have been a liability leading into the election, the rise of Issy has proved it was the right move.

So you reckon if she leads the party to an against the odds victory she will be dumped in 12 months, cmon get off the drugs. You have read one too many negative Rann comments.
 
kirky said:
Is this written by a lawyer?

I'm sorry but I beg to disagree. This is a party that dumped its leader just over 6 months ago - they have continually history of doing the same thing and we can go back over 40 odd years let alone the Brown/Olsen days.

If she does get in, she won't last 12 months, bookmark it.
Click to expand...

12 months - I give it 6
 
Nah, no way will they ditch Redmond if they win. She is the most popular politician they've had for quite a while.

If they lose, they should still keep her but I don't know what they'll actually do. The impression that i'm getting is that people prefer Redmond and even the liberals to an extent, but no one knows who the **** their local candidate is. I follow politics a bit and hardly know any of the liberal candidates
 
kirky said:
Is this written by a lawyer?

I'm sorry but I beg to disagree. This is a party that dumped its leader just over 6 months ago - they have continually history of doing the same thing and we can go back over 40 odd years let alone the Brown/Olsen days.

If she does get in, she won't last 12 months, bookmark it.
Click to expand...

You seem to be unable to discern the differences between the current situation and past ones.

Your reasoning of the fact that the Luberals have changed leaders quickly in the past and will therefore do it in the future is the most absurdly simplistic statement I've read in quite a while.

There is no reasoning to your belief, just prejudice and paranoia.

Should Redmond win there aren't any viable threats to her leadership. Of the deposed leaders Evans has already attempted to jump ship to the Commonwealth once and MHS had one of the most embarassing resignations in recent history only 18 months before you expect her to be replaced. Chapman as the only other viable candidate has minimal support within the caucus and is basically just a less popular version of Redmond herself.

The absurdity of your reasoning would state that Kevin Rudd would have been diposed as Federal Labor leader before Christmas 2008! Explain to me the distinctions between the federal labor leadership woes since the days if Hayden, Hawke, Keating, Beazley, Crean, Latham, Beazley again and Rudd and the history of the SA Liberals in the same period?

If your looking for a leadership analogy because having to think new thoughts threaten you Isobel Redmond more represents Kevin Rudd circa 2007 then Dean Brown 1992.
 
It would be foolish to discount the possibility of Redmond losing the leadership at some point before the 2014 election, even if she wins this election. 4 years is a very long time in politics. She has no factional alignment and there is no state branch guided by such nepotism and baseless factionalism in the country. There are a number of very interesting candidates who will probably be added to the mix of the parliamentary team at this election. Chapman had to be asked on three different occassions yesterday whether she would rule out a challenge before she did so. I think that's very indicative of deep the dissent exists within the state Liberals. The divisions go well beyond the Evans and Chapman split. Also remember that Redmond has campaigned almost entirely on MHS's platform, who knows how she will act as premier outside the permanent campaign trail she's been on for months. More importantly, how will her front bench act - Bob Such has already indicated this may be decisive in determining what side of the chamber he will sit on. Rann's mistake in this campaign has been focussing on Redmond, trying to paint her as a radical because she has a tendency to speak her mind on gay marriage, refugees, and yes of course nuclear waste, judicial independence and drug policy. I actually strongly favour her position on all these issues, but I still worry how differently her party will act in government. In any case, if it does happen, it will almost certainly be a minority government and we will just have to hope the independents hold the Liberals accountable.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Elite Crow said:
So you reckon if she leads the party to an against the odds victory she will be dumped in 12 months, cmon get off the drugs. You have read one too many negative Rann comments.
Click to expand...

It wont be against the odds now,was at the start of the campaign but the Libs would be slight Favs now.

I reckon they will win and Govern in their own right.I know the confidence in the ALP is not upbeat.

To much money acoording to some punters i know is going to be wasted with the AO saga no need for what the plan is when nothing wrong with AMMI and the RAH.

The other thing is their comercials are mostly putting Redmond down like the parole ad. ALP still has 3 days to turn it around but my tip is come Sat night the Libs will run this state :(
 
Riggy1 said:
I've been avoiding the media and have just gone by re curcirculated promises that I've seen here

but today listening on the radio to the advertisement

Rann just pisses me off

I hate smear campagains! :mad:

and Redmond sounds confident and it sounds that she beleives what she's saying instead of talking crap

and honestly, I dont care about my personal electrate
I'm racist and wouldn't vote Labor on principal (in this case)
But if I look at it as Labor vs Liberal like I am I can make an informed decision

Legislative Council on the other hand

1. AbortSA
2-5th last - insert randoms
4th last - Greens
3rd last - Labor
2nd last - Liberal
last - Family First
Click to expand...

So you have been swayed by superficial things rather than policies and who is better prepared to govern.

I don't necessarily blame you because the ALP campaign has been appalling and a lot of the media and commentary on blogs has been hell bent on perpetuating this notion of 'spin'.

What the hell is 'spin' anyway? Does anyone think the Liberals don't 'spin'? I have never seen a term gather such popularity as this one has in the last couple of weeks. I bet if you asked people to specify the actual 'spin' Rann has been giving us they couldn't.

The biggest problem for Rann is that people don't trust him as much as Redmond. There is no factual basis to this other than the fact that Redmond is a woman (It sounds shallow, but that is the reality) and they are always seen as being more believable. Especially in opposition when they haven't had to prove themselves yet.
 
smoovy said:
The biggest problem for Rann is that people don't trust him as much as Redmond. There is no factual basis to this other than the fact that Redmond is a woman (It sounds shallow, but that is the reality) and they are always seen as being more believable.
Click to expand...
sorry, but women are devious
men at least have a plan and you can see what it is, I may generally disagree with it, but you know what will happen.

I am going for Liberals because their campagaining is showing what they're doing, and I beleive that they intend to follow through with it

Labor are bringing random crap out, get the interest to swing voters, then cover it up and never hear of it again while accusing the liberals of not being ready

if the libs campgain was shit I would probably vote informal. Labor is just pissing me off the last few weeks
 
smoovy said:
What the hell is 'spin' anyway? Does anyone think the Liberals don't 'spin'? I have never seen a term gather such popularity as this one has in the last couple of weeks. I bet if you asked people to specify the actual 'spin' Rann has been giving us they couldn't.
Click to expand...

Using tough on crime rhetoric whilst doing the others.

Doing everything you can for the Murray River, until it becomes the slightest bit difficult.

Refusing to go on certain media shows due to perceived bias.

Running party political ads with your own face and voice in them on the public's pay cheque.

I can go on.

smoovy said:
The biggest problem for Rann is that people don't trust him as much as Redmond. There is no factual basis to this other than the fact that Redmond is a woman (It sounds shallow, but that is the reality) and they are always seen as being more believable. Especially in opposition when they haven't had to prove themselves yet.
Click to expand...

Errr.

Michelle Chantelois ring a bell?

It's certainly at least reason enough to make you not trust some aspects of what he said, particularly in the initial days following the assault that he had no idea who his attacker was and couldn't remember his wife ...
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Vader said:
Sexist generalisations... much?
Click to expand...
sorry but soceity in general is sexist, and more so against men

I just feel like im giving back

why should women have extra rights than men

why are courts more lenient towards women, they still commited the same ****ing crime

why has the education system changed in the last few decades that now it suits women more

men are falling behind due to polocies brought in to help women
 
jo172 said:
Is beginning to explain his AbortionSA preference though ;)
Click to expand...
I dont mind women getting abortions if they were r*ped and it's the rapists kid
I dont mind women getting abortions if it is proven the kid will have a physical/mental problem upon birth

but if they're getting it for their own incompetance then **** them, it's the fault, they shouldn't have an escape clause if they get pregnant, and this is the most common reasoning for abortions.

perhaps if they wernt ****s or if they used protection then they wouldnt need this
 

Remove this Banner Ad

March Election

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top