SA Footy

Sky Pilot wrote:

redandblack wrote:Mr Abbott's comments on the IMF contribution have been slammed by even The Australian.

I think he's in a bit of trouble if the polls continue to narrow.

On the Labor side, I don't think Mr Crean is a likely candidate.

Stephen Smith and Bill Shorten would be in the gf of credible leaders for your party - ahead of Crean surely?

Its a pity that they don't look to the ex Mayor of Salisbury Tony Zappia, considering what he achieved for the City of Salisbury he would run rings around a number of favoured candidates. They idolised Latham for what he had done as Mayor, yet his achievements pale very much in contrast to what Zappia and his team achieved.

We've seen so many articles about a change of leadership in the Labor Party.

We've seen nothing about a change of Liberal leadership.

My original comment in this thread suggested that Mr Abbott might be in trouble if the polls continued to narrow and now the latest Newspoll has it down to 53/47. This is still a very comfortable win for the Opposition, but Mr Abbott's disapproval is a record 57% and he leads the PM by only 1% as preferred PM.

The PM's ratings, although improving, are still diabolical, but somehow I think Mr Abbott is in a more tenuous position, unless the current trend is reversed.

At the very least, the idea that the voters are overwhelmingly against the Government is no longer true.

There is probably no mention of a change in the Liberal leadership because there is probably no change in the Liberal leadership being discussed.

And to start trotting out the hated Newspoll now that it suits you

redandblack wrote:We've seen so many articles about a change of leadership in the Labor Party.

The hacks at News Ltd must be getting worried.

redandblack wrote:We've seen so many articles about a change of leadership in the Labor Party.

We've seen nothing about a change of Liberal leadership.

My original comment in this thread suggested that Mr Abbott might be in trouble if the polls continued to narrow and now the latest Newspoll has it down to 53/47. This is still a very comfortable win for the Opposition, but Mr Abbott's disapproval is a record 57% and he leads the PM by only 1% as preferred PM.

The PM's ratings, although improving, are still diabolical, but somehow I think Mr Abbott is in a more tenuous position, unless the current trend is reversed.

At the very least, the idea that the voters are overwhelmingly against the Government is no longer true.

The main point of conflict against Tony Abbott is that he is Catholic and not nominally but a keen member of it. I am not a Catholic and dont agree with many things that the Catholic church do, yet I dont think that being involved in the Catholic Church should preclude anyone from being the Prime Minister of leader of a political party, I do think that is discrimination.

Still, its also fair to say that the needs of the party come before the needs of the incumbent leader, if someone else can do a better job then perhaps they should have a look at it. Much like the ALP though I dont feel there is a great deal left in the tank to draw from, Turnbull appears to have several enemies and would likely lead a splintered party. Joe Hockey does not seem to have a great following. The Liberal party would be better advised to look at promoting some new blood into the ranks. Andrew Laming is one name who is more popular with a younger generation of liberals who could well be someone who could be a potential future leader, providing they dont do what the ALP did with Latham and pick the fruit before it is actually ripe.

Gozu wrote:The Libs hate the Greens even more than they do Labor.

I'm not sure that is an obstacle to the Liberal Party , so long as giving them support would bring down the ALP without putting the Greens in power, and I suspect the ALP would think the same way.
Politics is the science of expedience...

Psyber wrote:

Gozu wrote:The Libs hate the Greens even more than they do Labor.

I'm not sure that is an obstacle to the Liberal Party , so long as giving them support would bring down the ALP with putting the Greens in power, and I suspect the ALP would think the same way.
Politics is the science of expedience...

They've stated a number of times they (the Libs) would prefer to help Labor pollies get seats than Greens.

Gozu wrote:

Psyber wrote:

Gozu wrote:The Libs hate the Greens even more than they do Labor.

I'm not sure that is an obstacle to the Liberal Party , so long as giving them support would bring down the ALP with putting the Greens in power, and I suspect the ALP would think the same way.
Politics is the science of expedience...

They've stated a number of times they (the Libs) would prefer to help Labor pollies get seats than Greens.

Well surely that makes sense? The Greens are complete radicals with a simplistic and romantic view about life. They are sadly out-of-touch with reality and their approach could never work. I mean, most of us know and accept that surely? For all its faults, at least Labor is ineffective and passive and has the best interests of whatever is going on at any given moment at heart.

Sky Pilot wrote:Well surely that makes sense? The Greens are complete radicals with a simplistic and romantic view about life. They are sadly out-of-touch with reality and their approach could never work. I mean, most of us know and accept that surely? For all its faults, at least Labor is ineffective and passive and has the best interests of whatever is going on at any given moment at heart.

Only the far-right hold the ridiculous view that the Greens are radicals, especially given how measure and composed Bob Brown is. I know you lot run this garbage because you're fearful of how big the Greens could get (1.5 million people voted for them last year if we had proportional representation that would equate to 17 seats, balance of power in the Senate now too) but the reality is they are clearly the third biggest party in Australia now and growing.

Nothing you or The Australian newspaper says can stop that.

Gozu wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:Well surely that makes sense? The Greens are complete radicals with a simplistic and romantic view about life. They are sadly out-of-touch with reality and their approach could never work. I mean, most of us know and accept that surely? For all its faults, at least Labor is ineffective and passive and has the best interests of whatever is going on at any given moment at heart.

Only the far-right hold the ridiculous view that the Greens are radicals, especially given how measure and composed Bob Brown is. I know you lot run this garbage because you're fearful of how big the Greens could get (1.5 million people voted for them last year if we had proportional representation that would equate to 17 seats, balance of power in the Senate now too) but the reality is they are clearly the third biggest party in Australia now and growing.

Nothing you or The Australian newspaper says can stop that.

I think they trade on the fact that a percentage of their vote comes from people who are pissed off with Labor or Liberal so park their vote with the Greens.

Gozu wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:Well surely that makes sense? The Greens are complete radicals with a simplistic and romantic view about life. They are sadly out-of-touch with reality and their approach could never work. I mean, most of us know and accept that surely? For all its faults, at least Labor is ineffective and passive and has the best interests of whatever is going on at any given moment at heart.

Only the far-right hold the ridiculous view that the Greens are radicals, especially given how measure and composed Bob Brown is. I know you lot run this garbage because you're fearful of how big the Greens could get (1.5 million people voted for them last year if we had proportional representation that would equate to 17 seats, balance of power in the Senate now too) but the reality is they are clearly the third biggest party in Australia now and growing.

Nothing you or The Australian newspaper says can stop that.

Are you saying only the far right see shutting down the entire coal industry as radical?

even the greenies have realised that even australia couldnt survive on total clean energy at the present stage. No wind, or solar power how ever big could with stand our demands.

And we are alot smaller then most developed countires.

Gozu wrote:

Sky Pilot wrote:Well surely that makes sense? The Greens are complete radicals with a simplistic and romantic view about life. They are sadly out-of-touch with reality and their approach could never work. I mean, most of us know and accept that surely? For all its faults, at least Labor is ineffective and passive and has the best interests of whatever is going on at any given moment at heart.

Only the far-right hold the ridiculous view that the Greens are radicals, especially given how measure and composed Bob Brown is. I know you lot run this garbage because you're fearful of how big the Greens could get (1.5 million people voted for them last year if we had proportional representation that would equate to 17 seats, balance of power in the Senate now too) but the reality is they are clearly the third biggest party in Australia now and growing.

Nothing you or The Australian newspaper says can stop that.

Wonderful timing....

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/greens-mark-parnell-to-fight-for-a-better-deal-on-olympic-dam/story-e6frea6u-1226189079542

scoob wrote:Are you saying only the far right see shutting down the entire coal industry as radical?

No, aside that doesn't mean the Greens on the whole are radical. Brown has said the goal is for clean energy to replace coal eventually, I'd think the vast majority of people would agree with that.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Wonderful timing....

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/greens-mark-parnell-to-fight-for-a-better-deal-on-olympic-dam/story-e6frea6u-1226189079542

The same government that nobbles the EPA? Yep, what extremists the Greens are for proposing amendments to the Olympic Dam legislation give this govt's track record.

Just laughing at Koutsontanis getting stuck into them like a conservative politician would.
The Greens are doing Labor's traditional role - in the end, Labor will pay for this when the Greens take the majority of their votes away from them
I might remind everyone - the "hero" of this new mine is the same person that was vehemently against the first Roxby Downs Indenture Bill - oh, how Labor sell their soul for power

BTW, I completely support the Marathon / Arkaroola situation. You show you are irresponsible - no second chance boys.

To try and promote stability, you don't change party leaders willy nilly.
This is why every Labor pollie interviewed will have complete and unwavering support until such time as a leadership challenge has been contested, and there will be a united front coming out of the party room.
The problem is that the incumbent government has a leader with a shocking approval rating, and that is why potential replacements are being discussed.

The Liberals have no need to change anything at this rate- they will, to quote a former prime minister, "slide into office by default."
Like or dislike Tony Abbott, he is sitting pretty to be the next prime minister, and the only people who will change that course is Labor, by changing their leader to Kevin Rudd.

When the popular vote starts changing the opinion polls, and Abbott starts to struggle, then the rumblings will begin, but not before.

No one thinks Bill Shorten is a possible leader of the ALP?
How about Tania Plibersek?

Malcolm Turnbull has (seemingly!) been more popular when not the leader of the Opposition, than when he was! Watching him on Q&A he comes across as being deeply knowledgeable, well informed, and is able to assess things objectively and with balance without resorting to castigating the other parties and their representatives all the time. It seems like Weatherill is adopting a similar approach, and it will be interesting to see how well it works.

Squawk wrote:No one thinks Bill Shorten is a possible leader of the ALP?
How about Tania Plibersek?

Bill Shorten has Rudds blood on his hands, Rudd was democratically elected by the people of the nation and its believed by many that Shorten was involved in getting rid of him. As much as it must really annoy certain powerbrokers, Rudd is the one the majority appear to like. Pilbersek is like Latham, fruit that has potential but is not ripe as yet. Again Tony Zappia would run rings around either of them!

I think Shorten is waiting for a later, more propitious time.

Plibersek is good, but well back in the line, IMO.

Soj, Zappia is a good local member, but has had little parliamentary experience and would be 200/1 at this stage.