The South Australian Political Landscape

[Psyber]

Really? It's never bothered them before.. Big business is all that concerns that mob. They're happy with a growing underclass as long as there not in it themselves

You've been listening to too much ALP propaganda.
Tell me ALP pollies like Bob Hawke and Keating were not in bed with big business!
(Like Alan Bond.)

In the Libs what you say may be true of some of the established names in the parliamentary group. However, it is not true of the membership as a whole. I have been discussing it (even campaigning the issue) with other members at party functions over this year, and found substantial, and growing, support for better balanced policies. Many general members are members of the Liberal Party largely over the issue of repeated debt fiasco's under ALP governments, state and federal. I've voted ALP myself in the past.

(On the ABC Voter Compass site last year I supported 40% of Green policies, 53% of ALP policies, and only pushed up to 64% on Liberal policies based on economic responsibility issues.)

[stan]

The funny thing is the deficit is still going up!

Its called interest.

The deficit continues to rise because of the interest, and because the ALP and the Greens are determined to not let any legislation through that may change the trend and show up their history of financial incompetence. They also see being able to call the attempts to fix it a failure as more important than leaving behind a massive debt that your kids will have to suffer for.

However, I do agree the Libs could have worked harder to come up with a more palatable package that would have gone over better with the middle ground.

Psyber I do agree with you there about the Libs needing a bit more work around the packages to get them through. But even still it seems the A game of the opposition is to block all policies regardless. Hence why working with he independents is so critical. I just dont think he Libs have work hard enough in that area.

[bennymacca]

^ agree with this. they threw all of their eggs in a "we will win in our own right" basket so they didnt consider the fact that they might have to work with independents

[stan]

Back to SA now. ALP Has won the recount by 9 votes. They can no form a majority government.

[mighty_tiger_79]

mid year budget update by Tommy is on tuesday

[heater31]

mid year budget update by Tommy is on tuesday

Should be compelling viewing....

[Psyber]

The saga goes on: http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/12/22/n ... ead%20more

[tipper]

The saga goes on: http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/12/22/n ... ead%20more

personally if i was premier for a day (would never happen, lol) id solve the whole thing by actually keeping the "old" RAH and running it alongside the "new" RAH. with our ageing population, added to an increasing population, we will only need more hospital beds in future, so why bulldoze a hospital we already have? just to give us more parklands that we wont use for anything? (or whatever it is they are going to do with the land)

sure, it would cost more in the short term, having to buy more equipment rather than move it, but it would solve pretty much all of the states hospital crowding issues immediately(with a bit of patient shuffling) provided they could also employ the necessary people to staff both (admittedly a big hurdle to my plan right there) keep the high dependancy/critical patients in the new fancy building, and the more basic stuff a few hundred metres up the road

will never happen of course. we will get stuck with a smaller hospital, in a worse spot, and it will probably turn out to have some critical design defects only uncovered a year or so after opening.... why do i have the theme for "yes minister" running through my head?

[Psyber]

The saga goes on: http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/12/22/n ... ead%20more

personally if i was premier for a day (would never happen, lol) id solve the whole thing by actually keeping the "old" RAH and running it alongside the "new" RAH. with our ageing population, added to an increasing population, we will only need more hospital beds in future, so why bulldoze a hospital we already have? just to give us more parklands that we wont use for anything? (or whatever it is they are going to do with the land)

sure, it would cost more in the short term, having to buy more equipment rather than move it, but it would solve pretty much all of the states hospital crowding issues immediately(with a bit of patient shuffling) provided they could also employ the necessary people to staff both (admittedly a big hurdle to my plan right there) keep the high dependancy/critical patients in the new fancy building, and the more basic stuff a few hundred metres up the road

will never happen of course. we will get stuck with a smaller hospital, in a worse spot, and it will probably turn out to have some critical design defects only uncovered a year or so after opening.... why do i have the theme for "yes minister" running through my head?

Because that show was always too true to be funny, but you had to laugh or it was too scary...

[dedja]

Lots of people were hanging shit on Adelaide Oval when it was being upgraded ... don't seem to hear much from them these days.

Maybe wait and see how the nRAH turns out?

[Psyber]

Lots of people were hanging shit on Adelaide Oval when it was being upgraded ... don't seem to hear much from them these days.

Maybe wait and see how the nRAH turns out?

I still think the money spent on Adelaide oval was a total waste given that it benefits only the 2% or less of the population who will ever go there.
However, it is a fait accompli now, and there is no point in going on about it.

The nRAH? Only time will tell...
Personally, I think it is in the wrong place, and that the site was selected primarily because it was a site that money had to be spent on to clean up the pollution anyway, supported by the fantasy that people would move towards attending hospital as patients or visitors by public transport.

The big question I have is whether it was affordable to launch it at a time when we were already in excessive debt.

[Gozu]

This almost got past me on NYE, Labor now ahead 53-47:

The Australian is proceeding with its usual seasonal unloading of state results from Newspoll, the latest cab off the rank being South Australia. The poll supports the impression of Labor dominance recently provided by the Fisher by-election, showing Labor opening up a 53-47 lead on two-party preferred – an exact reversal of the election result in March, and a further two-point shift in Labor’s favour since the quarterly result of July-September. On the primary vote, Labor is up a point to 35%, the Liberals are down three to 33% and the Greens are up one to 10%. Notably, Newspoll continues to record a very high result for “others”, which in increasing a point to 22% is now doubling the election result.

The biggest shift on personal ratings is for Liberal leader Steven Marshall, and it’s in the wrong direction: his approval is down five to 35% with disapproval up eight to 42%, turning a net rating of plus six into minus seven. Jay Weatherill is also up five on disapproval to 42%, losing a gain he made in the in the July-September poll and returning him to where he was at the time of the election. However, he is also up a point on approval to 46%, and his lead as preferred Premier has widened from 45-30 to 47-29.


http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/ ... australia/

[stan]

Lools like a proposal to re work the emergency system a bit by having 3 main hubs.

Also looks like Modbury hospital might be on the chopping block.

[Booney]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?

I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

[Psyber]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

On radio (891 AM) he was asked about this and said that though the government said the levy increase was to replace the $97million lost federal revenue, this had been replaced by federal revenue 0f $90million under another scheme.

So the net loss was $7million. Thus to drop the huge ESL increases he would have to find only $7m from other sources not the $97m the ALP was claiming.
(Disclaimer: I have not independently verified the arguments of either side.)

[stan]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

On radio (891 AM) he was asked about this and said that though the government said the levy increase was to replace the $97million lost federal revenue, this had been replaced by federal revenue 0f $90million under another scheme.

So the net loss was $7million. Thus to drop the huge ESL increases he would have to find only $7m from other sources not the $97m the ALP was claiming.
(Disclaimer: I have not independently verified the arguments of either side.)

I read that it was 94mil and hence a 4mil drop off. But raised an additional 90mil instead of the 4mil difference.

[stan]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

On radio (891 AM) he was asked about this and said that though the government said the levy increase was to replace the $97million lost federal revenue, this had been replaced by federal revenue 0f $90million under another scheme.

So the net loss was $7million. Thus to drop the huge ESL increases he would have to find only $7m from other sources not the $97m the ALP was claiming.
(Disclaimer: I have not independently verified the arguments of either side.)

You mean the introduction of the living tax?

[Psyber]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

On radio (891 AM) he was asked about this and said that though the government said the levy increase was to replace the $97million lost federal revenue, this had been replaced by federal revenue 0f $90million under another scheme.

So the net loss was $7million. Thus to drop the huge ESL increases he would have to find only $7m from other sources not the $97m the ALP was claiming.
(Disclaimer: I have not independently verified the arguments of either side.)

I read that it was 94mil and hence a 4mil drop off. But raised an additional 90mil instead of the 4mil difference.

You may be right about $94million and $4m - not $97m and $7m I said above.
I was barely awake when the discussion was on in the morning (and had company at the time).

[Booney]

So Marshal says he'll scrap the ESL. How will he replace that money?
I can't wait for the spin doctors to come up with another fund/levy/service based funding initiative/ TAX....

On radio (891 AM) he was asked about this and said that though the government said the levy increase was to replace the $97million lost federal revenue, this had been replaced by federal revenue 0f $90million under another scheme.

So the net loss was $7million. Thus to drop the huge ESL increases he would have to find only $7m from other sources not the $97m the ALP was claiming.
(Disclaimer: I have not independently verified the arguments of either side.)

I read that it was 94mil and hence a 4mil drop off. But raised an additional 90mil instead of the 4mil difference.

You may be right about $94million and $4m - not $97m and $7m I said above.
I was barely awake when the discussion was on in the morning (and had company at the time).

You ol' dog you.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Giving $10 mill to a mining company to upgrade their offices.

Not gunna sit well with the punters