The South Australian Political Landscape

[stan]

Surley the libs can find better than Marshall! Chapman? maybe not

One could only hope.

[Booney]

Surley the libs can find better than Marshall! Chapman? maybe not

One could only hope.

Been on the wrong side of the house for 15 years because of the limp wrist leaders they've had in charge, plus the voting public knowing the leader is only one long lunch away from being back stabbed.

Onto Marshall though, other than calling for "An urgent, independent enquiry" into anything the government does, what has he come up with? Making Happy Valley reservoir a water park and deregulation of shopping hours which most small business owners would argue against.

WAFW.

[Booney]

Looks like some of the defects on the nRAH are worse than first thought.

I'm hearing there's extensive walling that is meant to be fire rated that isn't, even at this stage 2017 hand over is touch and go.

[heater31]

Looks like some of the defects on the nRAH are worse than first thought.

I'm hearing there's extensive walling that is meant to be fire rated that isn't, even at this stage 2017 hand over is touch and go.

Could be worse.....years ago Broken Hill got a new wing on its hospital and some how the builder bricked in a full size fork lift no-one realised they couldn't get it out until they were finished with it

[Jimmy_041]

So, now Jay thinks we are, in fact, intelligent enough to make a decision (a decision he seems unable to make himself)
His arrogance and hypocrisy is unlimited

[Booney]

So, now Jay thinks we are, in fact, intelligent enough to make a decision (a decision he seems unable to make himself)
His arrogance and hypocrisy is unlimited

Pretty sure we all need to be further educated on the proposal before we even pretend to be ready to make a decision, you, me and Jay included.

[am Bays]

A referendum to be held at the next election?

MAd March, column inches and sound bites to cloud the election issues, election manipulation anyone?

[Jimmy_041]

So, now Jay thinks we are, in fact, intelligent enough to make a decision (a decision he seems unable to make himself)
His arrogance and hypocrisy is unlimited

Pretty sure we all need to be further educated on the proposal before we even pretend to be ready to make a decision, you, me and Jay included.

We are not intelligent enough to understand it; just ask Jay
That's why he ruled out a referendum and went with his "far more democratic" citizens jury (that he could more easily dupe)
But it was a massive failure. This morning he is saying he was always going to have a referendum
I'm pretty sure even the quotes posted above prove he never wanted one

[Booney]

So, now Jay thinks we are, in fact, intelligent enough to make a decision (a decision he seems unable to make himself)
His arrogance and hypocrisy is unlimited

Pretty sure we all need to be further educated on the proposal before we even pretend to be ready to make a decision, you, me and Jay included.

We are not intelligent enough to understand it; just ask Jay
That's why he ruled out a referendum and went with his "far more democratic" citizens jury (that he could more easily dupe)
But it was a massive failure. This morning he is saying he was always going to have a referendum
I'm pretty sure even the quotes posted above prove he never wanted one

If he did indeed try to manipulate the citizens jury then he's more fool than we both imagine. From what I gather the information provided too them appeared to have been written by a pre-schooler.

[am Bays]

From what I gather the information provided too them appeared to have been written by a pre-schooler.

Are you saying Jay wrote it himself??

[tipper]

If he did indeed try to manipulate the citizens jury then he's more fool than we both imagine. From what I gather the information provided too them appeared to have been written by a pre-schooler.

from what i heard it was the other way around. there was a large block of jury members that were anti nuclear, and had no intention of changing their minds no matter what information was presented. supposedly they got hold of an invitation, and were passing it around amongst their group to ensure as many of them made it onto the jury as possible to sway the outcome (the invitations werent single use.....) they even bullied anyone that wasnt as rabidly anti nuclear as they were. made up their own stickers to go on name tags and everything. lol.

personally, i would have thought that anyone accepted onto the jury needed to have an open mind on the topic. i dont care if they had leanings one way or the other before the commencement, just that they were open to the possibility of changing their mind once presented with the information either way. if the info was crap, can it. if the info was good, accept it. instead it seems that a large number of people went in with the idea of voting it down no matter what they were shown. which i would have thought totally defeats the whole exercise to begin with

[stan]

If he did indeed try to manipulate the citizens jury then he's more fool than we both imagine. From what I gather the information provided too them appeared to have been written by a pre-schooler.

from what i heard it was the other way around. there was a large block of jury members that were anti nuclear, and had no intention of changing their minds no matter what information was presented. supposedly they got hold of an invitation, and were passing it around amongst their group to ensure as many of them made it onto the jury as possible to sway the outcome (the invitations werent single use.....) they even bullied anyone that wasnt as rabidly anti nuclear as they were. made up their own stickers to go on name tags and everything. lol.

personally, i would have thought that anyone accepted onto the jury needed to have an open mind on the topic. i dont care if they had leanings one way or the other before the commencement, just that they were open to the possibility of changing their mind once presented with the information either way. if the info was crap, can it. if the info was good, accept it. instead it seems that a large number of people went in with the idea of voting it down no matter what they were shown. which i would have thought totally defeats the whole exercise to begin with

If that's true its sad really. An open debate and discussion about the Nuclear topic would be mature step for our state. Clearly we are not capable of that.

The bullying abilities of the Left are quite amazing at times. We have see it on so man different topics. Basically you either support them or there views (becayse you are wrong of course) or you are homophobic, Racist etc etc.

[therisingblues]

Okay, so why have that system at all? Had it returned a "Yes" vote, he would have accepted it regardless of which side meddled.
He never foresaw the way that system could be compromised?
Or is what Booney saying true, i.e. he thought it would be easier to influence and manipulate a smaller group on a jury, so he well knew what a loose idea it actually was.
Then, in walks the group that Tipper referred to, but they did a more thorough job of prejudicing the vote.
I think both ideas are rooted in at least some truth, and I reckon Jay didn't realise his baby could be turned against him.

[mighty_tiger_79]

My understanding is the citizens jury on the nuclear discussion was heavily biased against it, and even the speakers that they had, were against it..
Then we have the euthanasia debate that loses by 1 vote (thanks Atkinson). Although this isnt a government decision like the nuclear debacle we had, I now truly hope that those MPs on both sides who voted against it, both suffer by witnessing their own loved ones die without any resemblance of dignity and also go through it themselves! ******* disgrace

[stan]

My understanding is the citizens jury on the nuclear discussion was heavily biased against it, and even the speakers that they had, were against it..
Then we have the euthanasia debate that loses by 1 vote (thanks Atkinson). Although this isnt a government decision like the nuclear debacle we had, I now truly hope that those MPs on both sides who voted against it, both suffer by witnessing their own loved ones die without any resemblance of dignity and also go through it themselves! ******* disgrace

Atkinson only voted No as it was 5am and he didnt believe he was in a clear state of mind or the other MPs that couldnt stay awake were also in a ear state of mnd for the vote.

They shpuld have adjourned and started again with clear mnds today for the final vote.

[mighty_tiger_79]

My understanding is the citizens jury on the nuclear discussion was heavily biased against it, and even the speakers that they had, were against it..
Then we have the euthanasia debate that loses by 1 vote (thanks Atkinson). Although this isnt a government decision like the nuclear debacle we had, I now truly hope that those MPs on both sides who voted against it, both suffer by witnessing their own loved ones die without any resemblance of dignity and also go through it themselves! ******* disgrace

Atkinson only voted No as it was 5am and he didnt believe he was in a clear state of mind or the other MPs that couldnt stay awake were also in a ear state of mnd for the vote.

They shpuld have adjourned and started again with clear mnds today for the final vote.

Ok, wasn't aware of his reasoning.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[stan]

SA's unemployment has dropped 0.3% to 6.4%. And we of the bottom at the moment!

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[Booney]

Okay, so why have that system at all? Had it returned a "Yes" vote, he would have accepted it regardless of which side meddled.
He never foresaw the way that system could be compromised?
Or is what Booney saying true, i.e. he thought it would be easier to influence and manipulate a smaller group on a jury, so he well knew what a loose idea it actually was.
Then, in walks the group that Tipper referred to, but they did a more thorough job of prejudicing the vote.
I think both ideas are rooted in at least some truth, and I reckon Jay didn't realise his baby could be turned against him.

I think there was two parts of the jury.

Firstly the information given was scant, making it easier for the jury to come to a conclusion of "let's keep the conversation going, let's get more information". Perfect, fits the bill for the government.

Secondly, and what the government didn't (somehow) anticipate, was the anti-nuclear debate was much more proactive in obtaining positions in the jury as they had an active interest as opposed to those of us sitting on our hands who would have been more inclined to listen, read the information and then probably say "I need more information, let's keep talking".

[tipper]

Okay, so why have that system at all? Had it returned a "Yes" vote, he would have accepted it regardless of which side meddled.
He never foresaw the way that system could be compromised?
Or is what Booney saying true, i.e. he thought it would be easier to influence and manipulate a smaller group on a jury, so he well knew what a loose idea it actually was.
Then, in walks the group that Tipper referred to, but they did a more thorough job of prejudicing the vote.
I think both ideas are rooted in at least some truth, and I reckon Jay didn't realise his baby could be turned against him.

I think there was two parts of the jury.

Firstly the information given was scant, making it easier for the jury to come to a conclusion of "let's keep the conversation going, let's get more information". Perfect, fits the bill for the government.

Secondly, and what the government didn't (somehow) anticipate, was the anti-nuclear debate was much more proactive in obtaining positions in the jury as they had an active interest as opposed to those of us sitting on our hands who would have been more inclined to listen, read the information and then probably say "I need more information, let's keep talking".

exactly this. the person i spoke to came out exactly like that. finished the Jury with more questions than they started. it was the large group that was always going to vote no that coloured the outcome

it also makes me think that polititians in general think they are much sneakier than they actually are. "we can run the Jury to get the outcome we want, no one will see it coming...." and then are genuinely surprised when the outcome isnt as they wanted. they arent smarter than "the rest of us" as they would like to believe they are.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Yep and then because they didn't get the outcome they wanted they then still try to ram it through and look even worse given the manner they are doing it in!