by mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:32 pm
by morell » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:31 pm
by Psyber » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:22 pm
by Dogwatcher » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:57 am
heater31 wrote:Only going on what was said on ABC radio yesterday by the CEO of the event......Dogwatcher wrote:heater31 wrote: Conscious decision was made not to sign a naming rights sponsor for the 20th Anniversary.
That's not the story I've been told.
And my source is impeccable.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:35 am
by jo172 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:07 pm
jo172 wrote:For those who like a wager the $1.33 you can get for a hung parliament offers far better returns than the bank.
In terms of putting my money where my mouth is I've wagered:
40 u - hung parliament @ $1.33
1 u - gary johanson in Port Adelaide @ $8
2 u - Corey Wingard in Gibson @ $2
2 u - Frances Bedford in Florey @ $1.7
1 u - Vincent Tarzia in Hartley @ $8
2 u - Steven Marshall in Dunstan @ $1.6
2 u - Matt Cowdrey in Colton @ $2.20
by Booney » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:44 pm
jo172 wrote:
For those that subscribe to the "follow the money" theory.
Liberals in from $2.80 to $2.40.
ALP in from $2.20 to $1.83
SAB out from $2.70 to $5.50
Hung Parliament steady at $1.33
Tarzia in from $8 to $2.75 in Hartley
Marshall in from $1.60 to $1.50 in Dunstan
Cowdrey in from $2.20 to $2 in Colton.
The money for Tarzia to knock of Xenophon is interesting
by stan » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:15 pm
Seem to be running out of steam at the moment.Booney wrote:jo172 wrote:
For those that subscribe to the "follow the money" theory.
Liberals in from $2.80 to $2.40.
ALP in from $2.20 to $1.83
SAB out from $2.70 to $5.50
Hung Parliament steady at $1.33
Tarzia in from $8 to $2.75 in Hartley
Marshall in from $1.60 to $1.50 in Dunstan
Cowdrey in from $2.20 to $2 in Colton.
The money for Tarzia to knock of Xenophon is interesting
Back to the 2 horse race.
SAB have just fallen by the way side in the last two weeks.
by shoe boy » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:56 pm
by jo172 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:16 pm
Booney wrote:jo172 wrote:
For those that subscribe to the "follow the money" theory.
Liberals in from $2.80 to $2.40.
ALP in from $2.20 to $1.83
SAB out from $2.70 to $5.50
Hung Parliament steady at $1.33
Tarzia in from $8 to $2.75 in Hartley
Marshall in from $1.60 to $1.50 in Dunstan
Cowdrey in from $2.20 to $2 in Colton.
The money for Tarzia to knock of Xenophon is interesting
Back to the 2 horse race.
SAB have just fallen by the way side in the last two weeks.
by morell » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:54 pm
I havent had time to respond to this properly, flat out.Psyber wrote:Interesting Morell - you prompted me to actually take a look at a sample of Greens policies and think about them..
The Greens will:
- Create a minimum standard for rental homes, including energy efficiency and security standards, with certification required to be provided to potential tenants to verify that minimum housing standards have been met;
The “energy efficiency” issue alone may prompt a bail out of providing rental property as an investment – what would the extremists demand here - self sufficiency with Telsla battery?? It would worry me, though I am thinking of putting solar system on a house I rent at present.
- Legislate to prohibit ‘no-grounds’ evictions ensuring that only legitimate reasons are able to be used by a landlord to terminate a lease;
Good for the lawyers who can argue the case. Why would any landlord want to terminate the lease of a good tenant who was paying the rent on time and not damaging the place? Annual leases allow for an assesment and a good tenant will have no problem getting a renewal. One of mine stayed 3.5 years - they were building a house so I accepted monthly tenacy with a months notice after the first 3 years, until they were ready to move into the new home. Of course, at the end of a lease term, the owner may be not entirely happy with the tenant and so may look for another tenant, or they may want to let a family member move in.
- Require all Tenancy agreements to include ongoing leases as the standard lease option with a minimum notice period of three months for termination by the landlord for specified grounds only;
Again good for the lawyers. A lot of damage can be done in 3 months by a spiteful bad tenant who resents being evicted.
- Prohibit “rental bidding” which force potential tenants into unfair rental auctions;
Agreed! I set a fair rent based on the agents advice about local rental value and on a fair return on my capital. Then the agent adverises the place and advises me on who is the best applicant based on their presentation – not more money. I'm happy to take a little less for the better tenant.
- Allow people to rent with their pets, other than in exceptional circumstances,
As a landlord don't mind pets if well-behaved and if the tenant agrees to make good any damage, but I'd think twice about a couple of large dogs of known rowdy breeds. (I've bred and shown dogs so I have a fair idea which are bad bets.) A recent tenant was required to replace net curtains her cat ripped significantly out of the bond she had put up.
- Allow people to make minor and reversible changes (like hanging pictures and installing modern communications technology). This will require the landlords’ prior written consent, and the landlord may require that a suitably qualified persons makes the modifications, however a landlord must not unreasonably refuse consent;
Fair enough again if the tenant makes good any unwanted left overs when they leave. My rental prpperty is now wired for Foxtel, reasonably tidily because a previous tenant wanted it The new tenants don't use it,
- Limit the frequency of rent increases to one a year;
I've never known a managing rental agency to suggest anything else – private renters may do otherwise I guess - avoid them!
- Establish a blacklist of landlords and property managers who have been found in breach of rental laws.
No problem.
PS: I'm not negative gearing, though I think it is a legitmate thing to do if renting property is your business - all genuine business expenses should be deductible from gross income and it is unfair to suggest I could deduct expenses from (say) a computer reselling business against my total taxable income but not that from renting a house I am buying to rent out.
by Dogwatcher » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:04 pm
by cracka » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:34 am
morell wrote:I havent had time to respond to this properly, flat out.Psyber wrote:Interesting Morell - you prompted me to actually take a look at a sample of Greens policies and think about them..
The Greens will:
- Create a minimum standard for rental homes, including energy efficiency and security standards, with certification required to be provided to potential tenants to verify that minimum housing standards have been met;
The “energy efficiency” issue alone may prompt a bail out of providing rental property as an investment – what would the extremists demand here - self sufficiency with Telsla battery?? It would worry me, though I am thinking of putting solar system on a house I rent at present.
- Legislate to prohibit ‘no-grounds’ evictions ensuring that only legitimate reasons are able to be used by a landlord to terminate a lease;
Good for the lawyers who can argue the case. Why would any landlord want to terminate the lease of a good tenant who was paying the rent on time and not damaging the place? Annual leases allow for an assesment and a good tenant will have no problem getting a renewal. One of mine stayed 3.5 years - they were building a house so I accepted monthly tenacy with a months notice after the first 3 years, until they were ready to move into the new home. Of course, at the end of a lease term, the owner may be not entirely happy with the tenant and so may look for another tenant, or they may want to let a family member move in.
- Require all Tenancy agreements to include ongoing leases as the standard lease option with a minimum notice period of three months for termination by the landlord for specified grounds only;
Again good for the lawyers. A lot of damage can be done in 3 months by a spiteful bad tenant who resents being evicted.
- Prohibit “rental bidding” which force potential tenants into unfair rental auctions;
Agreed! I set a fair rent based on the agents advice about local rental value and on a fair return on my capital. Then the agent adverises the place and advises me on who is the best applicant based on their presentation – not more money. I'm happy to take a little less for the better tenant.
- Allow people to rent with their pets, other than in exceptional circumstances,
As a landlord don't mind pets if well-behaved and if the tenant agrees to make good any damage, but I'd think twice about a couple of large dogs of known rowdy breeds. (I've bred and shown dogs so I have a fair idea which are bad bets.) A recent tenant was required to replace net curtains her cat ripped significantly out of the bond she had put up.
- Allow people to make minor and reversible changes (like hanging pictures and installing modern communications technology). This will require the landlords’ prior written consent, and the landlord may require that a suitably qualified persons makes the modifications, however a landlord must not unreasonably refuse consent;
Fair enough again if the tenant makes good any unwanted left overs when they leave. My rental prpperty is now wired for Foxtel, reasonably tidily because a previous tenant wanted it The new tenants don't use it,
- Limit the frequency of rent increases to one a year;
I've never known a managing rental agency to suggest anything else – private renters may do otherwise I guess - avoid them!
- Establish a blacklist of landlords and property managers who have been found in breach of rental laws.
No problem.
PS: I'm not negative gearing, though I think it is a legitmate thing to do if renting property is your business - all genuine business expenses should be deductible from gross income and it is unfair to suggest I could deduct expenses from (say) a computer reselling business against my total taxable income but not that from renting a house I am buying to rent out.
But.
I want congratulate you for not being part of the idiocracy. It's exceptionally rare to see someone take the time to look outside of their "bubble". It's even rarer to get someone who actually *reads policy* outside of their wing of political thought. The vast majority of content that propagates trope spreading about politics comes from biased news sources, memes, headlines, shock jocks and talk back radio. So much so that I don't think I have ever had anyone be able to come back from "which policy are you referring to?" in my many years of political debate.
Credit to you, good sir, you've climbed up many notches is this black ducks esteem and into rarified air amongst safooty posters.
by stan » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:44 am
by jo172 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:32 am
Dogwatcher wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/steven-marshall-casts-early-vote-citing-busy-election-day/9518968
When I saw Marshall had voted early today, I was annoyed. I like the buzz of the polling booth on election day and It's not that difficult to vote. So many reasons for people choosing to pre-poll are BS. It also delays the results in many electorates and, in a close election, the overall decision.
The more I thought about it, though, the more it appeared a savvy political move. From my understanding, pre-polling mostly favours the Libs. By pre-polling, he's encouraging more people to do the same and vote early. What that does is legitimises pre-poll voting to people and is two less weeks for the electors to change their mind about who they're voting for.
If you think about how well the ALP campaigned in the final week of the last election, which resulted in Marshall succumbing to the pressure and telling people to "vote Labor", it's a very smart move. Furthermore, I suspect there are a couple of very big ALP announcements to come as we head into the final days, if people vote early it negates that voting sugar fix.
Marshall's voting today legitimises changing the status quo and voting early. It will be interesting to see if it has an impact.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:35 am
jo172 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/steven-marshall-casts-early-vote-citing-busy-election-day/9518968
When I saw Marshall had voted early today, I was annoyed. I like the buzz of the polling booth on election day and It's not that difficult to vote. So many reasons for people choosing to pre-poll are BS. It also delays the results in many electorates and, in a close election, the overall decision.
The more I thought about it, though, the more it appeared a savvy political move. From my understanding, pre-polling mostly favours the Libs. By pre-polling, he's encouraging more people to do the same and vote early. What that does is legitimises pre-poll voting to people and is two less weeks for the electors to change their mind about who they're voting for.
If you think about how well the ALP campaigned in the final week of the last election, which resulted in Marshall succumbing to the pressure and telling people to "vote Labor", it's a very smart move. Furthermore, I suspect there are a couple of very big ALP announcements to come as we head into the final days, if people vote early it negates that voting sugar fix.
Marshall's voting today legitimises changing the status quo and voting early. It will be interesting to see if it has an impact.
I like voting pre-poll. Lines on election day are ******.
Also leaves Saturday free for day-drinking.
by Booney » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:41 am
jo172 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/steven-marshall-casts-early-vote-citing-busy-election-day/9518968
When I saw Marshall had voted early today, I was annoyed. I like the buzz of the polling booth on election day and It's not that difficult to vote. So many reasons for people choosing to pre-poll are BS. It also delays the results in many electorates and, in a close election, the overall decision.
The more I thought about it, though, the more it appeared a savvy political move. From my understanding, pre-polling mostly favours the Libs. By pre-polling, he's encouraging more people to do the same and vote early. What that does is legitimises pre-poll voting to people and is two less weeks for the electors to change their mind about who they're voting for.
If you think about how well the ALP campaigned in the final week of the last election, which resulted in Marshall succumbing to the pressure and telling people to "vote Labor", it's a very smart move. Furthermore, I suspect there are a couple of very big ALP announcements to come as we head into the final days, if people vote early it negates that voting sugar fix.
Marshall's voting today legitimises changing the status quo and voting early. It will be interesting to see if it has an impact.
I like voting pre-poll. Lines on election day are ******.
Also leaves Saturday free for day-drinking.
by morell » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:57 am
I don't wonder at all. It's because people buy into the the tribalism and pick a side. Anyone who isn't on that side, is a "leftard" or "rightard". Which is beyond stupid, considering left and right are arbitrary terms and we're originally used to delineate which wing of the French parliament you sat on during the Revolution.cracka wrote:And you wonder why people think you are an elitist leftard.
What's wrong with talk back radio, I find 5aa very unbiased & take all parties to task. Pretty sure they do their homework on policies, probably even more than you.
by am Bays » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:07 am
Booney wrote:DEMOCRACY SAUSAGE!!!
by jo172 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:17 am
Dogwatcher wrote:jo172 wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/steven-marshall-casts-early-vote-citing-busy-election-day/9518968
When I saw Marshall had voted early today, I was annoyed. I like the buzz of the polling booth on election day and It's not that difficult to vote. So many reasons for people choosing to pre-poll are BS. It also delays the results in many electorates and, in a close election, the overall decision.
The more I thought about it, though, the more it appeared a savvy political move. From my understanding, pre-polling mostly favours the Libs. By pre-polling, he's encouraging more people to do the same and vote early. What that does is legitimises pre-poll voting to people and is two less weeks for the electors to change their mind about who they're voting for.
If you think about how well the ALP campaigned in the final week of the last election, which resulted in Marshall succumbing to the pressure and telling people to "vote Labor", it's a very smart move. Furthermore, I suspect there are a couple of very big ALP announcements to come as we head into the final days, if people vote early it negates that voting sugar fix.
Marshall's voting today legitimises changing the status quo and voting early. It will be interesting to see if it has an impact.
I like voting pre-poll. Lines on election day are ******.
Also leaves Saturday free for day-drinking.
Half an hour out of your drinking day.
And...it takes longer to pre-poll, according to ECSA. Is this your experience?
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |