The South Australian Political Landscape

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:30 pm

But the Liberals continue to disagree with the ruling over their plan, which includes subsidised home solar and battery systems and an interconnector to New South Wales.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/l ... cy/9550238
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:32 pm

That renewables article is absurd.

Fancy calling out soverign risk on a campaign plan.

It has some justifiable points but you lose them in a sea of ridiculous hyperbole.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby heater31 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:32 pm

Booney wrote:Just bolted my chair and desk down, I can't work if this gets sold off.
If you have done that then what do you think I've been doing all morning......even glued my coffee cup to the desk!
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16521
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 525 times
Been liked: 1259 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby stan » Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:39 pm

Booney wrote:But the Liberals continue to disagree with the ruling over their plan, which includes subsidised home solar and battery systems and an interconnector to New South Wales.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/l ... cy/9550238
ElectraNet cant wait to get started. They plan to charge a **** load for transmissions costs.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Magellan » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:02 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Magellan wrote:Irrespective of who you 'barrack' for in the political game, at least Saturday night delivered the state a majority government and relative stability compared to the horse-trading and deal-making that would've occurred under a hung parliament.


Still going to have to deal with the Upper House (the one Rau wanted to abolish)

Dealing between houses is always part of the equation, but the extent of compromise and uncertainty is far less than under a hung parliament. Uncertainty lies in support for respective bills, rather than the potentially whacky trade-off necessary to ensure a majority on the floor.

I didn't know about Rau wanting to abolish the upper house, presumably it was for purely political reasons. Why wouldn't those with the majority on the floor of the house want to remove the house that cuts it lunch? Just ask Gough Whitlam when you next get hold of a Delorian.

For purely democratic reasons, though, there's definitely merit to it. In the federal sphere the senate acts as a house of review for the respective states (although that's been distorted as voting is not on a state-by-state bases (except for some independents) but rather along party political lines). The Parliament doesn't guarantee equal representation from each state, so it uses another house to ensure state interests are given a hearing.

But the legislative council, why does it exist, apart from mimicking the federal model or giving the lower house chance to have its legislative cock-ups fixed? There's no regional representation in our upper house unlike in the federal Parliament. Surely if you're democratically elected to form a majority, you propose bills, elected representatives from across the state vote, and if it get up, its law, or otherwise it should be back to the drawing board. Unrepresentative swill, or overpaid proof-readers.

Righto, rant over.
"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there...and finding it." - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Magellan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Four Seasons Total Landscaping
Has liked: 757 times
Been liked: 1517 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:42 pm

Magellan wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:
Magellan wrote:Irrespective of who you 'barrack' for in the political game, at least Saturday night delivered the state a majority government and relative stability compared to the horse-trading and deal-making that would've occurred under a hung parliament.


Still going to have to deal with the Upper House (the one Rau wanted to abolish)

Dealing between houses is always part of the equation, but the extent of compromise and uncertainty is far less than under a hung parliament. Uncertainty lies in support for respective bills, rather than the potentially whacky trade-off necessary to ensure a majority on the floor.

I didn't know about Rau wanting to abolish the upper house, presumably it was for purely political reasons. Why wouldn't those with the majority on the floor of the house want to remove the house that cuts it lunch? Just ask Gough Whitlam when you next get hold of a Delorian.

For purely democratic reasons, though, there's definitely merit to it. In the federal sphere the senate acts as a house of review for the respective states (although that's been distorted as voting is not on a state-by-state bases (except for some independents) but rather along party political lines). The Parliament doesn't guarantee equal representation from each state, so it uses another house to ensure state interests are given a hearing.

But the legislative council, why does it exist, apart from mimicking the federal model or giving the lower house chance to have its legislative cock-ups fixed? There's no regional representation in our upper house unlike in the federal Parliament. Surely if you're democratically elected to form a majority, you propose bills, elected representatives from across the state vote, and if it get up, its law, or otherwise it should be back to the drawing board. Unrepresentative swill, or overpaid proof-readers.

Righto, rant over.


Not a rant at all
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:16 pm

GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Whetstone - Trade
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Magellan » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:21 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Magellan wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:
Magellan wrote:Irrespective of who you 'barrack' for in the political game, at least Saturday night delivered the state a majority government and relative stability compared to the horse-trading and deal-making that would've occurred under a hung parliament.


Still going to have to deal with the Upper House (the one Rau wanted to abolish)

Dealing between houses is always part of the equation, but the extent of compromise and uncertainty is far less than under a hung parliament. Uncertainty lies in support for respective bills, rather than the potentially whacky trade-off necessary to ensure a majority on the floor.

I didn't know about Rau wanting to abolish the upper house, presumably it was for purely political reasons. Why wouldn't those with the majority on the floor of the house want to remove the house that cuts it lunch? Just ask Gough Whitlam when you next get hold of a Delorian.

For purely democratic reasons, though, there's definitely merit to it. In the federal sphere the senate acts as a house of review for the respective states (although that's been distorted as voting is not on a state-by-state bases (except for some independents) but rather along party political lines). The Parliament doesn't guarantee equal representation from each state, so it uses another house to ensure state interests are given a hearing.

But the legislative council, why does it exist, apart from mimicking the federal model or giving the lower house chance to have its legislative cock-ups fixed? There's no regional representation in our upper house unlike in the federal Parliament. Surely if you're democratically elected to form a majority, you propose bills, elected representatives from across the state vote, and if it get up, its law, or otherwise it should be back to the drawing board. Unrepresentative swill, or overpaid proof-readers.

Righto, rant over.


Not a rant at all

Alright! Off with their heads! ;)
"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there...and finding it." - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Magellan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Four Seasons Total Landscaping
Has liked: 757 times
Been liked: 1517 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:26 pm

GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:29 pm

Booney wrote:
GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?


I'd expect very minimal difference between the Shadow Cabinet taken into the election and the actual cabinet. The Shadow Ministers were reasonably well across their briefs, when you've got almost all first time Ministers they'll want people with some familiarity of the Department and policies stepping in.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Booney » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:33 pm

jo172 wrote:
Booney wrote:
GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?


I'd expect very minimal difference between the Shadow Cabinet taken into the election and the actual cabinet. The Shadow Ministers were reasonably well across their briefs, when you've got almost all first time Ministers they'll want people with some familiarity of the Department and policies stepping in.


So what will Tarzia get?
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 58211
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 7467 times
Been liked: 10755 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby heater31 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:36 pm

Booney wrote:
jo172 wrote:
Booney wrote:
GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?


I'd expect very minimal difference between the Shadow Cabinet taken into the election and the actual cabinet. The Shadow Ministers were reasonably well across their briefs, when you've got almost all first time Ministers they'll want people with some familiarity of the Department and policies stepping in.


So what will Tarzia get?
Tea and biscuits steward......
User avatar
heater31
Moderator
 
 
Posts: 16521
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:42 am
Location: the back blocks
Has liked: 525 times
Been liked: 1259 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:37 pm

Booney wrote:
jo172 wrote:
Booney wrote:
GWW wrote:Any thoughts on the ministry?

Chapman - Attorney General?

Lucas - Treasurer (confirmed)

Wingard - Transport?

Spiers - ?

?

?


Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?


I'd expect very minimal difference between the Shadow Cabinet taken into the election and the actual cabinet. The Shadow Ministers were reasonably well across their briefs, when you've got almost all first time Ministers they'll want people with some familiarity of the Department and policies stepping in.


So what will Tarzia get?


Parliamentary Secretary Gig my bet. Maybe Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier, but having said that, in the circumstances where they're both white males in the same house in neighbouring seats that's not necessarily ideal.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:38 pm

The other interesting question is who puts their hand up for Speaker.

Obviously a plum gig that someone will take, but when none of the candidates have ever had the opportunity to govern you'd think that most who were worthy would want to try their hand at governing first.

Might try and install a Bedford or someone there to try and weaken Labor on the floor.
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:39 pm

I think he's Marshall's parliamentary secretary now (whatever that means)
Aren't there some lucrative chairperson jobs going around?

Who will be Speaker?

How long before Foley loses all of his cushy jobs?

<Edit> beat me to it you two :?
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 13981
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 718 times
Been liked: 1071 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:41 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:I think he's Marshall's parliamentary secretary now (whatever that means)
Aren't there some lucrative chairperson jobs going around?

Who will be Speaker?

How long before Foley loses all of his cushy jobs?


Chairman of the Committees are actually the cushiest jobs.

No real responsibility for anything, plenty of perks, anonymous enough in that role to not face any real public criticism.

They usually come with a driver/extra $40k
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby Dogwatcher » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:59 pm

Some guesses

Sanderson, if she gets through - Child protection, otherwise Lensink.
Spiers - Enviro
Pisoni - transport/local gov
Ridgway - Ag/Tourism
Gardiner - Education
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
Dogwatcher
Coach
 
 
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Location: The Bronx
Has liked: 1425 times
Been liked: 1152 times
Grassroots Team: Elizabeth

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby MW » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:00 pm

How on earth is Rob Lucas going to be Treasurer...
He's nothing but a twitter troll for the last 5 years
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby jo172 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

MW wrote:How on earth is Rob Lucas going to be Treasurer...
He's nothing but a twitter troll for the last 5 years


Do you follow Kouts on twitter?

I don't follow Lucas, but if I'm to accept what you're saying on face-value I imagine it must be a required skill for a treasurer now because he's a shocker on it.

Come to think of it, imagine if Foley had it available to him 12 years ago!
jo172
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Has liked: 1198 times
Been liked: 724 times

Re: The South Australian Political Landscape

Postby MW » Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:11 pm

jo172 wrote:
MW wrote:How on earth is Rob Lucas going to be Treasurer...
He's nothing but a twitter troll for the last 5 years


Do you follow Kouts on twitter?

I don't follow Lucas, but if I'm to accept what you're saying on face-value I imagine it must be a required skill for a treasurer now because he's a shocker on it.

Come to think of it, imagine if Foley had it available to him 12 years ago!


Yeah they're both as bad as each other truth be told...
Imagine if Tinder was available to Foley 12 years ago...
MW
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12914
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:55 pm
Has liked: 2581 times
Been liked: 1822 times

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |