SA Footy

Dogwatcher wrote:

Magellan wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:The debate on 891 right now is gold.

Missed it. High(low)lights?

Marshall targeting Xenophon regarding deal with Labor.
Marshall absolutely putting the kybosh on any deal with Xenophon.
Weatherill's sonorous voice making Marshall sound like a whiney bitch.

Whether we like it or not many people don't vote for their local member but the leader of the party and I think many people will be loathe to vote for Marshall. He's just not a like able character.

MW wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

Booney wrote: Part of the reason the ALP is still favored to hold off Marshall's challenge, can people hand Marshall the power with confidence?

The lack of confidence in Marshall is the ONLY reason the ALP is still in the hunt and Xenophon has a presence in this election.

It's the last election all over again.

The Libs got 53% 2PP last election.

A gerrymander is what won the ALP the last term of government.

There's a lot of reverse engineering going on here.

jo172 wrote:

MW wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

Booney wrote: Part of the reason the ALP is still favored to hold off Marshall's challenge, can people hand Marshall the power with confidence?

The lack of confidence in Marshall is the ONLY reason the ALP is still in the hunt and Xenophon has a presence in this election.

It's the last election all over again.

The Libs got 53% 2PP last election.

A jaimander is what won the ALP the last term of government.

There's a lot of reverse engineering going on here.

EFA

jo172 wrote:

MW wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

Booney wrote: Part of the reason the ALP is still favored to hold off Marshall's challenge, can people hand Marshall the power with confidence?

The lack of confidence in Marshall is the ONLY reason the ALP is still in the hunt and Xenophon has a presence in this election.

It's the last election all over again.

The Libs got 53% 2PP last election.

A gerrymander is what won the ALP the last term of government.

There's a lot of reverse engineering going on here.

You can call it a gerrymander all you like, but the Libs couldn't get their house in order to bring Brock into the teepee, or keep MHS on side.
If they'd done that, they would be in power now and we'd be judging the merits of their government tomorrow, not a tired one riddled with issues.

Dogwatcher wrote:

jo172 wrote:

MW wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:
The lack of confidence in Marshall is the ONLY reason the ALP is still in the hunt and Xenophon has a presence in this election.

It's the last election all over again.

The Libs got 53% 2PP last election.

A gerrymander is what won the ALP the last term of government.

There's a lot of reverse engineering going on here.

You can call it a gerrymander all you like, but the Libs couldn't get their house in order to bring Brock into the teepee, or keep MHS on side.
If they'd done that, they would be in power now and we'd be judging the merits of their government tomorrow, not a tired one riddled with issues.

Brock is on record as having said once Bob Such fell ill and took leave he was never going to side with the Libs as they would not have been able to form a stable majority.

Seriously, blaming Marshall for Such's tragic illness is a very long bow.

The 2014 election was an Aristotelian series of events that could only happen to the SA Liberals.

jo172 wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:

jo172 wrote:

MW wrote:
The Libs got 53% 2PP last election.

A gerrymander is what won the ALP the last term of government.

There's a lot of reverse engineering going on here.

You can call it a gerrymander all you like, but the Libs couldn't get their house in order to bring Brock into the teepee, or keep MHS on side.
If they'd done that, they would be in power now and we'd be judging the merits of their government tomorrow, not a tired one riddled with issues.

Brock is on record as having said once Bob Such fell ill and took leave he was never going to side with the Libs as they would not have been able to form a stable majority.

Seriously, blaming Marshall for Such's tragic illness is a very long bow.

The 2014 election was an Aristotelian series of events that could only happen to the SA Liberals.

Correct: Doggy is barking up the wrong tree

jo172 wrote: Brock is on record as having said once Bob Such fell ill and took leave he was never going to side with the Libs as they would not have been able to form a stable majority.

Seriously, blaming Marshall for Such's tragic illness is a very long bow.

The 2014 election was an Aristotelian series of events that could only happen to the SA Liberals.

Doesn't that confirm my point? Marshall couldn't form a 'stable majority'. It could only happen to the Libs because they couldn't bring people together and keep people onside. So many disaffected Conservatives have sided with Labor.

Saying I'm blaming Marshall for Such's illness is the actual 'long bow' in this discussion.

Dogwatcher wrote:

jo172 wrote: Brock is on record as having said once Bob Such fell ill and took leave he was never going to side with the Libs as they would not have been able to form a stable majority.

Seriously, blaming Marshall for Such's tragic illness is a very long bow.

The 2014 election was an Aristotelian series of events that could only happen to the SA Liberals.

Doesn't that confirm my point? Marshall couldn't form a 'stable majority'. It could only happen to the Libs because they couldn't bring people together and keep people onside. So many disaffected Conservatives have sided with Labor.

Saying I'm blaming Marshall for Such's illness is the actual 'long bow' in this discussion.

It doesn't prove your point at all.

Despite winning 53% of the state-wide vote the Liberals could not form majority government. In fact had they won 55% they were unlikely to form majority government.

Labor did not win majority government either but had 23 seats to the Liberals 22.

Labor needed one of Such or Brock, the Liberals needed both.

Once Such was unable to form government with anyone Brock felt he had no choice as Labor was the only party who would have the numbers on the floor. Had he sided with the Liberals it would have been an absolute tie and the state would have had no government forcing us to another election which was hardly desirable for anyone.

There was no issue of "bringing people together" or "keeping people onside".

Such's illness tied the Liberals hands behind their back in the chaos that followed the 2014 election. There was no negotiating or anything else (short of convincing Such to step down earlier which wasn't an option for obvious reasons) that could have been done about it.

This article, written by a former attempted Liberal candidate and featuring quotes from a former Liberal Senator would suggest that Brock could have been wooed had Marshall and his team tried harder or been better at negotiating.

https://indaily.com.au/news/politics/20 ... off-brock/

Booney wrote:Like the blue bloods in Norwood need HTV cards.

I just hope I don’t have a “Marshall” moment and tell them to vote for Labor...

Dogwatcher wrote:This article, written by a former attempted Liberal candidate and featuring quotes from a former Liberal Senator would suggest that Brock could have been wooed had Marshall and his team tried harder or been better at negotiating.

https://indaily.com.au/news/politics/20 ... off-brock/

That article doesn't use the word "Such" once.

See this contemporaneous quote from Adelaide Uni Professor Clem McIntyre:

"Within a week [of the election] Bob Such had declared his illness and stepped away from politics and took leave," Professor McIntyre said.

"If Geoff Brock had gone with the Liberals, then the Parliament would have effectively been tied 23 to 23, so once Bob Such became ill and stepped away then Geoff Brock, I think had no choice but to side with Labor.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/sa-by-election-bob-such-seat-to-put-pressure-on-weatherill-govt/5810494

It really is a basic numbers game. Had Brock gone with the Liberals there would have had to have been another election. That was never going to happen.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Booney wrote:Like the blue bloods in Norwood need HTV cards.

I just hope I don’t have a “Marshall” moment and tell them to vote for Labor...

or Vote Nick

Seems like a few political commentators have Libs winning with a majority. I can't see it but Marshall early on said he wouldn't deal with Xenophon to form government. Palaszczuk did similar in Qld with One Nation because she was confident enough of getting over the line with a majority. Maybe Marshall is in the same boat. At a punt, and this election truly is a punt, Labor 20, Liberal 19, Xenophon 5, Independents 3.

Grenville wrote:Seems like a few political commentators have Libs winning with a majority. I can't see it but Marshall early on said he wouldn't deal with Xenophon to form government. Palaszczuk did similar in Qld with One Nation because she was confident enough of getting over the line with a majority. Maybe Marshall is in the same boat. At a punt, and this election truly is a punt, Labor 20, Liberal 19, Xenophon 5, Independents 3.

Labor 20, Liberal 23, Xenophon 2, Independents 2 (Bedford & Bell)
All the confidence of a Collingwood supporter going into a GF

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Grenville wrote:Seems like a few political commentators have Libs winning with a majority. I can't see it but Marshall early on said he wouldn't deal with Xenophon to form government. Palaszczuk did similar in Qld with One Nation because she was confident enough of getting over the line with a majority. Maybe Marshall is in the same boat. At a punt, and this election truly is a punt, Labor 20, Liberal 19, Xenophon 5, Independents 3.

Labor 20, Liberal 23, Xenophon 2, Independents 2 (Bedford & Bell)
All the confidence of a Collingwood supporter going into a GF

You've got Brock losing Jimmy?

I'll say 19 Labor, Liberal 23 (Elder Colton and Possibly Mawson), SA best 2 (2 hills from the LIbs (Morialta and Heysen) or possibly I x Hills I x Mawson (Lee & Giles a possibility too)) Independants 3 (Bedford, Bell and Brock)

Newland will be interesting.

Results in the key seats will be dependent on the Margin between the primary vote winner and who comes 2nd especially if they are SA Best)

Still sticking with a hung parliament result.

53% of the TPP and losing is not unusual in SA electoral history.
Playford engineered it so the city was represented by 11 seats and the rural areas were represented by 26 seats even though less than a third of the population lived in the country areas.......sounds fair.

blueandwhite wrote:53% of the TPP and losing is not unusual in SA electoral history.
Playford engineered it so the city was represented by 11 seats and the rural areas were represented by 26 seats even though less than a third of the population lived in the country areas.......sounds fair.

And a Liberal Premier ended that system in the greatest example of political self-sacrifice since, well, ever.

The Constitution was amended to try and ensure that the Party which won 2PP would form government.

Just because it has happened in the past does not mean it's a good thing.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Grenville wrote:Seems like a few political commentators have Libs winning with a majority. I can't see it but Marshall early on said he wouldn't deal with Xenophon to form government. Palaszczuk did similar in Qld with One Nation because she was confident enough of getting over the line with a majority. Maybe Marshall is in the same boat. At a punt, and this election truly is a punt, Labor 20, Liberal 19, Xenophon 5, Independents 3.

Labor 20, Liberal 23, Xenophon 2, Independents 2 (Bedford & Bell)
All the confidence of a Collingwood supporter going into a GF

It's a lottery Jimmy, no-one really knows. Either way I have serious doubts either the current Liberal or Labor leader will see us through to the next election. A Wingard v Malinauskas war looms. All any of us want is a better outcome for the state, I don't know if either party are really offering that unfortunately.

You can’t blame the electoral system for libs hardly winning any of the marginal seats last time around.

Gonna be interesting tomorrow

jo172 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:53% of the TPP and losing is not unusual in SA electoral history.
Playford engineered it so the city was represented by 11 seats and the rural areas were represented by 26 seats even though less than a third of the population lived in the country areas.......sounds fair.

And a Liberal Premier ended that system in the greatest example of political self-sacrifice since, well, ever.

The Constitution was amended to try and ensure that the Party which won 2PP would form government.

Just because it has happened in the past does not mean it's a good thing.

its not . But Playford got away with it for 38 years not 4.