SA Footy

Psyber wrote:

morell wrote:So we have everyone on board against rate capping.

Except for Jimmy.

I reckon if we can get him over the line, such is his influence, we might just defeat it.

C'mon Jimmyyyyyyyyyy. I'll buy you an Australian Greens Tshirt if you do.

Not quite...
I'd support rate capping - if it is based on a fair and reasonable assessment of the funding needs to maintain basic services - to ensure they don't use elevated rates to expand into other areas as I stated above, but I'd also want a block on them the being able to resort to jacked up fees to raise money for the other stuff they tend to get into.

Similarly, I support the ABC and its role in radio and TV, but I think they now run to many stations and fill the gaps with crap programming compared to the past.

Agree with you Psyber

My position remains:
The perfect nightmare: pompous civil servants with unfettered access to funds.
Of course they want no transparency or accountability

Rate capping or rate increase capping? Nah, neither. I'd force a 20% cut in rates over 4 years.
I would also make all levels of government, and therefore their officers, subject to the Corporations Act
That's real reform. I don't see why civil servants should have a lesser degree of responsibility than the private sector
Plus, see how many politicians lie in public or abuse best interests duty then.......

How would making public (not civil) servants subject to the Corporations Act make politicians change their habits?

If you think all private sector employees are more accountable than all public sector employees, then I think you are mistaken.

For mine a lot of it comes down to the fact Local Government is too small so no one really cares.
Merge the 69 SA councils to a maximum of say 15.
Then they become of a size that their decisions matter and people might actually vote.
If they do a shitty job, vote them out in 4 years time.

DOC wrote:How would making public (not civil) servants subject to the Corporations Act make politicians change their habits?

If you think all private sector employees are more accountable than all public sector employees, then I think you are mistaken.

Private sector employees are so much more accountable it's not funny, and I was a public sector employee for over 28 years and have only been a private sector employee for 12 months. The Public sector is only worried about appearances and not actual output.
Its completely incomparable.

DOC wrote:How would making public (not civil) servants subject to the Corporations Act make politicians change their habits?

If you think all private sector employees are more accountable than all public sector employees, then I think you are mistaken.

I limited it to civil servants as the top rung but happy to include all
The Corporations Act defines an Officer as an employee
Make politicians have the same responsibilities as a director and therefore liable for public statements, because at the moment, they can, and do say anything they like with impunity. Chuck in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (and especially s52) for good measure

No; I don't think that. I do think we, whether private or public, should all have the same accountability though.

Trader wrote:For mine a lot of it comes down to the fact Local Government is too small so no one really cares.
Merge the 69 SA councils to a maximum of say 15.
Then they become of a size that their decisions matter and people might actually vote.
If they do a shitty job, vote them out in 4 years time.

Mrs Jimmy would have disagreed with you last year Trader.
She doesn't want Yankalilla merging with Victor, or God forbid, the bandits at Onkaparinga

But, since they've taken her rights to walk the dogs, untethered, on the beach, she's unleashed hell on earth on them

They need to tax the hell out of the Sydney northern Beaches set that degrade our summer playgrounds,,,,,,,,

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Trader wrote:For mine a lot of it comes down to the fact Local Government is too small so no one really cares.
Merge the 69 SA councils to a maximum of say 15.
Then they become of a size that their decisions matter and people might actually vote.
If they do a shitty job, vote them out in 4 years time.

Mrs Jimmy would have disagreed with you last year Trader.
She doesn't want Yankalilla merging with Victor, or God forbid, the bandits at Onkaparinga

But, since they've taken her rights to walk the dogs, untethered, on the beach, she's unleashed hell on earth on them

I'm not sure about that one:

1. I lived in Vale Park and was involved when many years ago it ceded from Enfield Council to the smaller Walkerville Council - result, communication with ward councillors worked, footpaths were fixed, rates went down, and property values went up.

2. The old Stirling Council was easier to get along with than the now merged Adelaide Hills Council.

My impression from both experiences is that if the councillors don't meet you in the streets, and are therefore more remote from you, it is easier for them to ignore you.

PS: I am told Walkerville is almost bankrupt now, but the source of that information may be biased as it comes from an old school friend who is a long term member of Port Adelaide- Enfield Council and lives at the Port...

Bang on Psyber.

Almagamations are not the panacea people think. They can work in some contexts. You'd only be creating a larger bureaucracy if you merged into 15.

The perfect size is about 20k residents.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

DOC wrote:How would making public (not civil) servants subject to the Corporations Act make politicians change their habits?

If you think all private sector employees are more accountable than all public sector employees, then I think you are mistaken.

I limited it to civil servants as the top rung but happy to include all
The Corporations Act defines an Officer as an employee
Make politicians have the same responsibilities as a director and therefore liable for public statements, because at the moment, they can, and do say anything they like with impunity. Chuck in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (and especially s52) for good measure

No; I don't think that. I do think we, whether private or public, should all have the same accountability though.

This is a good idea, Jimmy.

This dickhead filter works a treat

It's a pity you've chosen to do that, as the conversation is constructive and Morrell agreed with your stance.

Dogwatcher wrote:It's a pity you've chosen to do that, as the conversation is constructive and Morrell agreed with your stance.

You can reveal the posts if you wish to.

Jimmy_041 wrote:This dickhead filter works a treat

I'm jealous, admins can't use it.

Wedgie wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:This dickhead filter works a treat

I'm jealous, admins can't use it.

Can they be put on it?

Booney wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:This dickhead filter works a treat

I'm jealous, admins can't use it.

Can they be put on it?

Don't know, I'd prefer they could but I doubt it.
Give it a go and let me know!

Wedgie wrote:

Booney wrote:

Wedgie wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:This dickhead filter works a treat

I'm jealous, admins can't use it.

Can they be put on it?

Don't know, I'd prefer they could but I doubt it.
Give it a go and let me know!

Bugger, tried it myself but got the message

You cannot add administrators and moderators to your foes list.

Dogwatcher wrote:It's a pity you've chosen to do that, as the conversation is constructive and Morrell agreed with your stance.

If I'm a dickhead, and I agree with Jimmy, does that make Jimmy also a dickhead? And should he therefore add himself to his own filter?

And as an aside.

I've never put anyone on ignore, ever. No matter how much I disagree with them. Closing yourself off to alternative ideas limits ones growth.

Had I put Jimmy on ignore, for example, I wouldn't have seen the idea to subject Councillors to the Corporations act. Which has a heck of a lot of merit.

Its only for show,

The big issue is not being discussed on here due to all the side issues.

Should MP's of any persuasion be allowed to give fireman a tray of doughnuts without ministerial approval?