The South Australian Political Landscape

[gossipgirl]

How could anyone vote for either major party ..... but unfortunately most people are sheep ... baa baa baa

[Squids]

How could anyone vote for either major party ..... but unfortunately most people are sheep ... baa baa baa

I voted for a Fishing party last time and will probably do the same again.

[cheetah]

How could anyone vote for either major party ..... but unfortunately most people are sheep ... baa baa baa

This is why we should never have let women vote! yes let a minority run the country! great idea! next we will have a female prime minister! hold on ...........

[mighty_tiger_79]

whether you like him or not, MHS seemed to be very good at attacking the government on the Health issues.

I hope whoever gets that in the future will be able to be good at trying to attack and make the government accountable.

[mighty_tiger_79]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6503082014

[Psyber]

The military background (and manner) is, I think, one of the things the state ALP hoped may put the swinging voters off the Libs if he became leader.
I assume that is why they focussed on him rather than Vicki Chapman.
Perhaps it will be her turn now...

[Gozu]

WHAT a mess. What a desperate, tawdry, embarrassing, unworkable joke of a situation the State Opposition now finds itself in.

Through smug smiles since Tuesday’s leadership ballot, certain Liberal MPs have done their best to paint the result as the fruits of a robust democracy in a party where the primacy of the individual takes precedence over discipline and team-work.

Fair enough, inasmuch as, from outside looking in, almost everyone in the party’s latest shoddy chapter seems motivated by selfish agendas. Despite the assurances that this was a great win for stability and compromise (a rejoinder that insults the intelligence of every South Australian voter), this was undoubtedly the worst-case scenario for the party.

Redmond held on with 13 votes out of 25: in other words, exactly half her colleagues wanted her gone. Included in that half was her newly elected deputy Steven Marshall, who now says he stood because he believed he was the best man to “support Isobel Redmond’s leadership”.

What a sad, pitiful joke of an outcome.

Let’s be frank about this. Isobel Redmond now has no credibility as leader of the Opposition. None.

http://indaily.wordpress.com/2012/10/26 ... t-not-fix/

[Psyber]

Actually some Lib insiders think the compromise reached was the best of all possible outcomes from any challenge if there had to be one.
There is now a leader whom most voters find acceptable and a stronger deputy to provide a bit more aggression.
That proposition has been discussed in the past but achieving it was difficult.

All that is needed now is for Isobel Redmond to offer MHS the Health portfolio again, and for him to accept it.
Both may take a little persuading...

There is no doubt that MHS as the leader would have been the best possible result/hope for the state ALP.
(Because the swinging voters tend not to like him.)

"seems motivated by selfish agendas" is rather fundamental to politics and political parties - and most clubs and associations!

I remember with amusement now how I once went from VP of a dog club to "off the committee" after challenging the motives of one family group involved just long enough before the election for them to sign up all their rellies. The amusing thing for me was that the SA Canine Association then bypassed the club and asked me to give the breed lecture to judges in training because they felt I would "present a balanced view".

[mighty_tiger_79]

The military background (and manner) is, I think, one of the things the state ALP hoped may put the swinging voters off the Libs if he became leader.
I assume that is why they focussed on him rather than Vicki Chapman.
Perhaps it will be her turn now...

i actually think the swinging voters may have had a positive feeling about Martin Hamilton Smith with his Military background, especially if there was a tough on crime policy etc....

[Psyber]

The military background (and manner) is, I think, one of the things the state ALP hoped may put the swinging voters off the Libs if he became leader.
I assume that is why they focussed on him rather than Vicki Chapman.
Perhaps it will be her turn now...

i actually think the swinging voters may have had a positive feeling about Martin Hamilton Smith with his Military background, especially if there was a tough on crime policy etc....

You may be right at least with some of them...
However, I've had several conversations about the issues with an old school friend who was formerly a state ALP Minister from the Bannon days.
He said, "If we can convince the voters they'll get MHS if they vote Liberal, we've gotcha!"
I'm inclined to think he knows his stuff as he was involved in giving Mike Rann the toss, and is close to ALP core strategy and research.

[fish]

From last weeks Hills Courier: Unconvincing Win

Isobel Redmond used plenty of catch- phrases to describe her one vote win to keep the position of State Opposition Leader against challenger Martin Hamilton-Smith.

While the 13 votes to 12 result on Tuesday suggests she only had the support of half her Party room, the Hills MP insisted in her post-election press conference that the Liberal politicians were “locked in behind the leadership team”, were ready to “press the reset button” and “move forward”.

With a new deputy by her side – Norwood MP Steven Marshall, who went into the ballot on a double ticket with Mr Hamilton-Smith – she was adamant that the Liberals had secured the change they wanted and everything was now settled.

“Today marks a line in the sand for the Liberal Party and we are satisfied that this will the point from which we will be judged as the new team coming forward into the March 2014 election,” she said in her opening words.

As far as lines in the sand go, this one isn’t very deep and could easily be blown away.

Back in July 2009, when the Liberals were again going through some very public leadership disputes, Mr Hamilton-Smith quit the top job because he claimed the 11-10 vote in his favor failed to demonstrate a clear majority and he wasn’t satisfied that he had the support of his Party.

In the subsequent vote Mr Hamilton-Smith declined to stand and Ms Redmond beat former Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman 13 votes to nine.

Ms Redmond has now led her Party for three years and is polling well – despite some the leadership speculation and some very public gaffes – and she still couldn’t secure a decisive win yesterday (Tuesday).

To insist that a “vote of one is still a win” is technically true but it is hardly an endorsement of her leadership and will do little to hush the critics.

Perhaps the Liberals will “move forward” but it is doubtful that the question mark over the leadership will disappear.

Ms Redmond will have a big job ahead of her to keep the Liberals together and focused on policy going into an election campaign when she will have the Government bringing up her Party’s disunity, and her mistakes, including an incorrect policy announcement to cut up to 20,000 of SA’s public service positions.

The biggest loser in this political wrangling is the State Liberals who have, apart from failing to resolve the disunity in any meaningful way, lost one of their best performers with Mr Hamilton-Smith’s decision to give up his shadow ministry responsibilities and retire into the back bench.

[Jimmy_041]

Gillard and Weatherill to the rescue

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labors-made-murray-promises-before-birmingham/story-fndo471r-1226503781131

[Sky Pilot]

Gillard and Weatherill to the rescue

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/labors-made-murray-promises-before-birmingham/story-fndo471r-1226503781131

Now there's a pair of rocket scientists!

[GWW]

Yes, they should have policies like Abbott and Redmond.

Policies like umm....

..and umm...

Oh turning the boats around, I think about the only policy released by either of them, that I can think of for either of them. And even that one doesn't appear to be a legitimate policy.

Amazing they can be political leaders, and the electorate has no idea what they really stand for.

[Psyber]

Yes, they should have policies like Abbott and Redmond.
Policies like umm....
..and umm...
Oh turning the boats around, I think about the only policy released by either of them, that I can think of for either of them. And even that one doesn't appear to be a legitimate policy.
Amazing they can be political leaders, and the electorate has no idea what they really stand for.

It is fairly obvious that if you announce policies too early as an opposition, and they look like being popular, the incumbent government will quickly run up parallel policies thus stealing your ground from under you. It is better to wait until the election is called and not be goaded into that trap by the government's spokesmen and supporters.
Announcing policies when it is too late for them to be undermined makes sense.

[GWW]

Even so, do we actually know what either stand for?

Gillard's Govt is apparently the least popular in history, and Abbott's is less popular as preferred PM. And one recent poll had both parties 50/50 for 2 party preferred. Doesn't really say much about the Opposition.

Meanwhile, Redmond only releases her policies when she puts her foot in her mouth, and then treats the electorate like fools and says she misunderstood the question or something similar. Does she really think we're that gullible.

At least MHS tells us what he stands for. And I would think Turnbull would probably have a bit of vision too.

[Psyber]

Even so, do we actually know what either stand for?

Gillard's Govt is apparently the least popular in history, and Abbott's is less popular as preferred PM. And one recent poll had both parties 50/50 for 2 party preferred. Doesn't really say much about the Opposition.

Meanwhile, Redmond only releases her policies when she puts her foot in her mouth, and then treats the electorate like fools and says she misunderstood the question or something similar. Does she really think we're that gullible.

At least MHS tells us what he stands for. And I would think Turnbull would probably have a bit of vision too.

You will know the policies they propose once the elections are called and the campaign starts.
As I said, announcing plans too early just gives the incumbent government time to undermine them or steal them.
Then you can be described as offering nothing in the campaign, unless you invent new policies to offer then.

That means you are potentially pushed into making up policies just for election purposes, and that can be criticised.
It makes more sense to keep your trap shut until the ball is bounced - at least in the SA situation where the prime targets for criticism have been removed and the replacements are in their honeymoon period...

You could adopt the federal ALP's line of making promises you'll never have to honour unless you win an election that is two years away.
But that means you have to hope the circumstances at the time will make it possible to do it, or that the public will have forgotten or will accept your excuse for a back flip.
Beyond that, all you can do is go further into deficit to keep the promises regardless of the state of the economy at the time.
None of that sounds anything but cynical and irresponsible to me.

[GWW]

I think its also in their own best interests to tell the electorate what they stand for, even if its not full policies, at least some direction in which they would take the state/country if voted into Government.

[Jimmy_041]

You could say the same thing about Weatherill
What are his policies?
Steady as she goes and the mining boom will be here soon?
Cut funding to small services and then backflip when found out?
If the PS get caught stealing, take it out on the rest of the population? Let's give it to the Vics - they need the money
We've done nothing about the Murray so stage a stunt?
Get the last of those pesky bikie compound walls knocked down (How many have we got to go now?)
Tell a lie in parliament (Shit, didn't someone remember to tell SAPOL)
Make sure the power broker is put above the golden girl on the ticket because the factions are more important than anything else.

[GWW]

Well at least people will know if they want to vote for him or not.