SA Footy

dedja wrote:SA Health has been in crisis for a long time now, and unfortunately we're not the only state with issues.

It's already past the point where State Governments can fund their health systems to an appropriate level, but long term State Government incompetency hasn't helped!

Considering that Labor have been in power here for the majority of the last 50 years, they need to cop the appropriate criticism.

There's always efficiencies that can be found but it's seems obvious that we need to spend more in a smarter way.

With an ageing population, it's only going to get worse.

More ambulances and shiny new HQs were never the proper solution but they served three political purposes:
1. Pay back Ash and her mates for election campaign
2. Ambulances can still attend despite massive ramping still happens.
3. Pay back Ash and her mates for election campaign

But putting on more ambulances is like turning up the tap when the hose nozzle is blocked.

The critics of Transforming Health, and of the NRAH being too small, are sitting now saying "told you so"

As you know, Labor can get away with it because the Libs are absolutely hopeless, plus they are masters of managing marginal seats to get over the line.

They lasted 16 years last time when they were cooked after 8.

Jimmy_041 wrote:Far out...............

But Picton had a plan

https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/12/07/unimaginable-sums-spent-on-hospital-system-in-crisis/

It's astonishing how badly backwards they have gone on this issue.

Ramping was ******* terrible under the Libs, and now Pete had time to sort this out and treat the issue and the problem not the symptoms and he has made no progress.

David Spiers needs to get out front and centre and beat the drums here. It seems to be only the Libs social media pages hitting this and it's a massive hammer for the Libs to smash Pete with.

Vincent Tarzia has been up and about abit, I actually don't mind him as he's the member for my electorate and I rate the work he does for the local area.

dedja wrote:As you know, Labor can get away with it because the Libs are absolutely hopeless, plus they are masters of managing marginal seats to get over the line.

They lasted 16 years last time when they were cooked after 8.

And here lies our problem, much like Victoria and WA but actually not quite as bad but still fairly useless on this.

stan wrote:

dedja wrote:As you know, Labor can get away with it because the Libs are absolutely hopeless, plus they are masters of managing marginal seats to get over the line.

They lasted 16 years last time when they were cooked after 8.

And here lies our problem, much like Victoria and WA but actually not quite as bad but still fairly useless on this.

Too busy praying to Geebus or whatever fictional fairytale character they believe in

The problem with politics has been years in the making, and isn’t confined to State or even Federal political parties, it’s manifested itself throughout democratic countries. SA has some unique quirks though.

There are few politicians will real conviction anymore; popularism is king.

Shit, I despised a lot of Howard’s policies, but at least he had some conviction. Same for Hawke, Keating and Whitlam. Fraser seemed to have that quality after he left parliament. We’ve had muppets since.

In SA, you had Hall and Dunstan. Imagine any political party today who could only get re-elected by virtue of an obscene gerrymander, but then have a leader who instigated reforms to remove it. That’s what Steele Hall did.

As we moved from the 70’s into the 80’s, there was the blip called David Tonkin, then the Bannon years. Yes, it ended in disaster, be he was unassuming and also someone of substance. Arnold was given the ruins and had no hope of holding power, so the longest period of Liberals in power began (since Playford), lasting just over 8 years. Brown was a genuine and decent leader, but rolled by the entitled Olsen, who was targeted from within and eventually self imploded. Kerin then picked up the mess to run it out until the Rann, and then Weatherill years.

This is where Labor honed their ‘electoral maximisation skills’. They skilfully targeted marginal seats at the expense of all the safe seats to cling onto power for 16 long years. Rann was a Dunstan wanna be, and Weatherill was just an opportunist.

What did the Liberals do during these 16 long years? Court the electorate? Provide a serious alternative? Nope, they spent most of their energy on a civil war that started in the 60’s. 2 generations of Halls, Chapmans, Evans, then throw in a Wilson and DeGaris, formed the basis of the warring factions. The ashes of these wars are still smouldering today.

Marshall was the Liberal’s attempt to move on from the factions, but he was hopeless, and an easy prey from a well oiled Labor electoral machine. Enter Malinauskas, a genuine popularist who cleverly touted his youth. Having his rig displayed for all at a pool certain helped.

The Liberals are trying to move on from all that past, but have no idea how to do it. Labor, if there is anything you can say about them, are disciplined and are a machine when it comes to engaging in electoral warfare. I’m not sure the next Liberal Premier is even in parliament yet.

So, in my opinion, this is why you have what you have today in SA politics, and it’s depressing.

dedja wrote:The problem with politics has been years in the making, and isn’t confined to State or even Federal political parties, it’s manifested itself throughout democratic countries. SA has some unique quirks though.

There are few politicians will real conviction anymore; popularism is king.

Shit, I despised a lot of Howard’s policies, but at least he had some conviction. Same for Hawke, Keating and Whitlam. Fraser seemed to have that quality after he left parliament. We’ve had muppets since.

In SA, you had Hall and Dunstan. Imagine any political party today who could only get re-elected by virtue of an obscene gerrymander, but then have a leader who instigated reforms to remove it. That’s what Steele Hall did.

As we moved from the 70’s into the 80’s, there was the blip called David Tonkin, then the Bannon years. Yes, it ended in disaster, be he was unassuming and also someone of substance. Arnold was given the ruins and had no hope of holding power, so the longest period of Liberals in power began (since Playford), lasting just over 8 years. Brown was a genuine and decent leader, but rolled by the entitled Olsen, who was targeted from within and eventually self imploded. Kerin then picked up the mess to run it out until the Rann, and then Weatherill years.

This is where Labor honed their ‘electoral maximisation skills’. They skilfully targeted marginal seats at the expense of all the safe seats to cling onto power for 16 long years. Rann was a Dunstan wanna be, and Weatherill was just an opportunist.

What did the Liberals do during these 16 long years? Court the electorate? Provide a serious alternative? Nope, they spent most of their energy on a civil war that started in the 60’s. 2 generations of Halls, Chapmans, Evans, then throw in a Wilson and DeGaris, formed the basis of the warring factions. The ashes of these wars are still smouldering today.

Marshall was the Liberal’s attempt to move on from the factions, but he was hopeless, and an easy prey from a well oiled Labor electoral machine. Enter Malinauskas, a genuine popularist who cleverly touted his youth. Having his rig displayed for all at a pool certain helped.

The Liberals are trying to move on from all that past, but have no idea how to do it. Labor, if there is anything you can say about them, are disciplined and are a machine when it comes to engaging in electoral warfare. I’m not sure the next Liberal Premier is even in parliament yet.

So, in my opinion, this is why you have what you have today in SA politics, and it’s depressing.

A very good summary other than the Labor gerrymander during the Rann / Weatherill years which Labor blamed on Steele Hall!
I know Labor thought Marshall would get a 2nd term due to the pandemic but the people suddenly turned against him because they wanted the government to take charge back again.

Then add in the worst election campaign in history. J. Christ Esq wouldn't have got elected on that campaign. Labor's campaign was targeted and effective despite the mis / disinformation which the Liberals were totally ineffective in countering. They thought they were going to romp it in

Yes, the so called Labor gerrymander. It was, and still is, Labor’s ability to manage marginal seats that got them through, and when you do it that way, the 2 party preferred stats get out of whack.

We have an independent electoral commission that redraws boundaries in an attempt to make them as fair as possible but Labor were and are still able to work around that.

I think the next question is whether our system of preferential voting has serviced us well, and I honestly don’t know the answer, or rather, don’t know what system is best to replace it.

I wouldn’t be looking to Tasmania or New Zealand for answers.

dedja wrote:Yes, the so called Labor gerrymander. It was, and still is, Labor’s ability to manage marginal seats that got them through, and when you do it that way, the 2 party preferred stats get out of whack.

We have an independent electoral commission that redraws boundaries in an attempt to make them as fair as possible but Labor were and are still able to work around that.

Jimmy and I actually had this discussion in your absence, dedja (see link below). As you say, it was Labor's superiority (or the Liberals' incompetence?) in marginal seat campaigns which kept delivering Labor government, rather than 'gerrymandering', noting that an independent commission sets the boundaries well ahead of the election, all parties have the ability to challenge their decision, and Labor essentially tries for a majority of seats, by focusing on the key ones, rather than trying for a statewide 2PP majority, as soon as the 'starter's gun' is fired (i.e. the boundaries are set).

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=31005&start=2420

dedja wrote:I think the next question is whether our system of preferential voting has serviced us well, and I honestly don’t know the answer, or rather, don’t know what system is best to replace it.

I wouldn’t be looking to Tasmania or New Zealand for answers.

I'm a strong believer in the way we go about things in elections in Australia, particularly the preferential voting system. I think it's the best system, although there are benefits to the Tasmanian system (not a fan of the NZ system personally).

Thanks RB, that link was useful.

Labor and Libs seemingly in a race to the bottom in their attempts to discredit the other candidate in the lead up to the Dunstan by-election.

dedja wrote:Labor and Libs seemingly in a race to the bottom in their attempts to discredit the other candidate in the lead up to the Dunstan by-election.

Kuntsantonis doing his typical shite
His mother wouldn't let him touch the till in his first job
His second job as a cabbie went even better

One of the most astute members of parliament this state has ever seen.

When it comes to psychological warfare he is nearly always dealing with unarmed opponents.

Numerous libs have tried to take him on and they always lose.He will remain in Government as a minister for as long as David Spiers is the libs leader. Political lightweight but an impressive property portfolio owner.

DOC wrote:One of the most astute members of parliament this state has ever seen.

Numerous libs have tried to take him on and they always lose.

"astute" is a good observation
No-one on the other side can get that low down in the swamp.
He's got good history with swamps.

Indeed.

DOC wrote:Indeed.

Classic of what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Michael Abbott KC did SA no favours

Libs going to hold Dunstan?

Looking like ALP will win Dunstan

https://result.ecsa.sa.gov.au/
12% counted
Libs 40 % -6.7%
ALP 30.9 % - 4.2%
Greens 23.4% + 9.7%

ALP win if those figures hold

Two party
ALP 58.9
Libs 41.1