Rannwatch

[Jimmy_041]

Mike Rann drops Marjorie Jackson-Nelson name for new Adelaide hospital

February 18, 2009 03:20pm
THE Rann Government has dropped the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson name from its new hospital, blaming "personal" attacks on the former Governor for the decision.

The new hospital, to be built over the railway yards at the west end of the city, will retain the Royal Adelaide Hospital name.

Premier Mike Rann announced the backdown in a ministerial statement to Parliament - a move which provoked uproar with Government MPs hurling abuse at the Liberals and one Liberal MP labelling Mr Rann "gutless".

Mr Rann said Mrs Jackson-Nelson had visited him on Friday last week asking that her name be taken off the project.

"I think that is incredibly sad," he said.

Mr Rann said the Opposition attacks on the hospital being named after Mrs Jackson-Nelson had been shameful.

"No one could have anticipated the vitriol of members of the Liberal Party towards this great Australian," he said.

"But some of the attacks have been deeply personal, aimed at Marjorie and her contribution, rather than simply at our choice of her name for the new hospital."

Mr Rann said there had been "personal as well as poisonous" attacks on the former Governor over her name being attached to the hospital. He said it was "shameful as well as shallow".

But Opposition health spokewoman Vickie Chapman has lashed out at the Government and said it should apologise to the fiormer governor for "dragging her" into the controversdial hospital plan in the first place.

She said it had "used" Mrs Jackson-Nelson for political purposes and that its actions had been "utterly despicable".

However, she also said the Opposition welcomed the retention of the RAH brand.

The Government has come under increasing pressure over the new hospital in recent months with medical groups opposing the move to replace the RAH.

There has also been opposition from nursing groups and former health executives who have said while they support the new hospital they believed it should retain the RAH name.

Mr Rann said he was sure that the vast majority of South Australians would share his disappointment that the comments of a small but vocal minority had contributed to stopping this dedication to "a woman who has given so much to our community over the course of her life".

"Work is already underway on the new site and construction of the new hospital will start next year," he said.

"The new hospital - with the same name - will open in seven years' time."

Did I not say that it was unusual to name a building before it was opened? Rann wanted the cudos for naming it because he wont be here to open it himself - well swallow the consequences as well Mike.

[Gozu]

Who knows Rann could still be around. I think he's already said that if (being realistic "when") Labor win the next election he intends to stick around for the following election. But yes, it was obvious Rann always wanted this hospital to be his "legacy" and a monument of his time as Premier.

[Jimmy_041]

I said right from the start he shouldn't have said the name.

He was grandstanding and left himself wide open to criticism

Plenty of people in the medical profession were naffed off because of the loss of the RAH name, but also, let's be real, nice lady but what connection with the health sector in this state????

[Gozu]

It's not as big an issue as some try to make it. No one gives a stuff what a hospital is called, as long as the thing functions as expected.

[Dogwatcher]

let's be real, nice lady but what connection with the health sector in this state????

What connection did Queen Elizabeth have to health in this state?

[Jimmy_041]

let's be real, nice lady but what connection with the health sector in this state????

What connection did Queen Elizabeth have to health in this state?

Strange question from a Central Districts supporter - off with his head ma'am!!

I get your point, and dont disagree, but Liz is Head of State and they all liked her back when the QEH was built

[heater31]

Plenty of people in the medical profession were naffed off because of the loss of the RAH name, but also, let's be real, nice lady but what connection with the health sector in this state????

um maybe Her continued effort to raise funds for cancer/leukaemia support/research. considering she lost her husband to such a disease.

[mick]

It's not as big an issue as some try to make it. No one gives a stuff what a hospital is called, as long as the thing functions as expected.

I work on the RAH campus, that statement is crap. Fuhrer Rann did not consult with any staff at RAH over this new hospital, no consultation the actions of a dictator, his polling has now shown MJN Hospital is unpopular and a rallying point for opposition. Hopefully this is the first step in dropping this disastrous plan on toxic ground. Rann wants MJN to be his legacy, much like the State Bank and Myer Centre and countless other stupid financial decisions are the legacy of the Bannon years. This is an arrogant, autocratic and non consultative government, hopefully they will pay the ultimate price.

[Jimmy_041]

Report proposes 100,000 seat city stadium

February 18, 2009 12:30am
EXCLUSIVE: THE State Government is sitting on a report which recommends building a centrally located sports stadium that seats up to 100,000 people.

The report, commissioned by Sports Minister Michael Wright in 2006, is believed to have gone to the Cabinet without any subsequent action being taken.
The review of the state's sporting infrastructure, obtained by the Liberals under Freedom of Information laws, also recommends the building of a 15,000-seat indoor stadium to attract international netball or basketball championships.

The Government insists the report remains a working document but has maintained staunch opposition to a new city stadium in the face of ongoing public support.

New swimming, cycling and baseball facilities also are recommended "to maintain SA's competitive advantage", but the report's biggest-ticket item is a centrally located stadium.

"To be able to host events such as (the) Commonwealth Games and FIFA World Cup a stadium must be developed that caters for spectator capacity of at least 80,000 (up to 100,000) and be able to be configured to host a variety of activities," the report states.

Location is given as a key principle for all sporting developments, although the report does not specify a place for a new stadium other than being "as close as possible to public transport hubs, car parks, suitable accommodation, retail shopping and entertainment" facilities.

The most obvious location with all these features is central Adelaide.

Mr Wright's spokeswoman said she understood the report, prepared by the Office for Recreation and Sport, had gone to the Cabinet but she did not specify the timing or outcome.

"It is a working document that is continually updated in relation to SA's sporting infrastructure," Mr Wright says in a statement. "The sporting landscape in SA changes continually, which is why the document remains a work in progress."

The report was based on consultation with sporting groups and councils from August 2006, only five months after Melbourne hosted the Commonwealth Games, and was completed in April 2007 – eight months before Milan AC won the FIFA Club World Championships in Japan.

It points to the tourism and lifestyle benefits of elite facilities but "does not imply any delivery commitment from either government or the private sector".

It leaves open the possibility of a privately funded stadium. It also leaves open the possibility of a Government-funded capital project or a public-private partnership.

Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said his party's policy was vindicated by the documents.

"The Government reports reinforce what the State Liberals have been saying for more than a year. That is, SA desperately needs a world-class sporting stadium."

The State Government deferred its $100 million commitment to upgrade AAMI Stadium in December because the global financial crisis had cut state revenues.

The Opposition last year painted a vision of a new multipurpose city stadium to rejuvenate Adelaide's west, but the plan was savaged by Mr Rann, who vowed to fund instead the $1.7 billion Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital.

The Labor Government has since argued the 2010 state election would be a debate over "the stadium versus the hospital".

Adelaide people remain strongly in favour of a new stadium. More than 85 per cent of the 1922 votes that were cast in an AdelaideNow poll last October favoured a new top-line sporting venue.

The report lists the proposed stadium as a "long-term" priority, which it says means building should start by 2020. But the report also lists the following "high priority" projects to be started by 2010:

A NEW aquatic centre, which the Government last week announced it would take over from the private sector.

A NEW professional cycling track to be located either at the State Sports Park at Gepps Cross or within Victoria Park.

A STATE baseball centre and a soccer training centre.

[Gozu]

Why would anyone at the RAH give a stuff about the name of this new hospital and more importantly why should they have any input whatsoever?

[Gozu]

Jimmy, Don't bother using an Adelaide Now poll to try and back you up. They're rigged by the Liberal hacks and you know that. Just take a look at the comments section on anything to do with the Government, sour grapes trying to sway public opinion. It doesn't matter how much The Advertiser keeps trying to spin things towards the useless Libs, the public just vote Labor back in.

[Dogwatcher]

let's be real, nice lady but what connection with the health sector in this state????

What connection did Queen Elizabeth have to health in this state?

Strange question from a Central Districts supporter - off with his head ma'am!!

I get your point, and dont disagree, but Liz is Head of State and they all liked her back when the QEH was built

Marj was our representative of said Queen and is probably our best known Guv'nor and most popular one.

I don't really care about the name, but thought it worth pointing out how weak your argument was.

BTW - I'm a republican (reminds me, I need to add something to the things that sh*t me thread).

[heater31]

The Labor Government has since argued the 2010 state election would be a debate over "the stadium versus the hospital".

well I am stuffed then at the next election. I don't want a new stadium there is nothing wrong with the ones we have. They just need a bit of a facelift and some infrastructure around them to get access. The current RAH is coming to the end of its useful life. No where to expand and too much disruption to renovate and the cost effective action is to start with a clean slate but there is no way in hell I am going to vote for that dictatorship for 2 reasons; if my mum somehow found out I did I am a dead man walking and secondly the State Bank fiasco

[Jimmy_041]

Ok - I'll tell you where we are so far

1. MJN has been involved in raising millions of $$$ in funds for the Peter Nelson Leukaemia Research Fellowship Fund for around 30+ years. I was just fishing to see if anyone knew - and they did - wd Heater
2. Unfortunately, it was prematurely named as the MJN - I maintain that Rann did it because he wants it as his legacy and he wont be here to open it himself, although he guarantees himself a ticket and his smiling face in the papers for a few more years.
3. This is not about the new hospital being named the MJN - she deserves it.
4. This is about a struggling government wanting to be seen to be doing something instead of their usual "talk the talk". The only thing they have achieved is appoint more consultants to help them maintain power
5. This is about the politicisation of MJN's good name by the populous Rann Government.
6. The hospital idea was badly handled and prematurely released to make the Rann Government look good, and for Pete's sake, actually doing something!!
7. What they didn't do was a proper study and consultation with the stakeholders - why not? Because it had to be released


Unfortunately, MJN has be drawn into a mess that she doesn't deserve by the Rann Government trying to piggyback off her good reputation and it has backfired. Why else has Mike Rann taken the tack that this is an attack on MJN and her good name? It is not Mike!! No-one dislikes MJN, and stop blaming others - it was you that brought her into this mess!! Just out of interest, I am I am quite happy to be corrected on this, isn't this suppose to be a Private/Public Partnership project?? How are we going with that? In the deep end of the pool like Marion??

Face it folks, this is all about stooging you into voting for them again

PS: I dont care whether you agree with me - I'm Jimmy_041, and this is my Rannwatch

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, Don't bother using an Adelaide Now poll to try and back you up. They're rigged by the Liberal hacks and you know that. Just take a look at the comments section on anything to do with the Government, sour grapes trying to sway public opinion. It doesn't matter how much The Advertiser keeps trying to spin things towards the useless Libs, the public just vote Labor back in.

Gozu - this is why the world is so great. I cant believe how biased the newspapers are toward labor and keep trumpeting their media crap. You think the other way - I guess that's why the world goes around and we all sit on here.

I am sick of hearing Mike 24/7 and the spin that is sent out from his office. I am not saying vote Liberals, I am saying; make your local MP accountable for this crap

[Gozu]

Jimmy, this isn't a direct shot at you but it always shocks the hell out of me when right wingers say the media in this country is biased towards Labor. You've got to be joking, surely? Look at Rupert and how much of the media he controls. He owns the vast majority of the major newspapers in this country including The Advertiser. They're always trying to stick the boot into Labor whether in opposition or government. The vast vast majority of their writers are to be kind right wingers. They're Liberal Party stooges, look at Chris kenny bang straight back into the Liberal Party as an adviser to Turnbull. How many times would Mansell (the editor) defend Howard to the hilt? Downer, Ian Smith and now of all people Bolt writing for them, turn it up.

I believe in keeping government honest whether Labor or Liberal and if you want that then start reading The Independent Weekly. When Hendrik Gout attacks the Government he does it logically and rationally. He used to be involved with the Democrats (born out of the Liberal party) but anytime he takes a shot at Atkinson, Foley or Rann it's warranted. Not the irrational anti-anything Left crap in the Tiser.

They lost what small credibility they had left with how much they used to pump up WorkChoices. The public were against it from the start, the month it came in Beazley went ahead of Howard in the polls and would've won regardless (Labor just locked it up by putting Rudd in) but how many dissenting views did you read in The Advertiser about WorkChoices?

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, this isn't a direct shot at you but it always shocks the hell out of me when right wingers say the media in this country is biased towards Labor. You've got to be joking, surely? Look at Rupert and how much of the media he controls. He owns the vast majority of the major newspapers in this country including The Advertiser. They're always trying to stick the boot into Labor whether in opposition or government. The vast vast majority of their writers are to be kind right wingers. They're Liberal Party stooges, look at Chris kenny bang straight back into the Liberal Party as an adviser to Turnbull. How many times would Mansell (the editor) defend Howard to the hilt? Downer, Ian Smith and now of all people Bolt writing for them, turn it up.

I believe in keeping government honest whether Labor or Liberal and if you want that then start reading The Independent Weekly. When Hendrik Gout attacks the Government he does it logically and rationally. He used to be involved with the Democrats (born out of the Liberal party) but anytime he takes a shot at Atkinson, Foley or Rann it's warranted. Not the irrational anti-anything Left crap in the Tiser.

They lost what small credibility they had left with how much they used to pump up WorkChoices. The public were against it from the start, the month it came in Beazley went ahead of Howard in the polls and would've won regardless (Labor just locked it up by putting Rudd in) but how many dissenting views did you read in The Advertiser about WorkChoices?

Gozu

1. Just because people dont agree with someone doesn't make them right wingers, unless of course they are so left wing that everyone else is on the right.
2. There are both liberal and labor party journalists and press secretaries - they swap over all of the time
3. I do read the Independent Weekly every week
4. Some papers dont allow me to copy and paste - note the very good article by Christian Kerr in the Messenger this week - if I could post it I would - another example of Rann trying to spin himself out of a situation where he has dudded the people of this State.
5. Workchoices - not everyone was against it. Most small business supported it because they could finally get rid of crap employees without copping a wrongful dismissal claim despite following every procedure and giving 5 - 10 warnings. In my view, they went too far, but sometimes that has to happen to counter what has already gone too far the other way. Have a look what has happened on the docks since the Patrick affair.
6. If you think the Advertiser is right wing, well........I dont know. I wouldn't have though 5AN was right wing but they were blackbanned for a long time because they wouldn't toe the spin line.
7. There's plenty to work with in criticizing this ineffectual government. Unfortunately, we are probably in the same position that the people of NSW were in 3-4 years ago. We get what we deserve

[mick]

Why is OK to be arrogant, never consult with stakeholders, autocratic and dishonest when it is a "left of centre" government? Were these not the very reasons Howard lost government?

If Rann spins any faster he'll create artificial gravity.

Rann knew that if he consulted on the issue of the MJN it would heve been clear it was a bad idea, move the hospital 1.5km from IMVS (pathology services) from the University of Adelaide Medical School and the brand new world class emergency and intensive care departments would be abandoned it just doesn't make sense. The RAH campus is big enough so parts can be demolished with minimal disruption to patients. The truth of the matter this new hospital is the monument to a non-achieving government that has little to show after 8 years in power.

The grand schemes of the past Monarto (Dunstan era), MFP (Bannon) were all abandoned, hopefully this will go the same way.

I would oppose this madness whoever was in power, its just a very bad idea.

[Gozu]

Gozu

1. Just because people dont agree with someone doesn't make them right wingers, unless of course they are so left wing that everyone else is on the right.
2. There are both liberal and labor party journalists and press secretaries - they swap over all of the time
3. I do read the Independent Weekly every week
4. Some papers dont allow me to copy and paste - note the very good article by Christian Kerr in the Messenger this week - if I could post it I would - another example of Rann trying to spin himself out of a situation where he has dudded the people of this State.
5. Workchoices - not everyone was against it. Most small business supported it because they could finally get rid of crap employees without copping a wrongful dismissal claim despite following every procedure and giving 5 - 10 warnings. In my view, they went too far, but sometimes that has to happen to counter what has already gone too far the other way. Have a look what has happened on the docks since the Patrick affair.
6. If you think the Advertiser is right wing, well........I dont know. I wouldn't have though 5AN was right wing but they were blackbanned for a long time because they wouldn't toe the spin line.
7. There's plenty to work with in criticizing this ineffectual government. Unfortunately, we are probably in the same position that the people of NSW were in 3-4 years ago. We get what we deserve

I'm not talking about disagreeing Jimmy, I'm talking about the absurd notion that the majority of the media in this country is not in fact biased towards the conservatives/Liberal Party/right-wingers but is actually biased towards Labor! There are no where near the amount of Labor hacks in the News Ltd fold compared to the Liberal hacks, you know that. Christian Kerr? Yeah no thanks, he's not only a former Liberal Party hack but anything I've read of him in the past (former editor of Crikey) he comes off as a bit far-right. He's also received plenty of ridicule for some of his pieces in The Australian (the home of the far-right).

Yes, not everyone was against WorkChoices, just the vast vast majority of the population. More evidence (if any were actually needed) of The Advertiser's bias. I never said anything about 5AN. I know Rann has played a few games with some radio stations in the past but I can honestly say I don't listen to any commercial radio, rots your brain. This government can't even be compared to the NSW government. NSW is a basketcase. Yes, Rann's all image and spin but Rann is not the SA Government. You need to look at things a bit more broadly. I think people tolerate Rann but because they do an alright job the public keep voting them back in like they will at the next election. It's not Rann vs. MHS, that's what the media like to portray it as.

[Jimmy_041]

Gozu

1. Just because people dont agree with someone doesn't make them right wingers, unless of course they are so left wing that everyone else is on the right.
2. There are both liberal and labor party journalists and press secretaries - they swap over all of the time
3. I do read the Independent Weekly every week
4. Some papers dont allow me to copy and paste - note the very good article by Christian Kerr in the Messenger this week - if I could post it I would - another example of Rann trying to spin himself out of a situation where he has dudded the people of this State.
5. Workchoices - not everyone was against it. Most small business supported it because they could finally get rid of crap employees without copping a wrongful dismissal claim despite following every procedure and giving 5 - 10 warnings. In my view, they went too far, but sometimes that has to happen to counter what has already gone too far the other way. Have a look what has happened on the docks since the Patrick affair.
6. If you think the Advertiser is right wing, well........I dont know. I wouldn't have though 5AN was right wing but they were blackbanned for a long time because they wouldn't toe the spin line.
7. There's plenty to work with in criticizing this ineffectual government. Unfortunately, we are probably in the same position that the people of NSW were in 3-4 years ago. We get what we deserve

I'm not talking about disagreeing Jimmy, I'm talking about the absurd notion that the majority of the media in this country is not in fact biased towards the conservatives/Liberal Party/right-wingers but is actually biased towards Labor! There are no where near the amount of Labor hacks in the News Ltd fold compared to the Liberal hacks, you know that. Christian Kerr? Yeah no thanks, he's not only a former Liberal Party hack but anything I've read of him in the past (former editor of Crikey) he comes off as a bit far-right. He's also received plenty of ridicule for some of his pieces in The Australian (the home of the far-right).

Yes, not everyone was against WorkChoices, just the vast vast majority of the population. More evidence (if any were actually needed) of The Advertiser's bias. I never said anything about 5AN. I know Rann has played a few games with some radio stations in the past but I can honestly say I don't listen to any commercial radio, rots your brain. This government can't even be compared to the NSW government. NSW is a basketcase. Yes, Rann's all image and spin but Rann is not the SA Government. You need to look at things a bit more broadly. I think people tolerate Rann but because they do an alright job the public keep voting them back in like they will at the next election. It's not Rann vs. MHS, that's what the media like to portray it as.

Morning mate - hope you are well

I think Mike wants it as Rann v MHS and he has certainly stated that the election is a decision between the hospital and a stadium - that's why he's in such a dither about the backlash and MJN pulling out. Things just aren't going his way, and he's not used to it

As for some of the other stars of the SA Cabinet............ Postman Pat, Gail Gago etc - I dont have the RAM in my puter to start those threads.

Regards