SA Footy

He's settling into the role as a minister. That can take some time.

I'm anti anyone that is anti doughnuts

Might I also say... Well done Premier Marshall for standing up for human beings in the face of the easy popularity winning alternative.

“There are too many people in South Australia who are experiencing homelessness,” he told the gathering at Adelaide Oval’s Magarey Room.

“And whilst a lot of people want to jump onto talkback radio and think that they’re the instant experts of this very, very complex area of social policy, we know and we’re very grateful that there are some people who are extraordinarily dedicated to dealing with this complex area of public policy in a considered and professional way.”

https://indaily.com.au/news/2018/05/24/ ... t-experts/

If he backs away from rate capping (or waters it down) he might just about win me over.

morell wrote:Might I also say... Well done Premier Marshall for standing up for human beings in the face of the easy popularity winning alternative.

“There are too many people in South Australia who are experiencing homelessness,” he told the gathering at Adelaide Oval’s Magarey Room.

“And whilst a lot of people want to jump onto talkback radio and think that they’re the instant experts of this very, very complex area of social policy, we know and we’re very grateful that there are some people who are extraordinarily dedicated to dealing with this complex area of public policy in a considered and professional way.”

Was very encouraging to see, particularly given some of his party mates aren't above that kind of point scoring.

Also that he's implemented his pledge to ban politicians from government funded advertising is something that has been well, well overdue.

Dogwatcher wrote:Corey still thinks he's a journalist and is taking journalistic solutions to political issues.
That's good in opposition. Not so good in power.

I think he can be a very good pollie. Needs to rein it in and think more strategically.

Well put, it's not totally apparent that he gets it. In an ideal world he would have had a sting as a junior minister/parliamentary secretary to work it out before being thrust into that kind of position. That's what 16 years out of power gets you.

Psyber wrote:I don't want the area "promoted" - I'd rather keep the crowds away and the streets clear...

I really don't get this mentality. surely as a conservative you would want to promote small businesses in the area?

morell wrote:

Psyber wrote:I don't want the area "promoted" - I'd rather keep the crowds away and the streets clear...

So in your specific example, you'd see the TDU and the trampled plants as a wastewater of money and a non essential service. The local cafe, however, would be eternally grateful and would much prefer that to a smooth footpath.

This was the point I was trying to make to Trader when he was claiming the private sector is "more efficient". That entire premise is based on an assumption of the measurement one would use, as well as the value one puts on what we are measuring!!

That probably was the point you were trying to make to me, but I didn't give two hoots and saw it as an eggman or strawplant argument or whatever term you try and put on it.

Of course people rate difference services of different values based on their own circumstances. No-one could logically argue otherwise.

The point I was making about efficiency within Local Government is that they are inefficient at providing the services they choose to provide. IE: the WAY they provide things, not WHAT they provide.

The fact that Council hires a 3 person team to project manage a single project, when previously the PM would have run 10 projects of that same size and nature in the private sector, is inefficient.

The fact that a Council would delay say a Payneham Oval Playground project, to then build it in winter, taking twice as long and costing 30% more, but then having the benefit of a new playground opening in the Mayor's ward 6 weeks before Council elections, is inefficient. But at least they could spend $25k on the opening party to get everyone in a good mood ready to vote, and give said mayor a chance to talk in front of 2000 people on a positive topic.

I say the WAY Council provides services is inefficient, and you tell me that because I don't rate WHAT they provide.

bennymacca wrote:

Psyber wrote:I don't want the area "promoted" - I'd rather keep the crowds away and the streets clear...

I really don't get this mentality. surely as a conservative you would want to promote small businesses in the area?

Mr Marshall certainly is at pains to promote private enterprise where possible, be it major investment on the corner store in Stirling, he wants growth from private investment.

Agreed, a strange mentality for any side of the political sphere.

tbh there is a lot of NIMBYism from South Australians in general. And most of that is centred on North Adelaide and the Eastern Suburbs

I personally think the TDU is a great idea and showcases our state in ways that not a lot of other events can. As it gets out into the areas that we really want tourists to visit

Trader wrote:I say the WAY Council provides services is inefficient, and you tell me that because I don't rate WHAT they provide.

Correct.

To me, efficiency is a measure of outcome vs resources.

The lower you value the outcome, the lower the resources you'd apply to it.

The best example you've provided of your thinking is "it is utterly ridiculous that there is a full time employee ringing old people to see if they're still alive"

You don't value that output, so the resource of one FTE is not efficient.

Someone who uses that service or has elderly relatives that do, would think that service is worth its weight it gold and is ultra efficient.

And you know I don't disagree on a personal level, I'm saying the community often does.

morell wrote:

Trader wrote:I say the WAY Council provides services is inefficient, and you tell me that because I don't rate WHAT they provide.

Correct.

To me, efficiency is a measure of outcome vs resources.

The lower you value the outcome, the lower the resources you'd apply to it.

The best example you've provided of your thinking is "it is utterly ridiculous that there is a full time employee ringing old people to see if they're still alive"

You don't value that output, so the resource of one FTE is not efficient.

Someone who uses that service or has elderly relatives that do, would think that service is worth its weight it gold and is ultra efficient.

And you know I don't disagree on a personal level, I'm saying the community often does.

That example was of a service I didn't think should be provided. It was in relation to the ever growing level of services Councils are providing these days that go beyond the old Roads Rates and Rubbish.
No where did I mention the efficiency of that service.

My comments on Council efficiency have related to their over resourcing to provide a set outcome.

Trader wrote:Lets say the private sector produces 1 widget every day using 1 man.
If Local Government can produce that same widget by lunchtime, are they more efficient even though they employ 7 staff to do it?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind local government is over resourced for the output they produce.

What are your thoughts on using 3 PMs to deliver 1 job when in reality 1 PM should be able to deliver it (and many more) on his/her own?
The output is the same (that job delivered), but the resourcing is completely different.

Trader wrote:My comments on Council efficiency have related to their over resourcing to provide a set outcome.

Trader wrote:Lets say the private sector produces 1 widget every day using 1 man.
If Local Government can produce that same widget by lunchtime, are they more efficient even though they employ 7 staff to do it?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind local government is over resourced for the output they produce.

What are your thoughts on using 3 PMs to deliver 1 job when in reality 1 PM should be able to deliver it (and many more) on his/her own?
The output is the same (that job delivered), but the resourcing is completely different.

Depends on the value of that project. 3PMs should be able to deliver a better outcome in regards to time, quality and cost. If that isn't the case, then I would question the quality of those PMs, not the entire industry at large.

And before you say it, no I do not believe the private industry has better project managers. I think they're better at making money, but not T and Q...

As mentioned earlier, LG is pretty damn responsive compared to the private industry and provide services that aren't tied to money spent vs outcomes a mid 30s single male would appreciate.

We're in the industry of serving a local community, not making widgets, in other words.

EDIT: and in addition, maybe if LG weren't so risk adverse, some of the projects would run smoother and require less management.

Psyber wrote:

morell wrote:

Psyber wrote:As I said above - the escape for councils of raising service fees instead of rates has to be blocked too...
That is the only way to force them to cut unnecessary activities and stick to providing essential services which is wat they exist for.

Council's aren't able to pick and choose what they provide or cut - at a high level. LG is heavily dictated by what they can and can't do by the Local Government Act.

Classic example is the NRM levy. I know of high level people that fought and fought to not shift that to Local Government to collect. But in the end, it is a State imposed tax that legislatively Councils must collect. Same goes for the Solid Waste Levy.

Most Council's would *love* to scrap half the shit they have to do. They can't. By law.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 190f45fbbc

I'd scrap subsidising bicycle races (and replacing plants pulped by the bike fans which a local council gardener told me was happening) and giving out grants to "community organisations" in favour of adequate waste collection and maintaining footpaths, but I agree the state government should collect their own levies and wear the flack for them themselves - I hadn't realised the ALP had been sneaky enough to stick the councils with that job.

Great the way you are giving me the lead ins Psyber

haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

Ronnie wrote:haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

What do you do when someone proposes to slaughter your fat pig and golden goose? Become a paid up member of the RSPCA
As I said from the start; the threat of rate capping has put the councils on notice that the good times are over

Ronnie wrote:haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

Unley's rate increase rose from 2.2% in 16/17 to 2.9% in 17/18

But cool story

Again, the proposed Rate Capping policy will have next to no impact on actual budgets. And in turn peoples rates notices.

morell wrote:

Ronnie wrote:haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

Unley's rate increase rose from 2.2% in 16/17 to 2.9% in 17/18

But cool story

Again, the proposed Rate Capping policy will have next to no impact on actual budgets. And in turn peoples rates notices.

Through the first half of this decade Unley's 5 year average was 4.93%. This was during a time of very low CPI and wages growth.

Ronnie wrote:

morell wrote:

Ronnie wrote:haha Unley is a perfect example of where rate capping, whether it happens or not, has caused a change in public thinking by some councilors who I haven't noticed were worried too much in the past about fairly steep rate rises. Now all of a sudden it is cough, cough, what can we do differently...

Unley's rate increase rose from 2.2% in 16/17 to 2.9% in 17/18

But cool story

Again, the proposed Rate Capping policy will have next to no impact on actual budgets. And in turn peoples rates notices.

Through the first half of this decade Unley's 5 year average was 4.93%. This was during a time of very low CPI and wages growth.

Don't let the fact that they split how they report their figures fool you either.

The 2.9% rate rise this year isn't the full picture. They have a further 0.5% in what they are referring to as 'growth'. As such, their rates income is actually increasing by 3.4%.

You know what I've learnt over the years?
In any 'political scandal' if a man's role is in question, look to see if there's a scarlet woman in the background.
Quite often, that makes him weak to a challenge, it gives opponents and media leverage.

morell wrote:

Psyber wrote:I don't want the area "promoted" - I'd rather keep the crowds away and the streets clear...

and this is what it comes down to really.

You don't want the area promoted. Fair enough! Many would and events like that is what helps make local businesses, many of which are owned and operated by locals, as well as employing locals, do.

So in your specific example, you'd see the TDU and the trampled plants as a wastewater of money and a non essential service. The local cafe, however, would be eternally grateful and would much prefer that to a smooth footpath.

This was the point I was trying to make to Trader when he was claiming the private sector is "more efficient". That entire premise is based on an assumption of the measurement one would use, as well as the value one puts on what we are measuring!!

He, you and I might think social programs and events are a waste of money, but if that is what the rest of the community wants and needs and is willing to pay for, then who are we to demand otherwise?

I still think a great way to curb rates that gets ignored is to vote for people that represent your ideals. Vote in the elections. Lobby your councillor. Engage in consultation.

Valid enough arguments, morell, but, based on my experience, I would rather see councils' power reduced and have them stick to providing only basic services and leave social issues to the state government which is more easily lobbied by voters, unless we can keep the councils small.**

Without making council voting compulsory to motivate people the councils can count on local apathy and passivity once their areas are big enough for councillors not to be chatted in the street by residents. When I lived in Klemzig (the bit adjacent to Vale Park) in the Enfield Council area I was involved in a successful movement to get a local council member replaced after he pulled off a spot rezoning trick at the last minute to get several blocks rezoned for taller apartment blocks for which his electrical firm got the contracts, but a few years later he was back as Mayor...
( I'd moved out of the area by then.)

**Earlier I'd been involved in Vale Park ceding to Walkerville from Enfield and had seen the improvement in the smaller council where personal contact was more potent.

Having also lived just outside Hahndorf for many years at one time I've seen how local business interests can wreck the historical signifiance and social coherence of a place by giving priority to profit - it has lost almost all its character as a historical German settlement fouded only about 2 years after Adelaide.