The SA Politics Thread

Message

stumpjumper · #541 Post by **stumpjumper** » Tue May 27, 2014 7:08 pm

My complaint here doesn't concern the merits of Liberal, Labor or Independent, except to the extent that an electorate which votes to be represented by a candidate from Party A should expect to be represented by a candidate from Party A, especially given that a lot of people vote for a party not a candidate. People say, I've got Labor values, I want to vote for the Labor candidate. They don't expect their new Labor MP, after the election, to then join the Liberal government, guaranteeing not to support Labor in any no confidence motion against their new party or to ever vote to block supply.

Whether they should vote for parties instead of candidates is not the issue either.

My concern is the legitimising of this auction system. The perhaps more acceptable business of 'buying' the loyalty of an Independent has now become the buying of a candidate who stood representing a party that the buying party would never even preference, ie Labor (supposedly) trying to buy McFetridge - and perhaps others - and now buying Hamilton-Smith.

The deals are slightly unsavoury too. The defecting MP gets about $1 million in salary and super, generally covered up by talk of benefits going to the electorate. In other words, bribes and post-factum pork barrelling.

Dog · #542 Post by **Dog** » Tue May 27, 2014 8:04 pm

Latest polls put Labor well ahead of Liberals in SA polling 56% to 44%

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Waewick · #543 Post by **Waewick** » Tue May 27, 2014 8:13 pm

Personally I liken it to fraud. Waite got sold one thing, delivered another.

Dog · #544 Post by **Dog** » Tue May 27, 2014 9:08 pm

I would suspect that the people of Waite voted for Martin Hamilton Smith, hoping he would be a minister, and he is. Ha ha !

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

stumpjumper · #545 Post by **stumpjumper** » Tue May 27, 2014 10:14 pm

Ha ha. It would be funny if we weren't paying these clowns hundreds of thousands of dollars to play these games with a system that is supposed to deliver good government.

As to the polls, they don't mean a lot because it's years until the next election. If you're suggesting, dog, that the move to buy Hamilton-Smith is justified because Labor is ahead of the Libs in SA, what would you say if buying H-S has meant that a poll in Waite would go, say, 60 Liberal 40 ALP? Would that mean that Labor has to hand back H-S to the Liberals?

I just reckon its a crook way to carry on. It makes it more likely than ever that state politics is not actually about governing the state, but is instead a high stakes game played by a select few. Winning in the game means a high income and expensive lifestyle secured for life (entirely at the expense of your fellow citizens, but who give a rat's arse about that? Show me the money!).

Dog · #546 Post by **Dog** » Tue May 27, 2014 10:40 pm

stumpjumper wrote:Ha ha. It would be funny if we weren't paying these clowns hundreds of thousands of dollars to play these games with a system that is supposed to deliver good government.

As to the polls, they don't mean a lot because it's years until the next election. If you're suggesting, dog, that the move to buy Hamilton-Smith is justified because Labor is ahead of the Libs in SA, what would you say if buying H-S has meant that a poll in Waite would go, say, 60 Liberal 40 ALP? Would that mean that Labor has to hand back H-S to the Liberals?

I just reckon its a crook way to carry on. It makes it more likely than ever that state politics is not actually about governing the state, but is instead a high stakes game played by a select few. Winning in the game means a high income and expensive lifestyle secured for life (entirely at the expense of your fellow citizens, but who give a rat's arse about that? Show me the money!).

The opinion polls really have nothing to do with this other than to say we (South Australians) have moved on from the election and now an overwhelming number of people no longer support the liberal party and have greater confidence in Labor.

I was as stunned by the news as anyone today, but after listening to the man, I believe he genuinely wants to work as a minister to make SA a better place. I think to infer he has been bribed by income or lifestyle is going way too far. If the Liberals had their act together, had not allowed infighting and decade long feuds to fester and alienated the independents they would be in government and also being paid what ministers earn.

In reality Martin Hamilton Smith will be getting $114,000 more for being a minister, he was already being paid $153,000 a year to do nothing to contribute to SA for the next 4 years. Instead of focusing on the man willing to work for his money you should be looking to see if SA is getting $153,000 a year worth of value out from each of the 20 something Liberals sitting on the cross benches for the next 4 years, don't forget some have been there for decades doing nothing and they also get travel, staff, offices, supper, and perks with out the responsibility of government.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

stumpjumper · #547 Post by **stumpjumper** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:51 am

I agree with you that the present Liberal Party in SA is internally divided and is a weak outfit. On the other hand I don't like the undue influence of unrepresentative unions in the ALP.

MHS (Liberal) scored 61% of the 2PP vote in Waite; Huppatz (Labor) scored 38%. Waite is now a Labor seat.

In Frome, Brock (Independent, former Liberal) got 45% of the vote; the Liberal candidate got 36% of the vote and Labor got 11%. Frome is now a Labor seat.

In Fisher, Bob Such (Independent, first preferences to Nationals) got 38% of the vote. The Libs got 35% and Labor got 18%. Fisher is now a Labor seat.

Tell me why that isn't a problem, and would be whichever party was doing the buying of seats.

You might say that in the case of MHS, the end justifies the means, and you might be right. But does that mean the manoeuvre is acceptable in every case? What about its use by a ruthless, unpopular government shoring itself up, buying seats to insulate itself from the democratic process?

The value of the 'deal' by the way, of a ministry offered to an opposition or independent who has already qualified by winning two terms in parliament is, including four years as a minister and the additional super entitlements, is about $1,000,000 extra to a parliamentarian around 50/60 years old.

Dog · #548 Post by **Dog** » Wed May 28, 2014 5:42 am

Yes Stumpjumper we all get the maths, but !
The fact is that people have elected these 3 candidates who don't want to serve in a Liberal government. You can blame the system and Labor all you like. The real question is why don't they want to serve in a Liberal government? The money is irrelevant, they would be on the same money if serving as ministers in a Liberal or Labor government.
Once again it's the same Liberal bitterness now being thrown at Martin Hamilton Smith that will ensure he never returns to the fold.
Have the Liberals learned nothing from how they treated Such, Brock, Evans and Maywald.
Only a party of morons would think that bitterly attacking people encourages them to give you their support to form a government when you need them.
Good governments like any good team have to make compromises, negotiate, forgive, learn from mistakes, bargain, stick together, see things from others point of view and accept responsibility, all qualities that have been obviously lacking in the Liberal team for many years.
In reality it's only their woefully negative mates at the Advertiser that have kept them at all competitive by making every development a controversy an running down the state at any opportunity.
In hind-site the Liberals probably had a potentially unbeatable state leader in Alexander Downer but even he, given the option took the job with money and perks in preference to working with this mob.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rev · #549 Post by **rev** » Wed May 28, 2014 7:27 am

People claiming that Martin Hamilton Smith quit the Liberals and declared him self an independent to join the government out of financial interests are absolute morons.

The guy is a millionaire.

What people like Stumpjumper don't want the rest of the South Australian public to be talking about, is WHY MARTIN HAMILTON SMITH QUIT THE LIBERAL PARTY TO JOIN THE LABOR GOVERNMENT AS AN INDEPENDENT..

Specifically, what is going on within the Liberal party, or what isn't perhaps, that would force a former leader, to quit the party.

I don't think it's about personal gain. After all, he is already on a very very generous pay packet, and having been in parliament nearly 20 years, will be on a very handsome pension.

I think it's got more to do with the fact the Liberals have no real policies, no real vision for the future of our state and no real plan for moving our state in the right direction, forwards. That's why Labor keeps winning elections in South Australia. Because there is no alternative. The alternative is a group of people who are so dysfunctional and incompetent, Stephen King couldn't even make it up.

Well done to him on putting South Australia first above his former party's petty politics.
Now hopefully he, and Labor, live up to that.

The other potential positive that may come from this is that perhaps the state Liberal party get the kick in the ass they deserve and sorely need, to finally get their house in order and sort their mess out. Really, how is a person like Rob Lucas still a key person for them? See where I'm going with this Stumpjumper? They need new blood..not the same tired old incompetent has beens with no visions or plans to move our state forward, but are more interested in continuing their roles for their own self-serving interests and the interests of the so called "old boys club".

A perfect example of how incompetent and useless they are will be the rest of this term of opposition for them.
They wont show us their vision for our state, how they plan on moving our state forward. Principally because they don't have a vision or any such plans.

Instead they will focus on attacking members of the government.

Are these the sorts of people you want to govern our state?

[Shuz] · #550 Post by **[Shuz]** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:07 pm

rev wrote:People claiming that Martin Hamilton Smith quit the Liberals and declared him self an independent to join the government out of financial interests are absolute morons.

The guy is a millionaire.

What people like Stumpjumper don't want the rest of the South Australian public to be talking about, is WHY MARTIN HAMILTON SMITH QUIT THE LIBERAL PARTY TO JOIN THE LABOR GOVERNMENT AS AN INDEPENDENT..

Specifically, what is going on within the Liberal party, or what isn't perhaps, that would force a former leader, to quit the party.

I don't think it's about personal gain. After all, he is already on a very very generous pay packet, and having been in parliament nearly 20 years, will be on a very handsome pension.

I think it's got more to do with the fact the Liberals have no real policies, no real vision for the future of our state and no real plan for moving our state in the right direction, forwards. That's why Labor keeps winning elections in South Australia. Because there is no alternative. The alternative is a group of people who are so dysfunctional and incompetent, Stephen King couldn't even make it up.

Well done to him on putting South Australia first above his former party's petty politics.
Now hopefully he, and Labor, live up to that.

The other potential positive that may come from this is that perhaps the state Liberal party get the kick in the ass they deserve and sorely need, to finally get their house in order and sort their mess out. Really, how is a person like Rob Lucas still a key person for them? See where I'm going with this Stumpjumper? They need new blood..not the same tired old incompetent has beens with no visions or plans to move our state forward, but are more interested in continuing their roles for their own self-serving interests and the interests of the so called "old boys club".

A perfect example of how incompetent and useless they are will be the rest of this term of opposition for them.
They wont show us their vision for our state, how they plan on moving our state forward. Principally because they don't have a vision or any such plans.

Instead they will focus on attacking members of the government.

Are these the sorts of people you want to govern our state?

Amen.

Dog · #551 Post by **Dog** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:13 pm

Spot on Rev

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dog · #552 Post by **Dog** » Wed May 28, 2014 6:04 pm

Poor Steven Marshall, apparently worried Martin Hamilton Smith will leak Liberal strategies to the Labor government. What a di@k their strategies obviously didn't work. Ha ha should make for a good laugh though

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aidan · #553 Post by **Aidan** » Wed May 28, 2014 7:47 pm

stumpjumper wrote:I agree with you that the present Liberal Party in SA is internally divided and is a weak outfit. On the other hand I don't like the undue influence of unrepresentative unions in the ALP.

MHS (Liberal) scored 61% of the 2PP vote in Waite; Huppatz (Labor) scored 38%. Waite is now a Labor seat.

In Frome, Brock (Independent, former Liberal) got 45% of the vote; the Liberal candidate got 36% of the vote and Labor got 11%. Frome is now a Labor seat.

In Fisher, Bob Such (Independent, first preferences to Nationals) got 38% of the vote. The Libs got 35% and Labor got 18%. Fisher is now a Labor seat.

The biggest problem with the Liberals is their lies, and you're either spreading them or adding to them. None of the above three are Labor seats.

The people got the candidates they voted for. MHS then sided with the Liberals (as he should since he stood as a Liberal candidate). But it wasn't enough because the independents supported Labor (which is fair enough under the circumstances).'So Labor formed a government. Do you really think that means MHS should turn downthe opportunity to participate in the government?

IMO loyalty to the state is far more important than loyalty to the party.

stumpjumper · #554 Post by **stumpjumper** » Wed May 28, 2014 9:45 pm

OK.

Spreading or adding to Liberal lies...

?? I'm sick of the Liberals' problems. I'd like to see the dead wood cleared out - the MPs ensured preselection in safe seats 'by right', presumably until they die. They need new blood, and MHS was arguably new blood. The Liberals' internal structure is shot, and should be entirely renewed.

rev, why MHS swapped sides is EXACTLY what the Libs should be talking about, instead of uselessly attacking the guy after he's ditched them. Until they figure out what their (I say obvious) problems are, they will be condemned to opposition.

I'm sick of Labor's union appointees who are not suited for government and who contribute little. The influence of the SDA is particularly unhelpful to the state's near basket case economy with their high penalty rates and refusal to extend trading hours, unlike the MWU in the other half of the same sector of the economy.

None of the above three are Labor seats

Oh yeah, Aidan? Their MPs have sworn to support Her Majesty's Government. They have specifically agreed not to support any no confidence motions against the Labor government or to block its supply (which presumably would include by abstaining). Let's see how many times in the next few years they vote against the government. It's very unlikely they will. Weatherill is now claiming, and has, a 53-47 majority in Parliament - that's what he bought from these guys - and I reckon that makes their seats effectively Labor, even if the MPs call themselves independents. If those seats aren't Labor, what are they?

Here's a thought. If Waite is still Liberal, and Frome and Fisher are still Independent seats, and it's all good for the state, then why shouldn't all the Liberal MPs join the Weatherill government? Then they could all 'participate in the government'. Unfortunately, in the real world, we're stuck with parties. Even if we had government by 100 people drawn annually by lot, they'd form themselves into parties within the first few hours.

As I said before, I don't really care for this state's Liberal or Labor parties, but I do care about the health of our democracy, just in case we do get some competent talent into parliament. This business of buying support from your electoral opponents is not a good practice. For a start, what is to stop it being extended to doing secret deals before the election? Why not offer straight cash inducements (not thinly disguised as increased salary or super, or goodies for the electorate)? Steak knives?

stumpjumper · #555 Post by **stumpjumper** » Wed May 28, 2014 10:05 pm

Have the Liberals learned nothing from how they treated Such, Brock, Evans and Maywald.

Dog, you forgot McEwen and Lewis, and a few more, many years before in the Liberal Movement, which the Libs are STILL seething about.

After more argument in my office about MHS:

What he did wasn't illegal. It may have pissed off people who voted for him, but that's between him and his electorate. They voted for him to do as he saw fit to represent them, and he has.

But there is also an issue, not where an MHS takes the initiative to change his allegiance for the good of the state as he sees it, but where a predatory would-be government approaches opposition candidates with lucrative personal offers to change sides. That seems to me to make the ballot box irrelevant, and makes the process undemocratic, whichever side is making the offers, and is not a proper basis for forming a government.