The SA Politics Thread

[rev]

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.

You are acting like he is the first one to jump off an almost totally sunk ship that still hasn't realized it's almost completely submerged in it's own bullshit.

Why would a man who isn't short of money and actually doesn't have to put him self in the public eye for scrutiny, put him self and his family through the distress that they've been put through by idiots in our society, for a few extra dollars in his bank account? He is a successful business man. The man will receive a very generous pension when he retires from politics. The man was also on a very generous pay packet in the opposition. It's not as if our politicians are paid so little that they have to work second jobs or line up at Centerlink fortnightly so they can pay their bills.

Let's be serious here. All this bullshit about him is being generated by the Liberal party and it's fanboys like Stumpjumper, and especially those in the Advertiser building.

Those who aren't butthurt over him quitting to join the government, have had nothing but POSITIVE things to say about him.
Business leaders. Hm, that's interesting isn't it.

You actually have to give him and the government some credit here, because their behavior is partly that of people who want to work together to better our state. Their actions have so far backed up their statements, more or less.
Martin Hamilton Smith has been accompanying our state trade minister on overseas trips. That level of bipartisan cooperation has been noticed in the countries they've visited on trade trips and noted as quite remarkable. If you can't see that that is a positive image being presented by our elected leaders for our state, then you need to take your political blinkers off.

MHS has dropped a few obvious hints as to why he really quit. It's got nothing to do with money. You can keep banging on with your usual anti-Labor bullshit stumpjumper, but all Labor is guilty of in this affair is trying to sure up it's numbers to create a stable government. A stable government is in the interests of South Australia and every South Australian.

He mentioned he has plenty of dirt to dish..about what? Well, about loyalty, betrayal...hmm..wasn't this man once the leader of the Liberal party? Hmm..I wonder what he could be talking about.

It's also been mentioned he had a vision for the state. Tell me, has any other Liberal politician presented us with a vision for our state? Any plans? Anything at all besides bickering, mud slinging at Labor, and the usual substance lacking media releases?

One thing I did like from the Liberals was the stadium over the rail yards..the idea, not what they actually came up with. Whose vision was that?

Heck even Alexander Downer has steered clear of taking over the SA state Liberals. I wonder why.

Like I said, it's now up to MHS and Labor to live up to their claims.

[Dog]

There all the talk that this is a safe Liberal conservative seat, and I am sure the Liberals will work tirelessly to oust MHS at the next election, but I think they forget at their peril that there is a history here Robin Millhouse jumped ship from Liberal to Liberal movement and then to Australian Democrat in this area and was very successful. There will be some rusted on bitter and bereaved local Liberals but I think as with Millhouse most will look at how MHS performers and judge him on his performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rev]

There all the talk that this is a safe Liberal conservative seat, and I am sure the Liberals will work tirelessly to oust MHS at the next election, but I think they forget at their peril that there is a history here Robin Millhouse jumped ship from Liberal to Liberal movement and then to Australian Democrat in this area and was very successful. There will be some rusted on bitter and bereaved local Liberals but I think as with Millhouse most will look at how MHS performers and judge him on his performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would be interesting to see what sort of a campaign Labor will run in Waite.

[[Shuz]]

State Budget to be handed down on June 19th.

Weatherill and Koutsantonis have warned it will be a horror budget, likely worse than last year's.

Any speculation as to what we will see? I reckon the O-Bahn tunnel project will be off the shelf and I wouldn't be suprised if we see a ED co-payment at public hospitals.

[Waewick]

State Budget to be handed down on June 19th.

Weatherill and Koutsantonis have warned it will be a horror budget, likely worse than last year's.

Any speculation as to what we will see? I reckon the O-Bahn tunnel project will be off the shelf and I wouldn't be suprised if we see a ED co-payment at public hospitals.

ED co-payment for sure, unless the states relent and seek tax system changes.

other than that, I reckon Labor will try to take the morale high ground and not cut anything.

[stumpjumper]

rev, you miss my point. Having MHS in the Labor ministry is likely to be good for the state. And, I agree with you that the Liberals are dysfunctional, entirely of their own doing.

My point is that, the process that got him there is suspect from a democratic point of view. The member for Waite was only an independent from the time if leaving the Liberal Party to the time he declared loyalty to Labor, a party which only got 38% of the vote in Waite, while another party, the Libs, got 61%. Ignore the names of the parties, and ask yourself if there isn't something wrong there.

In Frome, the former Independent member has declared loyalty to a party which got 11% of the vote.

That is not a veiled argument in favour of the Liberals. I am simply questioning the process.

In an extreme case, what if a fringe party with only a fraction of the vote was able to induce enough of the members who beat it at the polls to transfer their loyalties and form a government?

I repeat, this is not about parties, it is about process.

People vote for individuals, not parties, you say. Parties don't matter. For a start, many people don't vote for the individual on merit, they vote for the individual who represent the party they most agree with. Secondly, parties do natter because it is the party with the most MPs which forms the government and has access to the Treasury.

My concern, as I've said before, is that the public has no knowledge of these deals until they are done. An extreme case, just to illustrate how the method might work, is that a party which put up no candidate at all in an electorate could end up with its MP, just by buying him or her. How happy would the voters feel? It nearly happened in Frome! sheer Labor got 11% but enjoys the loyalty of the elected member.

I haven't heard anyone in the media mention complain about the process of post-election horse-trading to form government by buying first government, then continuing to buy to increase the government's majority and in the process weakening further the Opposition.

Maybe I'm way off the track, but that's my argument. It's not about Labor or Liberal, it's about government representing the majority preference of the electorate, which I say is what democracy is about.

By the way - my "usual anti-Labor bullshit"... Go through my posts. You'll find that the only problem I have with Labor that I don't have with the Libs as well is the undue influence of unions on Labor policy and pre-selections. Other than that, a good Labor government would suit me as well as a good Liberal government. Both parties get too close to the big end of town, both lie etc. the main problem with the Liberals as I see it is their terminal hopeless internal organisation. If they were a company they'd be broke or taken over, and if they were a footy team they would be dead last in their comp. so don't call me a knee-jerk anti-Laborite.

In SA, both Labor and Liberal are broadly social democrat parties, and we have so little money available after providing basic services that there isn't much to spend to differentiate themselves from their competition.

[Nort]

rev, you miss my point. Having MHS in the Labor ministry is likely to be good for the state. And, I agree with you that the Liberals are dysfunctional, entirely of their own doing.

My point is that, the process that got him there is suspect from a democratic point of view. The member for Waite was only an independent from the time if leaving the Liberal Party to the time he declared loyalty to Labor, a party which only got 38% of the vote in Waite, while another party, the Libs, got 61%. Ignore the names of the parties, and ask yourself if there isn't something wrong there.

In Frome, the former Independent member has declared loyalty to a party which got 11% of the vote.

That is not a veiled argument in favour of the Liberals. I am simply questioning the process.

In an extreme case, what if a fringe party with only a fraction of the vote was able to induce enough of the members who beat it at the polls to transfer their loyalties and form a government?

I repeat, this is not about parties, it is about process.

People vote for individuals, not parties, you say. Parties don't matter. For a start, many people don't vote for the individual on merit, they vote for the individual who represent the party they most agree with. Secondly, parties do natter because it is the party with the most MPs which forms the government and has access to the Treasury.

My concern, as I've said before, is that the public has no knowledge of these deals until they are done. An extreme case, just to illustrate how the method might work, is that a party which put up no candidate at all in an electorate could end up with its MP, just by buying him or her. How happy would the voters feel? It nearly happened in Frome! sheer Labor got 11% but enjoys the loyalty of the elected member.

I haven't heard anyone in the media mention complain about the process of post-election horse-trading to form government by buying first government, then continuing to buy to increase the government's majority and in the process weakening further the Opposition.

Maybe I'm way off the track, but that's my argument. It's not about Labor or Liberal, it's about government representing the majority preference of the electorate, which I say is what democracy is about.

The Liberal Party lost the election, as things stood before MHS announced he would become a minster there was already mathematically no way for the Liberal party to make a South Australian government.

So there are three options for a member like MHS.

1. Stick heels in, powerless in opposition to do any of the things he ran saying he wanted to do.

2. Stay in opposition in the hope that they can win an independent over and force a new state election.

3. Take the ministers role as offered, which comes with the condition that he doesn't have to support all the governments policies. In exchange for making state parliament a little more predictable and stable he gets to actually work towards achieving real outcomes.

If this was a post-election hung parliament where either party could take control, then I'd be right with you in saying this is a dirty move. However the LIBERALS LOST THE ELECTION. Labor is already in state government. Hamilton-Smith is taking the option that allows him to do some of what he wants and ran for, and that has to be better than petulantly sticking heels in and saying no to contributing unless he gets everything he wanted (ie a Liberal Premier).

The way some people treat politics like it's a game of football is absurd.

[stumpjumper]

Interesting response Nort.

No-one could argue with your points 1 and 2.

Point 3 would seem weird anywhere but SA, where such moves are becoming a normal part of the post-election settling in.

But I reckon that the move wouldn't be a 'dirty' one if it resolves a hung parliament. But to continue offering better opportunities to opposition MPs after you have quite properly formed a stable government?

That's where the situation starts to look undemocratic. After a hung election result, a party forms government (albeit with less actual votes than their opposition, but there are reasons for that and it's not an issue here) by gaining the support of the two Independents (despite being beaten on the vote count in both Independent seats, which doesn't matter).

But the offer to MHS was different. It came after Labor had already formed a stable government. What if the government decides it would like to increase its majority further? Can they approach other Opposition MPs? Do we have a two stage system - a public election, then regardless of the result, a private stage of parties offering their opponents attractive deals to change sides?

Every time the government attracted an MP who had won their seat for the other side, the government would be governing with the support of a decreased minority of people who had actually voted for them. What is the limit? Could a party which has lost an election turn the tables and form government by winning over enough MPs from the other side? We are in an area here where there are, AFAIK, no rules.

Another interesting point as someone mentioned - what does Labor do in Frome, Fisher and Waite at the next election?

[monotonehell]

Stumpy, your argument is labouring under a misunderstanding of how a government is formed in the SA Parliament.

Parties have nothing to do with who forms government per say. Parties are a convenience organization of members that came about outside the system. Government is held by the leader of a grouping of elected members who can demonstrate that they have the support of the majority of the House. Party lines are a convenient way to do this if one party gains a majority of the seats, but it can also be formed by a loose coalition of members of what ever ilk who come together.

Members switching their allegiance to or away from the majority is not outside the system, it; IS the system. A government can change without an election.

The only betrayal is to the member's former coalition and possibly those who voted for them who now disagree with their stance.

[Aidan]

Another interesting point as someone mentioned - what does Labor do in Frome, Fisher and Waite at the next election?

Run candidates! Because however much you try to label them as Labor seats, they're not — and if the sitting members get reelected, they're just as likely to support the Libs next time. More likely if the Libs dump Marshall and revert to Redmond.

All Labor has got from MHS is a commitment not to block supply (which I wouldn't expect him to try to block anyway) and his support in confidence motions until the next election (or as long as he remains a minister — whichever is shorter). And AFAIK all he got from the other two was the ability to form a government, but no guarantee it would last long.

[Dog]

There all the talk that this is a safe Liberal conservative seat, and I am sure the Liberals will work tirelessly to oust MHS at the next election, but I think they forget at their peril that there is a history here Robin Millhouse jumped ship from Liberal to Liberal movement and then to Australian Democrat in this area and was very successful. There will be some rusted on bitter and bereaved local Liberals but I think as with Millhouse most will look at how MHS performers and judge him on his performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would be interesting to see what sort of a campaign Labor will run in Waite.

Rev

Hopefully Labor will run a good candidate because it is important to give people a choice and also retain the upper house voting numbers. The difference will be that the Labor campaign will be respectful of MHS's contribution. I would imagine that the Liberals will do all in their power over the next four years to make MHS's experience as miserable as possible and they run a pretty bitter campaign against him.

Which would be pretty silly because he has re confirmed his independent Liberal conservative principles and if handled properly may give a conservative government his casting support after the next election.

I would imagine that preferences from Labor and the Greens will be towards MHS. I also think there will be a plethora of right of centre candidates running under a multitude of banners to help split the Labor preferences.

It's really up to MHS to prove his worth, a hard job with the concerted campaign against him already started with the supported of our local rag.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nort]

Point 3 would seem weird anywhere but SA, where such moves are becoming a normal part of the post-election settling in.

There are plenty of places around the world where minority governments are the norm.

[Waewick]

There all the talk that this is a safe Liberal conservative seat, and I am sure the Liberals will work tirelessly to oust MHS at the next election, but I think they forget at their peril that there is a history here Robin Millhouse jumped ship from Liberal to Liberal movement and then to Australian Democrat in this area and was very successful. There will be some rusted on bitter and bereaved local Liberals but I think as with Millhouse most will look at how MHS performers and judge him on his performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It would be interesting to see what sort of a campaign Labor will run in Waite.

Rev

Hopefully Labor will run a good candidate because it is important to give people a choice and also retain the upper house voting numbers. The difference will be that the Labor campaign will be respectful of MHS's contribution. I would imagine that the Liberals will do all in their power over the next four years to make MHS's experience as miserable as possible and they run a pretty bitter campaign against him.

Which would be pretty silly because he has re confirmed his independent Liberal conservative principles and if handled properly may give a conservative government his casting support after the next election.

I would imagine that preferences from Labor and the Greens will be towards MHS. I also think there will be a plethora of right of centre candidates running under a multitude of banners to help split the Labor preferences.

It's really up to MHS to prove his worth, a hard job with the concerted campaign against him already started with the supported of our local rag.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

no they won't

they can simply run a campaign of vote for MHS and you won't know the outcome.

He'll be gone next election anyway, I highly doubt he will recontest - which is a big reason for doing what he did IMO.

[stumpjumper]

Thanks mono. I'm aware of the party/individual difference, but in Australia politics, parties have a particularly strong influence. Like backing a jockey or trainer rather than the actual horse, many people here vote for the party first. This is reflected in funding and backing for campaigns, which is why people try to get preselected as a 'party candidate'.

But your point's valid. In fact, once elected an MP is not allowed in their advertising or signage to refer to their party, if they have one. They are simply 'the member for X'.

As to Labor and Waite - I suppose you could have: MHS as Independent and a Labor candidate run dead with prefs to MHS; MHS as Independent Labor and no Labor candidate; or MHS as leader of the MHS New Liberals (ie Liberals Without Evans And Chapman Etc).

I suspect that the last party would be very popular. MHS could launch it on the back of his success in rebuilding SA's industrial base with highly adaptable, skilled industries based around the Techport and existing military capacities.

The biggest problem for MHS as I see it is the lack of cooperation, negativity etc he will no doubt face from ambitious but less talented Labor MPs who would see any success for MHS as a ring-in and a hindrance to their own plans.

This aspect is something no-one gas talked much about. When the apparent Labor celebrations die down and the Liberal bitching subsides in the media, it will be interesting to see if there is any animosity towards him within Labor. And what if MHS starts outshining Weatherill?

[Dog]

I will have to stop reading the papers in Cibo, I see the Advertiser still devoting pages to the MHS saga, it appears that to get a liberal to hold a ministry it costs us poor taxpayers $2m more a year than if a Labor guy did it? So what are they actually arguing here? Liberals cost more? Are Labor elected Ministers cheaper or more efficient? Surely if MHS was a minister in a Liberal government it would cost the same? Using the Advertiser logic it's a good job we didn't elect a Liberal team into government!