The SA Politics Thread

[dsriggs]

...so it's settled. We call in & tell them how much we like train horns?

[crawf]

Seriously?

[rev]

Seriously?

Yep.

But if you read it carefully, what it is encouraging people to do is to abuse the system, to abuse the opportunity to talk directly with ministers etc.
The purpose of that segment on the radio was to engage with the community, feedback, etc, the usual stuff.
Not for the opposition who lack policies and a vision for our state to encourage the public to hijack it and turn it into a political stunt.
What this document does is show that the Liberal party are still not fit to govern in our state.
As bad as Labor are with their factionalism and unionism, at least the can come up with sort of vision and plans, even if they aren't perfect.
If we had a decent opposition, they might be forced to come up with something better and start implementing things sooner rather then later. Or maybe we'd have an alternative government choice instead if we aren't satisfied with the Labor government.

[Matt]

Spot on, rev...
Found something we can agree on.

[stumpjumper]

Rev, you're quite right about the Liberals. They need a bomb under them.

There are a number of reasons they are constantly beaten by the even worse Labor outfit. Some of the reasons, such as journalists in an increasingly editorialising media preferring Labor, and the slight Labor gerrymander in SA, aren't the Libs' fault. But those reasons are not enough to keep them out of office.

Here are some more important reasons, not in order:

1. Internal division. The Chapman and Evans factions have been fighting for decades. Vickie Chapman probably cost the Libs an election when she wouldn't rule out, a few days before the election, challenging Isobel Redmond. It was a stupid comment based on a stupid dispute and Chapman was dumb to have answered the question at all.

2. The small target. The Libs routinely refuse to take up issues which they can win or at least get good press on until 'after the last interim financial report before the next election'. Their rationale is that it's only worth politicking just before the election. Forget their role in good government, in providing an effective opposition.

3. Reluctance to rock any boats or relationships. Opposition leader Marshall's response to obvious skullduggery at Gillman and Newport Quays? 'Oh, well, erm...'

4. Resistance to change, including new blood. The SA Libs endorse Victorian Liberal chief Kroeger's promise that 'every sitting member is safe from pre-selection'. In other words, no alternative candidate, no matter how good, will ever be allowed to oppose a sitting member, no matter how useless. You might be the best hope the Libs have ever seen, and have lived in say, Chapman's electorate for 30 years, but her seat is hers for as long as she wants it. MPs are paid very well, partly because they have no tenure. To have a policy protecting sitting members in safe seats from competitive preselection gives them virtual tenure.

5. MPs running their businesses. If you are elected to parliament, either sell your business, or put it under management. Get your hands off it. Too many Liberals, and some Labor MPs, are drawing a big salary for being an MP but spend a lot of time on their private businesses.

The Liberals need an energetic, pragmatic leader leading a team of worthwhile, committed MPs, not a businessman doing politics part time leading a bunch of entitled seat warmers.

While the Liberals run a closed shop dedicated to remaining invisible until the next election, they'll never form a government.

[monotonehell]

Stumpy I think your point five is one of the big ones with our current state Liberals. They all seem to be in it to keep the status quo (or better it) for their business interests. No big picture view, just short term, blinkers on, self interest. That and a load of obdurate hubris. Of course this also applies to a lot of state Labor MPs. We need a national ICAC, with sharp teeth, which can oversee both Federal and state matters.

Douglas Adams once wrote, "It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

[Matt]

You're genuinely suggesting the SA media favour Labor?!

Marshall got an absolute RIDE in The Tiser last election campaign.

[stumpjumper]

No. The bias in Adelaide is not as pronounced as the pro-Liberal slant of News Limited, or the anti-Liberal slant of the ABC and Fairfax, but at the journalist level, many journalists now editorialise as well as simply report, and a lot of them understandably, have little time for the Liberals. That doesn't mean they like Labor much better. But the journalists do hop into any weakness in politicians, and the Libs have a few weaknesses.

We have a poor quality Labor government and a poor quality Liberal opposition. This, as well as structural reasons such as declining manufacturing etc contributes to our present situation.

[stumpjumper]

I agree Monotone. We've got Marshall running his Wok in a Box or whatever it is, and Pat Conlon with a big office at Minter Ellison. At least Rachel Sanderson had the decency to sell her business.

[rev]

No. The bias in Adelaide is not as pronounced as the pro-Liberal slant of News Limited, or the anti-Liberal slant of the ABC and Fairfax, but at the journalist level, many journalists now editorialise as well as simply report, and a lot of them understandably, have little time for the Liberals. That doesn't mean they like Labor much better. But the journalists do hop into any weakness in politicians, and the Libs have a few weaknesses.

We have a poor quality Labor government and a poor quality Liberal opposition. This, as well as structural reasons such as declining manufacturing etc contributes to our present situation.

Hey stump, if the media favor Labor, how come there is no criticism or coverage of the lack of Liberal vision and plans for the state?
They are a joke of an opposition and alternative government, yet we see no coverage of this fact. Not between elections, and certainly not leading into elections.

There's no secret the ABC is left leaning. It's also no secret that as a result Liberal governments cut funding to the ABC as opposed to Labor increasing funding.

The ABC as a public broadcaster should be neutral and in the interest of public. Quite often what Liberal governments do, is not in the interest of the common citizen. Liberal governments do not make decisions for the benefit of the lower classes, or with them in mind. Unless you are rich or running your own business(ie wealthy, usually), a Liberal government is of no benefit to you.

News Crap is a private company and can say and do as it pleases.
However we in no way have to sit there and put up with their obvious Liberal party conservative right wing propaganda and bullshit, and just like you have the choice not to watch the ABC, we have the choice not to buy or go to News Crap websites.

[Nathan]

Except, despite the ever increasing claims, there is no evidence that the ABC it actually left leaning. Of course certain programs or on-air personalities may reflect certain positions (how could they not?), but there is no institutional bias to the left.

[monotonehell]

Except, despite the ever increasing claims, there is no evidence that the ABC it actually left leaning. Of course certain programs or on-air personalities may reflect certain positions (how could they not?), but there is no institutional bias to the left.

^This. The ABC is neutral and reports the news in an unbiased way. Even after two (three?) inquiries into this, all finding that they are neutral, this perception still exists.

[stumpjumper]

I have to disagree. To some extent, it's a point of view thing, but there is also such a thing as institutional bias. Even so, I'm convinced thqat on a fair analysis the ABC is biased, certainly against Abbott. And you can't argue that of dozens of presenters, Amanda Vanstone is the only one whose politics could be described as conservative. If you disagree with that last claikm, let me know a few more conservative leaning presenters.

Sarah Ferguson does a good job. She's tough on everyone, but Sarah Ferguson, but Fran Kelly, Sabra Lane, Jonathan Green and of course Jon Faine are clearly biased to the left. Recently, Jon Faine interviewed journalist Michael Smith. The ABC uphled 17 complaints of bias against Faine.

Here's a sample of Faine's interview, in which Smith said he was merely the straight amn to allow Faine to present his views:

Michael Smith: It’s improper for a lawyer to have a relationship of that character while you’re working for a client that’s paying the bills, the AWU.
Jon Faine: Who says it’s improper? Where’s the rule that says you have to disclose who your boyfriend is when you’re a lawyer?
Michael Smith: The Law Institute...
Jon Faine: No, it doesn’t...
Michael Smith:...has a view about that, about ethical conduct...
Jon Faine: There’s no, there's no rule saying you have to tell your employers who your boyfriend is – that’s rubbish...
Michael Smith: Let’s let’s look at what it - Well, when it’s your client...
Jon Faine: That’s rubbish...
Michael Smith: Let’s look at what happened then, Jon, as a result of that relationship...
Jon Faine: Let’s move on. What else are you worried about?
Michael Smith: Jon, I think...
Jon Faine: What’s your best shot, Michael? Because we’re moving on in a moment and I’m giving you a last chance, because this (allegastions about Gillard) either has to go away or it’s got to stand up. And so far it’s a house of cards.

Faine appealed the censure, saying that he demonstrated no aggression or bias in the interview.

[Waewick]

No. The bias in Adelaide is not as pronounced as the pro-Liberal slant of News Limited, or the anti-Liberal slant of the ABC and Fairfax, but at the journalist level, many journalists now editorialise as well as simply report, and a lot of them understandably, have little time for the Liberals. That doesn't mean they like Labor much better. But the journalists do hop into any weakness in politicians, and the Libs have a few weaknesses.

We have a poor quality Labor government and a poor quality Liberal opposition. This, as well as structural reasons such as declining manufacturing etc contributes to our present situation.

I would suggest they report more on Labor because labor are in power in this state and are happy to role out story after story with the Journos in this state are happy to lap up, saves them doing any work to actually get stories.

Why take a Liberal story if it means impacting the source of the stories coming from Labor, of which their are more (quality is questionable and the constant repetitveness of it all, but still it is a story).

[dsriggs]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/e ... nt/6395290

Empty building tax would promote development and discourage 'eyesores': SACOSS

A suggested tax on empty buildings and vacant land, such as the North Adelaide Le Cornu site, will be considered in detail by the South Australian Government.
The idea was put forward by the South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS) in its submission to the Government, which is currently considering a range of tax reforms.
SACOSS executive director Ross Womersley today met Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis to discuss the submission.
Mr Womersley said while the state has many homeless people and a housing affordability crisis, too many properties were sitting vacant.
He said all the details have not yet been worked out, but the proposed tax could extend to vacant shops and other commercial buildings.
"The idea of a disused building tax was an attempt to invite people ... who own properties not to simply sit on them for years and years and years without doing anything active about their development," he said.
"Those properties ... they're an eyesore for those of us that live in those communities.
"Obviously, the owners anticipate that by leaving the properties undeveloped that they're going to make as much income as they require. We think that if that's the case, as a community, we ought to be promoting the idea of development."
Mr Koutsantonis described SACOSS's submission as "very sensible" and said he agreed there were too many investors "holding on to properties and claiming massive deductions from negative gearing".
He said Treasury would do modelling on the building tax proposal.
"There are a lot of issues facing our community with disused buildings," he said.
"The Commonwealth Government incentivises people to make losses on property while we as a community want to see communities redeveloped."

It'd be good to get something from the "Buy land, sit on land, propose development, sell land, repeat" brigade, at least.