The SA Politics Thread

[Spurdo]

Both parties are a bunch of useless flogs. I'm just gonna vote for whoever's policies are the least shit.

[[Shuz]]

So basically, the same way everyone's voted the last 4 elections.

[SRW]

Marshall's latest showpiece has been chestpuffing counter terrorism policy to meet a problem we don't have. The SA government and SAPOL have already been quick to make relevant changes following interstate and overseas incidents and there's nothing to suggest the threat here is increased or imminent.

I get the old playbook of trying to look tough on law and order but I don't think that's anywhere near the top concerns for South Australians. Goes to show again that Labor is still in with a chance at the next election if the Liberals are pursuing a strategy as basic and tone deaf as this.

[Nathan]

They're devoid of policies, so of course they're trotting out old Laura Norder. Terrorism and War on Drugs, it's ridiculously transparent.

[monotonehell]

Perhaps they don't want to be in government?

[Nathan]

Perhaps they don't want to be in government?

Well he did tell us to vote Labor last time around.

[mshagg]

Crazy isn't it. Surely there's enough votes in appealing to reactionary discomfort with labor's infrastructure spends "hey you know these trams are gonna make it harder for you guys to drive your cars around, and what's the deal with hospitals and o-bahns?" to get him over the line, but seems like mumbles is determined to be some sort of modern day John Howard.

What's next, cultural cringe and 'dole bludgers'?

[Ben]

They really do lack leadership. Why they didn't dump Marshall at the last failed election i'll never know, but I can only assume they literally have no one else to take his place. They are lost as a party.

[mshagg]

Nick X quitting the Senate to come and run in the SA election next year. Which I'm sure is completely unrelated to his eligibility to run as a Senator being before the High Court

Could throw a spanner in the works for Mumbles.

[[Shuz]]

Irrespective of whether or not his eligibility to the high court was in question, it makes sense to do so as that would give SA Best some legitimacy as a political party.

It's all and well that they're polling 20% primary vote at the moment, but without a true state leader, especially if they are to form government or play a kingmaker role - I believe a lot of that vote would disappear on election day. Now that he's positioning himself as the state leader, it gives the party more credibility.

[Llessur2002]

I've never really heard much from Mr X about his views on public transport, cycling or roads.

Anyone know where he stands?

[Nathan]

I've never really heard much from Mr X about his views on public transport, cycling or roads.

Anyone know where he stands?

Doesn't he usually choose to stand wherever it'll get him the most votes?

[mshagg]

At his core he is little more than a reactionary protectionist. That said, as a cross bench senator I've always thought he landed on reasonably sensible positions at the end of the horse trading and sought good outcomes for the state.

Im not convinced that translates well to developing and standing on your own platform. Getting a better deal, fixing the system etc - doesnt really mean anything does it.

[rev]

I've never really heard much from Mr X about his views on public transport, cycling or roads.

Anyone know where he stands?

If government has to be formed with his support just hope he stands on the side of Labor if all you’re worried about is infrastructure.
If he backs the liberals forget it.

[Nathan]

SA Liberals pledge to ban developers from exceeding height limits in suburban areas

DEVELOPERS would be banned from exceeding building height limits in suburban areas under a Liberal Party plan to shut the door on “completely inappropriate” high-rise projects.

And Opposition Leader Steven Marshall says he will “immediately abolish” new rules that allow major aged-care development to bypass the local planning system if his party wins the next state election.

Mr Marshall will today announce stricter rules for high-rise developments as the first plank in the Liberals’ planning policy ahead of the March ballot.

Mr Marshall said he would ensure height limits are “strictly enforced”, ending the uncertainty for residents and developers about what can — and cannot — be built in certain areas.

Council development plans include building height limits for individuals streets and suburbs, but they are used by assessment bodies as guidelines rather than followed as strict requirements.

That has opened for the door for dozens of developments that exceed height limits to be approved across Adelaide in the past three years, including a 10-storey development in Parkside and seven-storey complex on Unley Rd.

Mr Marshall said residents’ concerns about the “uncertainty” of the system have been heightened since aged-care provider Life Care unveiled plans for high-rise retirement villages in Joslin, Norwood and Glen Osmond.

Mr Marshall said he opposed the “excessive” and “completely in appropriate” developments — which would each exceed local building height limits — and called on the State Government to “rule out approving” the plans before the election.

He said if elected, he would act swiftly to scrap new regulations which meant aged-care developments valued at more than $20 million could be assessed directly by Planning Minister John Rau.

“If elected, a State Liberal Government will immediately abolish the ministerial direction issued by the Labor Government that allows them to be considered (as major projects) in the first place.”

“To ensure this situation doesn’t occur again, we would provide certainty to residents and developers by ensuring that agreed building height limits are adhered to.”