The SA Politics Thread

[abc]

Senator Alex Antic
@SenatorAntic
Labor and the media went into meltdown after I was elected to lead the South Australian Senate ticket.

The truth is that their definition of “far right” is just being a normal person from ten years ago.

I’m honoured to lead the SA Senate ticket, and will continue to stand for commonsense Liberal Party principles for as long as I am in Parliament.

hard to disagree

[abc]

That quote was not my first quote. My originalquote was as I said. You objected to that original quote.

As for the use of that term, it may well be as you say, but the reality is that many people in the Liberal Party think exactly that. The Liberal Party has been feuding bitterly since the days of Steele Hall, and to ignore the fact that potential and actual Liberal Party voters think it to be true renders analysis of the election results futile. You may as well just pack up and go home if it is not possible to discuss what voters think. Oh, and if you think that's the worst instance of name calling in the Liberal Party, boy are you in for a shock.

It would help if you were honest rather than being economical with the truth...
here is the original quote and my response to it...
viewtopic.php?p=216010#p216010

As you can see it's not an objection nor offense taken, but a question which you have still failed to answer.

How was that question relevant? You can ask all the questions you want, but unless there's some relevance to the topic, what reason is there to answer.

It's irrelevant because whether or not you or I agree/disagree on it, it doesn't affect what Liberal or potential Liberal voters think. What Liberal Party voters or potential voters think was the issue, because that feeds directly into the discussion of why the Party did so badly last Saturday. That was the subject of my post.

If you want to start a thread on whether or not you think Antic is this or that, go right ahead. But don’t complain if I refuse to cooperate with your discussion derail.

The Liberal Party has had bitter internal factional brawls since Steele Hall, the latest rounds being Cregan's coup over the Speakership (backed by Antic publicly) then McBride's defection from the Party after the last election (Antic again). Given Stephen Marshall's anger over all of this (and I imagine Spiers ain't too happy either), plus it's Marshall's former electorate, "extreme" is probably the mildest thing that's been said.

You brought him up not me. This is a politics thread so its relevant.
If anyone has made multiple attempts to derail this conversation...its you.

[[Shuz]]

There are a total of 47 representatives in the Lower House.

A party needs a majority of 24 seats to govern.

There are 5 crossbenchers.

Labor already had 27 seats. Very likely to increase that majority to 28 seats, with the Dunstan by election win.

Liberals had 15 seats, now down to 14 most likely.

The result of a traditional inner city Liberal seat being lost to Labor, most on the back of a significant increase (9.5%) in the Greens vote all but guarantees that Labor will be in Government for, well, ever basically. One Party State.

It is very hard to see how the South Australian Liberals will be able to win an extra 10 seats to form government in their own right in the foreseeable future in either 2026 or 2030. Minority government, a remote possibility maybe in 2030, but not a majority.

Demographic profiles and voting trends are showing that voters are more inclined to remain left leaning as they get older, which presents yet another generational challenge for the Liberals. Historically, voters would lean left when they were younger and become more conservative as they get older. This is no longer the case anymore.

I honestly don't know what the Liberals are trying to achieve by tilting even further to the right when all the demographic evidence says otherwise.

[rubberman]

It would help if you were honest rather than being economical with the truth...
here is the original quote and my response to it...
viewtopic.php?p=216010#p216010

As you can see it's not an objection nor offense taken, but a question which you have still failed to answer.

How was that question relevant? You can ask all the questions you want, but unless there's some relevance to the topic, what reason is there to answer.

It's irrelevant because whether or not you or I agree/disagree on it, it doesn't affect what Liberal or potential Liberal voters think. What Liberal Party voters or potential voters think was the issue, because that feeds directly into the discussion of why the Party did so badly last Saturday. That was the subject of my post.

If you want to start a thread on whether or not you think Antic is this or that, go right ahead. But don’t complain if I refuse to cooperate with your discussion derail.

The Liberal Party has had bitter internal factional brawls since Steele Hall, the latest rounds being Cregan's coup over the Speakership (backed by Antic publicly) then McBride's defection from the Party after the last election (Antic again). Given Stephen Marshall's anger over all of this (and I imagine Spiers ain't too happy either), plus it's Marshall's former electorate, "extreme" is probably the mildest thing that's been said.

You brought him up not me. This is a politics thread so its relevant.
If anyone has made multiple attempts to derail this conversation...its you.

I bought up Antic in the context of the likely reasons he may have had an impact on the outcome of the election via the way the electors of Dunstan may have seen him.

The obvious background was that Dunstan Liberal voters would have been aware of the chaos in the Party via the Speaker coup against Marshall before the last election, and then the defection of the Member for Mackillop the year after - all of which it's acknowledged that Antic had a hand in. The defection of the MP for Mackillop was due to Antic organising a fundamentalist minister getting the nomination over the sitting MP. Now, whether you or I agree that is extremist is irrelevant, as I said. It's whether the voters of Dunstan thought so. Your disagreement about the semantics of my description of Antic had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of the voters.

Politics is relevant in this thread, but your introduction of semantics had no relevance. It would have been like me talking about corruption, incompetence and waste under Morrison. Political? Yes. Relevant? No.

[rubberman]

There are a total of 47 representatives in the Lower House.

A party needs a majority of 24 seats to govern.

There are 5 crossbenchers.

Labor already had 27 seats. Very likely to increase that majority to 28 seats, with the Dunstan by election win.

Liberals had 15 seats, now down to 14 most likely.

The result of a traditional inner city Liberal seat being lost to Labor, most on the back of a significant increase (9.5%) in the Greens vote all but guarantees that Labor will be in Government for, well, ever basically. One Party State.

It is very hard to see how the South Australian Liberals will be able to win an extra 10 seats to form government in their own right in the foreseeable future in either 2026 or 2030. Minority government, a remote possibility maybe in 2030, but not a majority.

Demographic profiles and voting trends are showing that voters are more inclined to remain left leaning as they get older, which presents yet another generational challenge for the Liberals. Historically, voters would lean left when they were younger and become more conservative as they get older. This is no longer the case anymore.

I honestly don't know what the Liberals are trying to achieve by tilting even further to the right when all the demographic evidence says otherwise.

The ALP hasn't won yet.

51:49 with 6000 votes to count.

[rev]

There are a total of 47 representatives in the Lower House.

A party needs a majority of 24 seats to govern.

There are 5 crossbenchers.

Labor already had 27 seats. Very likely to increase that majority to 28 seats, with the Dunstan by election win.

Liberals had 15 seats, now down to 14 most likely.

The result of a traditional inner city Liberal seat being lost to Labor, most on the back of a significant increase (9.5%) in the Greens vote all but guarantees that Labor will be in Government for, well, ever basically. One Party State.

It is very hard to see how the South Australian Liberals will be able to win an extra 10 seats to form government in their own right in the foreseeable future in either 2026 or 2030. Minority government, a remote possibility maybe in 2030, but not a majority.

Demographic profiles and voting trends are showing that voters are more inclined to remain left leaning as they get older, which presents yet another generational challenge for the Liberals. Historically, voters would lean left when they were younger and become more conservative as they get older. This is no longer the case anymore.

I honestly don't know what the Liberals are trying to achieve by tilting even further to the right when all the demographic evidence says otherwise.

Cheers for the explanation Shuz.

I think the Liberals problem is their image and the perception people have of them.
We've gone from some 'old' establishment type males, to a kind of weak female leader for a while did we?, to someone who doesn't really give off a strong leader type image in Marshall, to whatever this Spiers character is.
There was talk this week I think that Tarzia might take over leadership of the party from him.
Now if that's the two options for Liberal party leader, if that's the best they can do, they're in deep trouble.
One looks like he belongs in a B grade gangster movie from the 1990's, and other makes you feel like ripping your own ears off every time he talks. They might be capable, I dunno, but they are not the sort of characters who belong at the forefront leading a party.
On the opposite side you have Mali, and potentially after him Mulligan. Both look a lot more polished and relatable to the average voter.

I'd consider my self a 'swing voter', I'll vote for whoever is the best option at the time.
For South Australia's sake, we need a strong opposition. We need something leaps and bounds better then what the Liberals have been dishing up.

[SBD]

Has the "talk" about Tarzia been anywhere other than Koutsantonis working to keep the Liberal Party off balance? I suspect he's playing a long game, in the hopes of being Premier leading in to the next election and working to make sure his opposition retains the perception of disarray.

[abc]

How was that question relevant? You can ask all the questions you want, but unless there's some relevance to the topic, what reason is there to answer.

It's irrelevant because whether or not you or I agree/disagree on it, it doesn't affect what Liberal or potential Liberal voters think. What Liberal Party voters or potential voters think was the issue, because that feeds directly into the discussion of why the Party did so badly last Saturday. That was the subject of my post.

If you want to start a thread on whether or not you think Antic is this or that, go right ahead. But don’t complain if I refuse to cooperate with your discussion derail.

The Liberal Party has had bitter internal factional brawls since Steele Hall, the latest rounds being Cregan's coup over the Speakership (backed by Antic publicly) then McBride's defection from the Party after the last election (Antic again). Given Stephen Marshall's anger over all of this (and I imagine Spiers ain't too happy either), plus it's Marshall's former electorate, "extreme" is probably the mildest thing that's been said.

You brought him up not me. This is a politics thread so its relevant.
If anyone has made multiple attempts to derail this conversation...its you.

I bought up Antic in the context of the likely reasons he may have had an impact on the outcome of the election via the way the electors of Dunstan may have seen him.

The obvious background was that Dunstan Liberal voters would have been aware of the chaos in the Party via the Speaker coup against Marshall before the last election, and then the defection of the Member for Mackillop the year after - all of which it's acknowledged that Antic had a hand in. The defection of the MP for Mackillop was due to Antic organising a fundamentalist minister getting the nomination over the sitting MP. Now, whether you or I agree that is extremist is irrelevant, as I said. It's whether the voters of Dunstan thought so. Your disagreement about the semantics of my description of Antic had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of the voters.

Politics is relevant in this thread, but your introduction of semantics had no relevance. It would have been like me talking about corruption, incompetence and waste under Morrison. Political? Yes. Relevant? No.

You're just repeating shifty Tom Koutsantonis talking points which have no basis in reality.

[rubberman]

You brought him up not me. This is a politics thread so its relevant.
If anyone has made multiple attempts to derail this conversation...its you.

I bought up Antic in the context of the likely reasons he may have had an impact on the outcome of the election via the way the electors of Dunstan may have seen him.

The obvious background was that Dunstan Liberal voters would have been aware of the chaos in the Party via the Speaker coup against Marshall before the last election, and then the defection of the Member for Mackillop the year after - all of which it's acknowledged that Antic had a hand in. The defection of the MP for Mackillop was due to Antic organising a fundamentalist minister getting the nomination over the sitting MP. Now, whether you or I agree that is extremist is irrelevant, as I said. It's whether the voters of Dunstan thought so. Your disagreement about the semantics of my description of Antic had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of the voters.

Politics is relevant in this thread, but your introduction of semantics had no relevance. It would have been like me talking about corruption, incompetence and waste under Morrison. Political? Yes. Relevant? No.

You're just repeating shifty Tom Koutsantonis talking points which have no basis in reality.

Lol. Then you'd better tell McBride (The MP for Mackillop- ex Lib) that. After all it was he who accused Antic.

As for the ongoing feuds in the Liberal Party, they have been going on since Koutsantonis was one year old. What a clever little chappy he was to orchestrate Liberal Party dysfunction at the age of one.

Of course, some people might find that a little hard to believe.

Now, I'm sure TK is more than happy to goad the various actors in the Liberal Party, but they certainly don't need his help in knifing each other in the back. Naturally, he has every right to let the public know about the Opposition's dysfunction. It would similarly be legitimate for the Opposition to point out Labor problems too, if and when they happen. It's almost as if such matters are traditional under the Westminster system. Churchill, or Pitt/Disraeli would hardly blink, and regard TK as fairly mild.

[abc]

I bought up Antic in the context of the likely reasons he may have had an impact on the outcome of the election via the way the electors of Dunstan may have seen him.

The obvious background was that Dunstan Liberal voters would have been aware of the chaos in the Party via the Speaker coup against Marshall before the last election, and then the defection of the Member for Mackillop the year after - all of which it's acknowledged that Antic had a hand in. The defection of the MP for Mackillop was due to Antic organising a fundamentalist minister getting the nomination over the sitting MP. Now, whether you or I agree that is extremist is irrelevant, as I said. It's whether the voters of Dunstan thought so. Your disagreement about the semantics of my description of Antic had nothing whatsoever to do with the opinions of the voters.

Politics is relevant in this thread, but your introduction of semantics had no relevance. It would have been like me talking about corruption, incompetence and waste under Morrison. Political? Yes. Relevant? No.

You're just repeating shifty Tom Koutsantonis talking points which have no basis in reality.

Lol. Then you'd better tell McBride (The MP for Mackillop- ex Lib) that. After all it was he who accused Antic.

As for the ongoing feuds in the Liberal Party, they have been going on since Koutsantonis was one year old. What a clever little chappy he was to orchestrate Liberal Party dysfunction at the age of one.

Of course, some people might find that a little hard to believe.

Now, I'm sure TK is more than happy to goad the various actors in the Liberal Party, but they certainly don't need his help in knifing each other in the back. Naturally, he has every right to let the public know about the Opposition's dysfunction. It would similarly be legitimate for the Opposition to point out Labor problems too, if and when they happen. It's almost as if such matters are traditional under the Westminster system. Churchill, or Pitt/Disraeli would hardly blink, and regard TK as fairly mild.

I don't care about the Liberal Party mate. I remained unconvinced however that Antic is extreme far right, or even far right.

[SBD]

You're just repeating shifty Tom Koutsantonis talking points which have no basis in reality.

Lol. Then you'd better tell McBride (The MP for Mackillop- ex Lib) that. After all it was he who accused Antic.

As for the ongoing feuds in the Liberal Party, they have been going on since Koutsantonis was one year old. What a clever little chappy he was to orchestrate Liberal Party dysfunction at the age of one.

Of course, some people might find that a little hard to believe.

Now, I'm sure TK is more than happy to goad the various actors in the Liberal Party, but they certainly don't need his help in knifing each other in the back. Naturally, he has every right to let the public know about the Opposition's dysfunction. It would similarly be legitimate for the Opposition to point out Labor problems too, if and when they happen. It's almost as if such matters are traditional under the Westminster system. Churchill, or Pitt/Disraeli would hardly blink, and regard TK as fairly mild.

I don't care about the Liberal Party mate. I remained unconvinced however that Antic is extreme far right, or even far right.

So who do you think is more Right, limiting yourself to current sitting SA MPs in either state or federal parliament, either house, not necessarily Liberal.

[abc]

Lol. Then you'd better tell McBride (The MP for Mackillop- ex Lib) that. After all it was he who accused Antic.

As for the ongoing feuds in the Liberal Party, they have been going on since Koutsantonis was one year old. What a clever little chappy he was to orchestrate Liberal Party dysfunction at the age of one.

Of course, some people might find that a little hard to believe.

Now, I'm sure TK is more than happy to goad the various actors in the Liberal Party, but they certainly don't need his help in knifing each other in the back. Naturally, he has every right to let the public know about the Opposition's dysfunction. It would similarly be legitimate for the Opposition to point out Labor problems too, if and when they happen. It's almost as if such matters are traditional under the Westminster system. Churchill, or Pitt/Disraeli would hardly blink, and regard TK as fairly mild.

I don't care about the Liberal Party mate. I remained unconvinced however that Antic is extreme far right, or even far right.

So who do you think is more Right, limiting yourself to current sitting SA MPs in either state or federal parliament, either house, not necessarily Liberal.

I don't care. You make it sound like you're hunting these people who don't conform to your 'progressive' agenda. It's a little creepy tbh. No one in parliament anywhere in Australia is far right.
Its not a metric I care about.

[SBD]

I don't care about the Liberal Party mate. I remained unconvinced however that Antic is extreme far right, or even far right.

So who do you think is more Right, limiting yourself to current sitting SA MPs in either state or federal parliament, either house, not necessarily Liberal.

I don't care. You make it sound like you're hunting these people who don't conform to your 'progressive' agenda. It's a little creepy tbh. No one in parliament anywhere in Australia is far right.
Its not a metric I care about.

WOW!

I don't very often get accused of having a "progressive agenda". I guess if I'm less-right than you, then I'm left.

"Its not a metric I care about." - I've repeatedly said I don't think a nuanced position should be boiled down to one line, and you keep coming back to it. Why?

[abc]

So who do you think is more Right, limiting yourself to current sitting SA MPs in either state or federal parliament, either house, not necessarily Liberal.

I don't care. You make it sound like you're hunting these people who don't conform to your 'progressive' agenda. It's a little creepy tbh. No one in parliament anywhere in Australia is far right.
Its not a metric I care about.

WOW!

I don't very often get accused of having a "progressive agenda". I guess if I'm less-right than you, then I'm left.

"Its not a metric I care about." - I've repeatedly said I don't think a nuanced position should be boiled down to one line, and you keep coming back to it. Why?

Once again, I didn't bring it up. You chimed in.

[rubberman]

So who do you think is more Right, limiting yourself to current sitting SA MPs in either state or federal parliament, either house, not necessarily Liberal.

I don't care. You make it sound like you're hunting these people who don't conform to your 'progressive' agenda. It's a little creepy tbh. No one in parliament anywhere in Australia is far right.
Its not a metric I care about.

WOW!

I don't very often get accused of having a "progressive agenda". I guess if I'm less-right than you, then I'm left.

"Its not a metric I care about." - I've repeatedly said I don't think a nuanced position should be boiled down to one line, and you keep coming back to it. Why?

abc doesn't care about the metric...unless someone else uses it.