Page 14 of 27

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:49 am
by AtD
Rann was single at the time. That's not adultery by him in the modern sense, unless you're a crazy fundamentalist "kissing before marriage is a sin" type.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:09 am
by Splashmo
AtD wrote:Rann was single at the time. That's not adultery by him in the modern sense, unless you're a crazy fundamentalist "kissing before marriage is a sin" type.
Are we still talking about the alleged affair? I think the main issue now is the matter of who's telling the truth...

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:33 am
by stumpjumper
Rann wasn't the adulterer, but it was an adulterous affair. Ms Chandelier was married, not to mention 20 years younger than ol' Mike.

Adultery is a bit like lying - as Homer Simpson wisely said:

'It takes two people to lie. One to tell the lie, and the other one to listen.'

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:03 am
by AtD
Yes I'm sure you were thrilled-I-mean-outraged when you heard.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:20 am
by AtD
The punters are yawning.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/25/ric ... y-bits-50/
So you think the affairs of South Australian Premier Mike Rann are of political significance? Then hop straight on the phone to your local bookie and back the Liberals for next year's election because the price about Labor has hardly changed at all. The money says the Rann-led government is still a good thing to win.

The Crikey Election Indicator, which looks at the markets on these things and takes out any profit margins to give a probability to 100%, still has Labor as an 80% chance to 20% for the Liberals.

That's about the same chances as given to Labor and the coalition federally although after the Liberal shenanigans in Canberra this week Labor will probably end up as an even greater chance of winning...

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:00 pm
by Hooligan
I have one word that describes Stumpjumper on this topic: Schadenfreude

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:14 pm
by Will
stumpjumper wrote:I'd be surprised if the government hadn't quietly approached Ms 'Chandelier' and her husband immediately aster the rolled up magazine incident to pay them off. Perhaps they still have time.

The problem is not the adultery, it's the morality. Morals may not count for much any more, but the appearance at least of moral behaviour must mean something in the case of our leading citizen.

Try teaching your kids to behave without risking unnecessary hurt to people if they can point to the Premier and say well, he's doing it.

And what about poor old Monsignor David Cappo, who sits on Rann's cabinet? Where does the Roman Catholic church stand on adultery? The phrase 'thou shalt not commit' comes to mind...
How does that age old adage go? "One who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?"

If you want to talk about morals, lets talk about your side of politics. Does dodgygate or utegate ring a bell?

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:14 am
by AtD
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/ ... bor-in-sa/
Sex Sells - Advertiser: 57-43 to Labor in SA
Thursday, December 10, 2009 – 11:31 pm, by William Bowe

A poll by the Adelaide Advertiser has produced a counter-intuitive result, with Labor’s lead increasing in the wake of the Mike Rann sex allegations to 57-43, up from 55-45 at the previous survey of October 14. After distribution of the undecided, Labor is up a point on the primary vote to 43 per cent, the Liberals are down 2.5 per cent to 35 per cent and the Greens are up two to 10 per cent. The full set of results informs us that Labor’s two-party vote in both metropolitan (54-46) and non-metropolitan (55-45) areas is lower than the total, which obviously can’t be right. The former figure grants Labor less than half the minor party and independent preferences compared with the more normal two-thirds; a more plausible metropolitan two-party split would be 58-42 or 59-41. The sample is 661 respondents, which isn’t bad for a state poll, but there seems reason to believe The Advertiser’s in-house polling is not conducted with the expertise you would expect from a professional market research agency.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:01 pm
by skyliner
AtD wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/ ... bor-in-sa/
Sex Sells - Advertiser: 57-43 to Labor in SA
Thursday, December 10, 2009 – 11:31 pm, by William Bowe

... but there seems reason to believe The Advertiser’s in-house polling is not conducted with the expertise you would expect from a professional market research agency.
True! We have papers the same up here! (Owned by the same mob). This ia major reason I use the AFR and Aust'n to a lesser degree. Far more professional and objective, given that bias exists will ALL writers anyway ...and with the readers.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:43 pm
by Shuz
Have just recieved some information from a Liberal source - it is party policy to commit to duplicating the Southern Expressway, if they win the March election - within the term they are governed. (I double checked this, as Labor has a tendency to promise things outside of the current electoral cycle)

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:46 pm
by monotonehell
Shuz wrote:Have just recieved some information from a Liberal source - it is party policy to commit to duplicating the Southern Expressway, if they win the March election - within the term they are governed. (I double checked this, as Labor has a tendency to promise things outside of the current electoral cycle)
Source? or it never happened.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:59 pm
by Briggzy_03
Shuz wrote:Have just recieved some information from a Liberal source - it is party policy to commit to duplicating the Southern Expressway, if they win the March election - within the term they are governed. (I double checked this, as Labor has a tendency to promise things outside of the current electoral cycle)
Wow my choice of vote keeps on swinging back and forth between political parties, this NEEDS to be done and sooner rather then later.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:50 am
by peas_and_corn
The claws are already out in my seat. A pamphlet about Trish Draper's... activities in federal politics was dropped into my letterbox. What's interesting is that no party logos are on it, it just says things about Trish. It was authorised by M. Brown of 141 Gilles street- Labor?

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:46 pm
by monotonehell
peas_and_corn wrote:The claws are already out in my seat. A pamphlet about Trish Draper's... activities in federal politics was dropped into my letterbox. What's interesting is that no party logos are on it, it just says things about Trish. It was authorised by M. Brown of 141 Gilles street- Labor?
Yes - Mr Michael Brown of the ALP. I do not approve of mud box drops. Last election I received some pretty stupid ones that had crazy statements that the average citizen would not agree with. The things were made up to look like Green Party propaganda - but anyone who bothered to look up the actual source found out that they originated from a Lib's source. Some kind of backhanded attempt to put off people considering a Green protest vote I think. Very devious.

Re: State Election 2010

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:26 pm
by Xaragmata
monotonehell wrote:
Shuz wrote:Have just recieved some information from a Liberal source - it is party policy to commit to duplicating the Southern Expressway, if they win the March election - within the term they are governed. (I double checked this, as Labor has a tendency to promise things outside of the current electoral cycle)
Source? or it never happened.
It is not on their current list of policies that i can see:

http://www.saliberal.org.au/Policies.aspx