Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote:

Aidan wrote:On the contrary - it would be difficult to argue for the Chantellois soap opera being the main reason for the swing. In fact I've never heard anyone say they regard it as an important issue, nor to change the way they voted. And it may even have had a positive effect on Labor's vote count - ISTR there were accusations here that on a TV interview (Stateline IIRC) the interviewer didn't want to mention it but Rann insisted because he wanted to use it as a distraction issue.

So you think it is pure coincidence that the polls started to plummet for Labor at the same time the Chantellois scandal was made public?

Considering the initial effect it had on Rann's approval rating, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

The Chantellois scandal made a massive difference, particualrly for female voters who felt that Mike Rann had taken advantage of one of their 'sisters'.

Wouldn't those voters prefer the female candidate anyway?

Aidan wrote:

Seriously though, Im still completely bamboozled of how you can oppose a brand new hospital. To me, its a great big WTF.

I'm completely bamboozled of how you can be here and still not know. Each of the following four arguments is a good reason to oppose it:

• It's unnecessarily expensive - if we spend the money on this, there will be less money available for other things. We can rebuild onsite far more cheaply.
• The railyards site is the best place for a soccer stadium. Building a hospital there would destroy that opportunity.
• The railyards site is too far from Adelaide University - this has significant implications both for medical students and research.
• The railyards are too far from the eastern suburbs. Emergency patients from the eastern suburbs, which don't have their own hospital, could die on the way.

There are also a few disadvantages of building it that don't on their own amount to reasons not to - for example, the proposed building is inappropriate for the parklands location.

Can I add to this list too?

* It will be a private operated hospital resulting in big layoffs.
* We'll end up with less beds not more, which defeats the purpose of a new hospital.
* It does nothing to address the shortage of doctors, nurses and specialist/professionals.
* It does nothing to address issues of outdated equipment.
* You would be demolishing half a billion dollars worth of upgrades already invested into the RAH.

Oh well. In the end I voted Liberal, but if labor had been performing poorly they would not have been voted into a third term.

I am just happy that Atkinson has resigned from the front bench, maybe now an R18+ rating can be introduced for games.

I did like the Liberals vision, grand inspiring and if private industry got on board and built the casino, hotels and entertainment facilities around the stadium, it would have been an interesting work in progress for the next 10-15 years. One of the things I enjoy most, and I am sure that the other people in this forum are the same, is seeing new buildings and structures comign along, having an idea of what it will (or should) look like when finished. As a user of the train system, it would have been nice heading through a large construction site, that wasnt going to be a hospital...

Is it just me, or does anyone else think the chaps in the Riverland have "cut their nose off to spite their face"? If they'd returned Karlene to power, they could have had a voice in parliament no matter who won, but now they've got an irrigation expert sitting in opposition. How effective can he be?

rhino wrote:Is it just me, or does anyone else think the chaps in the Riverland have "cut their nose off to spite their face"? If they'd returned Karlene to power, they could have had a voice in parliament no matter who won, but now they've got an irrigation expert sitting in opposition. How effective can he be?

I think it was more about sending a message than anything.

[quote="Aidan]•

The railyards are too far from the eastern suburbs. Emergency patients from the eastern suburbs, which don't have their own hospital, could die on the way.

How ridiculous is this? By the way its going to be closer to my suburbs so we get to live. Good choice made by me I guess. Bring on the new hospital, bring on the new medical research facilities, thank god this stupid hospital v stadium argument will soon be dead.

mattblack wrote:

Aidan wrote:• The railyards are too far from the eastern suburbs. Emergency patients from the eastern suburbs, which don't have their own hospital, could die on the way.

How ridiculous is this? By the way its going to be closer to my suburbs so we get to live. Good choice made by me I guess. Bring on the new hospital, bring on the new medical research facilities, thank god this stupid hospital v stadium argument will soon be dead.

What's ridiculous about it? Currently the hospital distribution is fairly even. The western suburbs have the QEH while the RAH serves the eastern suburbs. Moving the RAH to the W side of the City will mean a lot more emergency patients will need to cross the City.

rhino wrote:Is it just me, or does anyone else think the chaps in the Riverland have "cut their nose off to spite their face"? If they'd returned Karlene to power, they could have had a voice in parliament no matter who won, but now they've got an irrigation expert sitting in opposition. How effective can he be?

They've got a voice in parliament whatever happens. They could have had a voice in the government no matter who won, but having had one of those for the last few years, presumably they've concluded it's of little value.

Yes, another 2 minutes in the ambulance will make all the difference.

Professor wrote:Yes, another 2 minutes in the ambulance will make all the difference.

if you think it takes 2 minutes to get from the RAH to the proposed location, you've got to be kidding.
it's exactly 2km further west along possibly one of the busiest roads in the city. not to mention about 14 sets of traffic lights. during peak hour this will be incredibly hard to do in under 2 minutes, not to mention the ambulance would have to be speeding excessively in order to do so, a risk in it's own.
all in all, yes, any less time spent in an ambulance and in the emergency room is obviously a better outcome for the patient.

from the people that i've talked to, most have most respect for Mr X than anyone else in government.

I reckon most rural areas are at the same point, no pollie can make it rain but they can do something to relive the hardship..or atleast listen to their area's thoughts.

One of the msot arrogant things any government can do is to break an election promise.

Arrogance is being touted as one of the things which contributed to the swing against the Rann government.

Hence, considering how much the government is on the nose of so many people, it would be political suicide to break the more notable election promises made. One of the more notable eelction promises is the cosntruction of the new RAH at the railyards site.

I know some of you are dissapointed that we are getting a new hospital instead of a stadium, but the RAH debate was not the knockout punch claimed by some. Yes, the RAH debate was a factor in the swing, but judging by the poor performance of the SAve the RAH party, it was clearly not the biggest factor. Indeed, just by looking at the list of fringe parties that contested the legislative council eelction, one must acknoledge that community anger about the failue of the governemnt to inroduce an ICAC, perceived corruption in the state governemnt, the failure to have a R18+ rating for video games and land tax were also key factors in the swing.

It would be silly to argue that the labor plan was more popular, which it clearly wasn't. But the Liberals shot themselves in the foot, by choosing to go with the cheapest option for the RAH rebuild. I feel they would have garnered more votes, as well as the support of the AMA and the nurses federation if they had chosen the $1.4 billion option. For many voters, myself included, this just confirmed my suspicion that the Liberals do not prioritise public health.

So in essence, a new hospital will be built on the railyards. The electorate has spoken.

It's impossible to say how effective Maywald was in Rann's Cabinet compared with anyone else. I can guarantee that she takes the Government line on such matters as an Independent Commission Against Corruption. Her view on that is that the Rann line - that we are well covered already and that the only effective ICAC for SA would be the federal one that ol' Smoke'n'Mirrors Rann publicly backs but has never lifted a finger to set up.

It's interesting that not a single government MP has attributed the swing to the Liberals to either poor government or personal performance, or lack of popularity. Even ministers holding 15% margins are claiming that that their electorate was always 'marginal' and that such swings are normal. Maywald blames the drought and unfair reporting in the media. Rann blames Chantelois and the media. and on it goes.

As a matter of interest, Rann claims that public opposition to the new RAH and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is the result of ignorance on the part of the opponents, and that the projects will go ahead.

stumpjumper wrote: As a matter of interest, Rann claims that public opposition to the new RAH and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is the result of ignorance on the part of the opponents, and that the projects will go ahead.

Not a very tactful way of putting it, but the majority of the public supported Labors plans, those developments should go ahead.

stumpjumper wrote:As a matter of interest, Rann claims that public opposition to the new RAH and the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is the result of ignorance on the part of the opponents

When did he say this? Were those his actual words?