Labor wins S.A. election

[willedoo]

The ABC is calling the lower house seat of MacKillop for One Nation, bringing their numbers to three in the lower house. I don't know the details of how they make that call. The candidate is on 51.2%, so maybe he's more votes ahead than there is remaining voters on the roll to be counted. The remaining possible seat for One Nation, Narungga, will go down to the wire. The candidate there at last count was twenty five votes ahead with the postals and absentee votes yet to be counted. Traditionally they would favour the Liberal candidate. The seat was previously held by an independent. 

[facthunter]

Getting a few seats is far short of running the whole country. What  a giant beat up by Murdoch  and ask yourself WHY? Nev

[Siso]

you are right, but 22% of the vote is still significant, even if it doesn't transfer in to seats.

[facthunter]

But why the big beat up if the result makes little difference? The only real News Is the Previous gov't got re-elected comfortably and Liberal collapsed further . The other News is Gina and Murdoch support PHON in a BIG way. THAT should raise concerns.  Nev

[onetrack]

I had a good chuckle at Jane Hume (deputy leader of the the Liberals) being interviewed over the Libs failure to even make a dent in Labors vote in S.A.

She totally ignored the question, and went into a huge and smooth diversive tactic of carrying on about, how "Labor in S.A. has a huge problem! - look at all the votes they've lost to ON!"

 

This deluded rabid right-winger is a classic individual, for obfuscation and diversionary tactics over who actually LOST in the S.A. election.

If Labor getting an increased majority and 34 seats, when the Libs lost seats and can't even get a quarter of the seat numbers Labor hold, even if they formed a coalition with ON (which they claim they never will do - well, at least, not this month, anyway) - then I'd hate to see what Hume defines as a Liberal political gain.

[facthunter]

Labor would NEVER form a Coalition with PHON.  Nev

[onetrack]

Give it a few months, Nev, and it could be a completely different story, as the Libs desperately try to recover lost votes.

[facthunter]

Labor's constitution would NOT allow it. Libs risk disappearing entirely. If you trace what's happened there starting with the Howard era It' shouldn't come as any surprise. They talk amongst themselves too Much. Badly thought out and explained Policies. Of course with Friends like the NATS you don't need enemies.  Nev

[onetrack]

Sorry, I misread what you originally posted, I thought it read, "Liberals would NEVER form a Coalition with PHON". Why would Labor ever consider a coaltion with ON, when they're capable of winning in most states with just a few other minor parties preferences?

 

It's the Liberals who must now consider a coalition with ON, or they will disappear from the political scene. Even then, they would both still need the Nationals in a coaltion to govern. 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

15 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Great news for you, GON; the Libs have lost a blue-ribbon seat that they have held for 46 years to.. <drumroll please...> Labor.. At least that is what the ABC are predicting: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-29/sa-labor-wins-morphett/106508638

 

 

Great news indeed. The Liberal party has a soul destroying curse on them and it won't be lifted till they apologize to the 60's conscripts and families of deceased conscripts.

[facthunter]

I doubt PHONs structure would  stand scrutiny by the AEC. The Hierarchal  structure and internal governance must Meet Minimum Standards.  Nev

Edited 18 hours ago by facthunter

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

13 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I doubt PHONs structure would stand scrutiny by the AEC. The Hierarchal  structure and internal governance must Meet Minimum Standards.  Nev

Huh?

[facthunter]

Plane Eenglish Mate. Even Unions  Clubs etc come under "their" scrutiny.. Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Well why did you pick on One Nation then? Besides, they've been under scrutiny heaps of times because their politics differs from the Liberal's, and from Labor's.

[Litespeed]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Well why did you pick on One Nation then? Besides, they've been under scrutiny heaps of times because their politics differs from the Liberal's, and from Labor's.

No , 

They have been under scrutiny because the have always bent or broke the rules even to the point of been completely illegal.

 

PHON doesnt believe rules apply to them nor their billonaire mates

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

PHON doesnt believe rules apply to them nor their billonaire mates

Sovereign citizens??????

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

No , 

They have been under scrutiny because the have always bent or broke the rules even to the point of been completely illegal.

 

PHON doesnt believe rules apply to them nor their billonaire mates

Now you're talking rubbish.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Sovereign citizens??????

It's a shame we all couldn't be sovereign citizens, even just a skerrick of sovereignty would do. We can have a say about things, but it will only fall on deaf ears. 

[onetrack]

Sovereign citizens add nothing of value to a community. But they do cause an unbelievable level of disruption to accepted and legal court processes.

Their problem is, they believe no laws of any kind should apply to them, and they believe all taxes are illegal.

So they want all the infrastructure that civilised society offers, but don't want to pay for it. "Sovereign citizen" is a concept born out of the gun-toting craziness of the hicks of backwoods America.

They place their faith in firearms, and nothing else. They claim they have faith in God, but they don't trust him either, so that's the reason they worship guns.

As in the case of Dezi Freeman, we've seen where that idiocy leads.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

So they want all the infrastructure that civilised society offers, but don't want to pay for it.

The big cities get all the infrastructure, the bush misses out.

[octave]

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

The big cities get all the infrastructure, the bush misses out.

The country town I lived in had a small hospital that was appropriately sized for the town's population. The library was not as big as a city library, but quite good for the small population. A police station with one police officer.   The road we lived on was 8km of pretty rough gravel and was only graded once a year, but again, we didn't really expect that the rate payers would build and maintain a city-standard road for 30 people.

 

The reality is that if the area you live in were to have all of the infrastructure of a capital city, then you can expect more and more people to move to the country, destroying the very things that make living in a remote area good. 

 

Anywhere you live is going to have pros and cons.   When we lived on a bush block, we loved the solitude. The last thing we wanted was a highway going past our place, or a large hospital next door or a supermarket. Perhaps an international airport?

 

  Not having the facilities was the price paid for solitude; everything has a price. Now I live in the burbs, lots of infrastructure, but I have to share it with a bigger population. I was happy living in the country, and now I am happy living in the burbs.

 

I am sure there are always cases where a small town needs better medical facilities or whatever.  It will always be the case that providing infrastructure to remote areas will be more expensive.  

[Marty_d]

10 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Now you're talking rubbish.

Oh the irony!