Seven weeks out from the state election, The Advertiser has published a poll of state voting intention, conducted on Wednesday to make hay out of the paper’s win on the blog comments issue. It finds Labor still leading at 52-48, compared with 56.8-43.2 at the 2006 election and 57-43 at the previous Advertiser poll in December. After distribution of the undecided and otherwise non-responsive, the primary vote figures are 38 per cent Labor, 39 per cent Liberal and 9 per cent Greens. Consistent with all other polling, Isobel Redmond has remarkably good personal ratings, and was deemed by 51 per cent of respondents to be more trustworthy than Mike Rann. The sample as usual is on the low side: 538 respondents, for a margin of error of over 4 per cent. Full tables here.
433 comments on “Advertiser: 52-48 to Labor in SA”
Has shown no remorse and has tried to smear the victim afterwards. Not sure if he has any priors.
Also, attacking public figures is not something society should smile upon.
You’re right, they’ll probably hang him.
[Also, attacking public figures is not something society should smile upon.]
That’s true but in this case, Rann being Premier was incidental to the reason Phillips attacked him. That kind of thing happens all the time and I gather the courts are pretty lenient if you are a jilted husband/wife etc.
[That’s true but in this case, Rann being Premier was incidental to the reason Phillips attacked him. That kind of thing happens all the time and I gather the courts are pretty lenient if you are a jilted husband/wife etc.]
Not to mention it is just simple assault, not aggravated assault, as he did not use a knife or gun, or threaten to kill him. Sure it’s not excusable, but it’s not something to go to the Supreme Court over either.
Please, Phillips allegedly attacked the Premier in a public place in front of many witnesses while he was performing his job as Premier.
One might say the whole intention was to assault and humiliate a public figure because of a personal grudge. The fact that Rann is Premier was likely very much a part of his considerations for perpetrating the heinous events.
I find it amusing that GG says Rann was “perfroming his job as Premier” at the time.
I thought he was there because it was a $1000 per plate fundraising dinner for the ALP. Is that what the people of SA are paying him for these days?
I think Phillips was at another function at the wine centre and saw Rann and snapped. I don’t think it was pre-meditated.
It’s nothing to get too worked up about. There are literally thousands of assaults every year in SA with much more serious injuries.
I’m certainly not excusing it but the courts see that of stuff every day. And as bob said the charge has been downgraded to a simple assault.
I’m sticking with a suspended sentence.
I’m not particularly worked up. I am surprised that you seem to be doing all you can to excuse a physical assults in such a light way.
You have a problem with the Premier attending a political function as the Premier? Should he have gone incognito as Member No xxxx.
No-one really got hurt. And with a rolled-up magazine it couldn’t have gotten too bad. When you’ve seen hundreds of facial fractures etc from assaults go largely unpunished, it puts it in perspective.
“No-one really got hurt”.
Nothing a plastic surgeon can’t fix, eh.
I suspect you really want the perp to be vindicated. That would probably rationalise all your prurient comments earlier in the piece. The gossip value has obviously been of great fulfilment to you and your fellow Adelaidians.
I just wonder if your level of insoucience would be the same if it had been you or your wife that had been assaulted?
No excuses for Philips attacking Rann years after a marriage breakup. Just stupid rage which the courts don’t look kindly on. And trying to drag up justification will tend to increase penalty. The really weird bit is why MC is trying to win back favour with ex hubbie by being his cats paw in attacking Rann. Where are the psychologists when we need them.
[Nothing a plastic surgeon can’t fix, eh.]
That’s the point. He didn’t need a plastic surgeon or any medical care at all.
Chanto promises to keep haunting Rann until the election day.
If it made any difference whether the Libs or Labor got in, I’d be getting worried.
[In true “woman scorned” theatre, this new political nemesis has vowed to continue plaguing Mr Rann until state election day on March 20.
“Yes, I will,” she declared at a press conference she called at a Burnside park yesterday.]
There were clearly red welts on his face post the bashing incident. I assume there would be pain and some bruising.
Every step of the way you seem to want to underplay this assault.
[ In true “woman scorned” theatre, this new political nemesis has vowed to continue plaguing Mr Rann until state election day on March 20.
“Yes, I will,” she declared at a press conference she called at a Burnside park yesterday.]
I thought she said she wasn’t targetting Rann but at the same time she wouldn’t stop living her life and if she happened to be at the same place Rann was then so be it. Now she’s changed lines. What a media tart.
[Every step of the way you seem to want to underplay this assault.]
Yes there was pain and bruising. The bruising was worse than I would have expected from the description of the attack but Phillips is a very strong guy. He must have really belted Rann.
But it’s just bruising from a magazine.
Chris Judd did worse when he eye-gouged Rischitelli and I don’t see him up on an assault charge.
Ah the “is that a unicorn over there?” play.
Excellent article on Atkinson’s comment censorship debacle.
The answer to Dios nonchalance is simple, real simple.
IT WASNT A LIBERAL PREMIER
Our betters always look after their own,everyone else can go get stuffed
[The answer to Dios nonchalance is simple, real simple.
IT WASNT A LIBERAL PREMIER]
I really do feel for Labor rusteds when they’re using one of the things they hated about Howard, the “you’re either with us or against us” line.
Somehow, in the heads of Labor rusteds, not approving of a Labor Premier somehow equals to being a Liberal supporter.
It’s bizarre. It really is. Perhaps it’s just another piece of the insecure jigsaw puzzle that Labor rusteds are so wedded to. Sad really.
We probably agree on Rann’s trustworthiness but honestly, Phillips is a thug with a reputation in the building construction industry. If he used a rolled up newspaper it was only to avoid being charged with assault with a weapon.
I find Chantelois’ behaviour increasingly dubious. Why ask for CCTV footage now, five years later?? If she thought she was wronged, why not complain five years ago, when there might have been some chance of getting the footage?
Why dredge it up now? Is it because her estranged (but still wealthy) husband is up on assault charges, and she can milk the publicity after being paid for her story? Rational skepticism would cause one to question both her claims and motives.
[Why dredge it up now?]
Because Channel Seven issued an apology to Rann, and Chantelois didn’t want to see Rann gaining any momentum from it.
She’s a media tart who has personal grudges only she and Rann knows.
On some days the guards would even deign communicate with Hess,just to see what his twisted mind came out with.
It is not recorded if ever he came out with comments about pizza.
Gus, everyone has moved on but you. If you’ve got to cling to that, it’s obvious your debating points are null and vacuous.
You’re being whipped by a warm lettuce leaf.
Michael Atkinson is giving people more reason not to vote Labor every day:
[ATTORNEY-GENERAL Michael Atkinson has told a national television show he and his family are more at risk from video gamers than bikies.]
Rann should demand that Atkinson not say ANYTHING to ANY media organisation between now and the day after election day.
[Rann should demand that Atkinson not say ANYTHING to ANY media organisation between now and the day after election day.]
Agreed, but it won’t happen.
I’m well aware of Phillip’s reputation.
Chanto is pissed off that Rann didn’t admit to the affair and is feeling guilty her ex-hubby is up on charges as a result of her actions. She’s clearly got a taste for the media and is getting quite good at it. She got an axe to grind and she’s going to keep grinding it.
Each time there is a positive Rann story (like Ch7 apologising) she’s going to sink the boot in again. Evidently the Casino don’t release their CCTV to third parties and Parlt don’t keep theirs 5 years.
Atkinson is now a source of derision amongst voters. Rann should send him on a long holiday.
I saw this very funny suggestion on AdelaideNow.
[I suggest that paper should be banned in South Australia so these notes can not be left under Michael Atkinson’s door]
[A FEDERAL Coalition Government would sell Medibank Private to pay off Labor’s debt, Opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey says. ]
Ahhh, more selloffs. But I guess this isn’t the point, anything to keep on message about debt I take it…
crap, wrong thread!
[Because Channel Seven issued an apology to Rann, and Chantelois didn’t want to see Rann gaining any momentum from it.
She’s a media tart who has personal grudges only she and Rann knows.]
I thought you said Rann should resign for having sex on taxpayers time in a taxpayer funded office?
Diogs and others,
I find it humorous that you and the self appointed intelligentsia are so off the mark in your attitudes and comments regarding politicians like Atkinson.
The recent poll showed about 80% popular support for Conroy’s net filter. It demonstrates that the wider community (to whom he is talking) are perhaps concerned about their families and the infiltration of unwanted violence and pornography.
Of course you can point to the Murdoch inspired anti Atkinson barrage earlier this month. However, in reality, this is unlikely to damage his family credentials with the voters.
The Newspoll this morning showed only 5% of people do not believe in global warming. Yet, the MSM and the hundreds of anti CC comments that I’ve read over the last year or so, would indicate the opposite was the fact.
I suppose the message is that commenters on blogs like PB don’t necessarily represent or understand the issues that are resonating with the broader voting population.
[I thought you said Rann should resign for having sex on taxpayers time in a taxpayer funded office?]
I don’t believe I said he should resign over it, but I did say there was a valid case to be made that he behaved inappropriately if he did indeed have sex in his office during working hours.
[The recent poll showed about 80% popular support for Conroy’s net filter.]
Anyone can get any stat depending on how a question is put.
I could conduct a poll asking whether people support their internet experience being censored by a team of government beurocrats and I’m sure I’d get a useless result as well. Not to mention the fact that bad public policy is so regardless of the public support it has.
Ummm. 22% said they don’t believe in global warming, not 5%.
[I suppose the message is that commenters on blogs like PB don’t necessarily represent or understand the issues that are resonating with the broader voting population.]
True. But we did get the election censorship issue right. Atkinson caved on that one on the same day.
[True. But we did get the election censorship issue right. Atkinson caved on that one on the same day.]
Never have I seen such a backflip so embarrassing… video here:
The best bit is right at the end. The question, the comment, and his face. The face is complete gold. Never has he had his pride beaten in to a bloody pulp as he did over this.
[Ummm. 22% said they don’t believe in global warming, not 5%.]
Do you personally believe that climate change is
Total caused by human activity – 94%
Or, do you believe climate change is not caused by human activity at all – 5%
Uncommitted – 1%
Incorrect. Look at the question before it.
Do you personally believe or not believe that climate change is occurring?
Not believe 22% (up from 12% in 7/09)
Your question was only asked of those 74% who believed CC was occurring.
It’s all on your link.
Ahhhhhhh. Thanks Dio. I thought the result was a bit extreme…
So has the pollocracy reached any consensus on possible outcomes? Would anything other than a reduced ALP majority or a hung parliament be very unlikely?
Apologies, I clearly went to the wrong question. However, the point remains the same. The 22% carry on as if they are the 73%.
The we stopped Atkinson meme is a figment of your fertile imagination.
The Government cut their losses because of the Murdoch attack. I don’t think Atkinson will be damaged outside the frothy mouthed zealots on PB. You’ll be surprised how popular this sort of pro family politician is. I’d never heard of him before the last week or so. Now he has a profile as that will remain long after the issue du jour has passed.
Remember, all publicity is good publicity in the end.
Atkinson specifically said the comments on blogs were the reason he pulled the legislation, so he must share my fertile imagination.
Atkinson has always had a very high profile in SA and is detested by both sides of parliament and a good number of the population.
And why do you keep calling me GG? It’s getting unnerving.
[Atkinson specifically said the comments on blogs were the reason he pulled the legislation, so he must share my fertile imagination.]
Correct – it was the collective response, of which we were a part of.
If you are lucky, you don’t look anything like me.
Heysen@391 – My personal view is this:
a) Worst case scenario (something approaching a hung parliament)
Very unlikely and would take almost daily stuff-ups by labor from now until March 20.
b) Best case-scenario (nothing changes)
This would take labor to have a perfect campaign and several liberal stuff-ups. Despite what many people say, the liberals are very vulnerable with their position on the RAH.
c) Most likely scenario (labor lose 1 or 2 seats and 3-4% of primary vote, some of which flows back via green prefernces)
Labor has lots of votes to burn in a number of suburban electorates with margins of 10-15%.
William – you may already be thinking about this but suggestion that you make sure this thread/post doesn’t get wiped off by a couple of other new ones as clearly there is ongoing discussion which has ceased on most of the others above it.
[ Remember, all publicity is good publicity in the end.]
I must keep that in mind.
Sounds like good avice.
[BIKIES will target polling booths at the state election with a Poker Run aimed at pressuring Premier Mike Rann and his Government. ]
I wonder if they realise that this will probably help the government get re-elected rather than not…
What? No more one way expressway – what is South Australia coming to !!
Comments are closed.