R0bert's post of Thursday, 28 April 2011 at 7:07:39 AM starts off by ACCURATELY quoting Belly saying:

"Belly, "I can not quite understand
Forrest's whole in put here""

I would endorse absolutely every point that R0bert made in that post, as far as those points go. There could be more similarly relevant points made. One such was made by R0bert in his subsequent post of Thursday, 28 April 2011 at 9:25:01 AM, in which he said:

"I do think that one of the downsides
to our political system is that it
attracts people with an obsession with
power. To get the most power seems to
require a lot of brutal and dishonest
behavior."

The first objective of my input here is beginning to be achieved, and that is, that the enormously important and interesting topic of what, in respect to Australian politics, I call 'the South Australian connection' (somewhat analogously to 'The French Connection') which SM has perhaps unknowingly opened up, is just beginning to be DISCUSSED, instead of being reflexively emotively reacted to by posters reading things into the topic that are not necessarily there.

Belly also says in his post of Thursday, 28 April 2011 at 5:40:21 AM, the same one from which R0bert quoted:

"... and in my view [it is] quite right
to say SM flames me."

Belly, I don't agree that s/he does, at least not in this thread. I can however understand how s/he could be getting up your nose, because s/he is sure starting to get up mine, and its all to do with the misquotation of other posters, in this case me. I was quoted, in SM's post of Tuesday, 26 April 2011 at 6:26:49 AM, as using the words "the alleged influence of Opus Dei". Nowhere did I use them! What I did say was "... the alleged influence of a 'religious right' faction, one having supposed Opus Dei connections, over government policy formation!". A quite important distinction in meaning.

I find you RObert guilty of white washing SM.
Show me, just one, who from with in a party takes to that party as often as I flog mine.
Tell me of one from your side of the fence,who so very often looks at the faults from within.
Lets look, dirty stuff uncalled for, but no way I can not sling the flaming back.
Did you note the cover up, the near silence when your former leader Billy Mackie sneddon died in the arms of a prostitute?
Tell me your view on a very much out of it Malchom Frazer appearing in the lobby of his hotel without his trousers.
Rumors about a good man, your leader John Grey Gorten and more than one film star.
An uncharitable, foolish man would say your leadership has form for betraying its wifes.
OH Harold Holt! ,good man liked a bit extra too.
Yes hate runs near the surface in your party, the loony left and some times mine, supported by people like SM, REVIEW HIS POST HISTORY, it is provocation with planning in advance.

Despite some back tracking on SM's original claims I believe the intent of the post was not missed by most posters.

RObert many people who go into politics do aspire to some level of influence and power but I also believe many go into the field because of ideological beliefs and a willingness to serve their electorate.

That might sound twee, but what happens once people are successful in politics is many are pulled into the vortex - they are pressured to tow the party line or play one-upmanship within the framework of some faux-moral high ground. Using phrases like "keeping the government to account" when they really mean "spin the government in bad light". Good policies should bring a bipartisan approach but they rarely do.

Politics is a dirty game sometimes and no side has a claim to any moral high ground.

The only way to change this power relationship is to involve the citizenry more in government. That removes the power from the few to the many including reducing the impact of influential lobby groups that don't always match the interests of the citizenry. There is no such thing as a perfect system, but the system we have encourages the type of content this thread epitomises.

Pelican I agree with pretty much everything in that last post.

Belly I don't like what SM appears to be doing here but I that does not mean that I dismiss out of hand one of the central points relating to paedophilia.

I can't see any sign of a pattern in the incidents mentioned earlier. The three I know of who have had convictions against them all seem to have committed their crimes in very different circumstances.

I suspect that some of those outraged at what SM appears to have been doing here would have a somewhat more muted response if several White House staffers from the Bush era had been convicted of similar offenses and someone was using the same tactic to smear that government.

The main response to SM's point seems to have been outrage that the question could be asked rather than any attempt to show SM to be overplaying a small statistical blip.

I don't think the convictions of 3 labor politicians Australia wide over what I guess to be a 10 year period indicates a pattern.

R0bert

Here is a nonpartisan joke that can be enjoyed by all parties:

While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St Peter at the Pearly Gates. "Welcome to Heaven," says St Peter. "What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one day in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity." And with that St Peter escorts the MP to the elevator which goes down to hell.

The doors open and the MP finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are many of his friends. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar, and champagne. Finally it's time to go and everyone gives the MP a hearty farewell and wave as the elevator rises. The elevator goes up and the door opens on heaven where St Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit heaven." 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud playing their harps and singing. Before long St Peter returns. "Well, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The MP answers, "I would never have said it before, but I think I would be better off in hell." St Peter escorts the MP to the elevator and the MP goes down to hell.

The doors open. The MP finds himself in a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees his friends dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

"I don't understand," stammers the MP. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse and we ate lobster, caviar, drank champagne. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?" The devil smiles and replies, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted!"

Love Lexi's punchline:

"The devil smiles and replies, "Yesterday
we were campaigning. Today you voted!""

Thank you for with humour effectively returning the focus of the thread to the double-barrelled question posed in the opening post:

"Are these the real labor values, and are
the populist slogans they spout on Jobs,
social justice etc simply populist blurb
to get them elected?"

I think it can be safely said that the arguably deliberately provocative attributions implied as perhaps being 'Labor values' in the first barrel of the double-barrelled question have been answered by most posters in the negative. That leaves the second part of the question to be dealt with. Let's see whether the information that is coming to light as a consequence of the shock resignation of Bernard Finnigan after only 72 days in the SA Ministry, the only news that really gave this topic any current legs to run with, helps us answer this latter part of the question.

Belly, you can carry on winning the battle with regard to the value of the evidence constituted by the posting history of SM as showing those posts as being one-eyed if you want, but it might be at the cost of losing the war. I, and I think many others, have long considered them to be so, which is a major reason I have seldom posted to his/her topics. Just look instead at the history of Bernard Finnigan as exemplifying just about everything you have ever posted as being wrong with Labor's performance in government. You, a work-experienced union representative and later organiser with a lifetime of experience, with the integrity (along with many others) to insist on opposing the electricity fire-sale sell-off, have been rewarded (by your own party organisation) by being thrown on the scrap heap.

Finnigan, 39, since he finished his Bachelor of Arts at university, looks as if he has not done one day's work in his life outside of being a full-time party apparatchik. Into Parliament in a dead man's shoes. Careerist.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/backroom-mp-bernard-finnigans-rapid-rise-and-fall/story-fn2sdwup-1226043111535