Today, whispers that a senior Liberal MP won’t see out his term, old Adelaide decides the peasants are revolting, selective outrage, gonad-gate (with bonus pictorial aid) and much more.

Pulling the pin?

Earlier this month 47 House of Assembly MPs and 22 Legislative Councils MPs rolled back into parliament, most of them somewhat surprised they were still in government or still on the opposition benches.

So, how many of the 69 will last the distance?

Liberal Party insiders suggest that generational change has been pushed to the top of the agenda and Upper House veteran Rob Lucas has been asked if he really wants to hang around for another full term.

The answer, the sources say, was “perhaps not”.

We don’t believe that the always cagey-Lucas would ever be that definitive; but the prospect of serving more time in opposition may not be as appealing as the almost certain move back into government might have been.

Watch that space.

Across the other side of the political divide there are rumblings about Labor’s former minister Paul Caica who won his marginal seat, but couldn’t re-gather the confidence of his colleagues to get back into the ministry.

It’s being suggested that when Caica’s superannuation pension entitlement kicks in on February 9, 2015, he might do a Rob Kerin and pull on a by-election.

We don’t believe that one either. Labor would move hell and earth to make sure its hold on power is maintained.

And that puts Caica in a very strong position. Watch that space also.

Stick with me Rob: Steven Marshall with Rob Lucas during the election campaign.

The peasants are revolting

The concept of the Burnside Moat is gathering popularity in other leafy Adelaide inner-city burghs.

The moat, as regular readers will know, is an as-yet untested concept designed to keep the poor and uncouth out of Burnside – perhaps by filling the breach with a flood of austere unwooded chardonnay.

St Peters folk might be considering a similar concept, after they became aghast at the idea of fast food chain Hungry Jack’s building in their area.

The ABC’s excellent Caroline Winter elicited these choice quotes from locals:

“It’s going to create enormous trouble with teenagers and all that getting drunk outside and all that and creating a disturbance,” one resident said.

“People are concerned about late-night hoons roaring down Harrow Road at 2:00am, coming to a screeching stop at the petrol station to go and in and get their fast food and also the experience is where Hungry Jack’s go in you get a lot more litter in the street,” another said.

It’s all rather reminiscent of certain city councillors accusing “people from the suburbs” of littering up the streets around Adelaide Oval.

Why don’t we dig a moat around the entire inner Adelaide area? Admission only on flashing your old school tie.

A new urban design concept for St Peters.

Hyper-bowl

The dear old Advertiser followed up a story in this upright online organ this week, in which Stephen Yarwood developed a rather robust metaphor about the attitude of Adelaide drivers to cyclists.

InDaily’s story was based on the entertaining Another Boring Thursday Night in Adelaide podcast, during which Yarwood engaged in some hyperbole to illustrate the ridiculously high pitch of tensions between car drivers and pedallists in Adelaide.

“I could have sworn apartheid went out in the 20th century,” he said. “But apparently cyclists are evil and must be rid from the surface of the earth.”

The Tiser felt the need to approach the African Communities Council for its views on his use of the term – which they duly condemned.

Strange. The News Corp newshounds didn’t see the need to do similar when their columnist Peter Goers asked this question: “Is there an aquatic apartheid in SA? Are poor kids less likely to swim at all and less likely to swim safely and well because they can’t afford private swimming lessons?  Yes, alas, yes. Damn it.”

Nor, did they seek an outraged response in August last year, when they reported that the Property Council wanted to end “retail apartheid” in South Australia.

But, then again, neither of these examples involve anything quite as heinous as building a bike lane on Frome Street, a crime for which Yarwood should never be forgiven.

For the “Boring” boys’ rather scathing analysis of the Tiser and InDaily’s treatment of the Yarwood comments, listen to the podcast here. It starts at about 9 minutes.

No gonads required

Liberal frontbencher Duncan McFetridge didn’t get the memo about going easy on independent MP Geoff Brock, whose affections the Liberals need to turn if they are to topple Labor’s minority government.

In a debate about equity of access to workers’ compo for CFS and MFS firefighters, McFetridge suggested that Brock had changed his mind on the issue after getting his gig as a minister.

“You have got to have gonads to do this job, Mr Speaker, and I do not believe the member for Frome has got the gonads to stand up to the Premier and say, ‘Premier, you’re wrong on this. I am going to support the CFS volunteers….”

The statement attracted a point of order from Labor MP Leesa Vlahos who described the “anatomical language” as “highly offensive”.

Speaker Michael Atkinson was considered in his response: “The member for Morphett told the house that one needed gonads to be a member of the house. Now, I imagine that many members of the house disagree with that. I imagine the member for Adelaide disagrees with it, but he is allowed to say it.”

McFetridge, a vet with extensive anatomical knowledge, feared he was being misrepresented.

“Gonads do refer to ovaries as well as testicles,” he pointed out. “Mr Speaker, had I said, ‘Does the member for Frome have the balls to come down here?’, that would have been out of order.”

Later, Atkinson clarified – rather redundantly – that working gonads aren’t entirely necessary to the work of the House.

“I thank the member for Morphett for correcting me and the house on what the term ‘gonads’ embraces. He is, of course, correct. Nevertheless, I think the suggestion that, unless one has a working reproductive system, one would not be a member of this parliament is perhaps going too far.”

News flash: you don’t need a functioning pair to be a politician.