On the ABC now Quentin Bryce is seeking advice more to come

bwood1946 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:18pm:

On the ABC now Quentin Bryce is seeking advice more to come

She's probably stuck in the middle with not a clue as to what to do. She should send us back to the polls in the hopes of fixing this mess.

But if we go back to the polls, the Liberals will win. I already know that.

Vanessa wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:37pm:

bwood1946 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 5:18pm: On the ABC now Quentin Bryce is seeking advice more to come She's probably stuck in the middle with not a clue as to what to do. She should send us back to the polls in the hopes of fixing this mess. But if we go back to the polls, the Liberals will win. I already know that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2991086.htm?section=justin

Just unbelievable, you mean to say she's seeking independent advice as to whether or not her familial biased self should be allowed to determine our nations next government?

;D   Is she for real?

Either Labor concede defeat or we head back to the polls.

End of story.

8-)

She could go to the Queen ?

Nah, people have had a shock at seeing what a protest vote will deliver: Abbott in a sea of nazi salutes.

It isn’t up to the GG anyway: she gives Gillard a chance to form a government, if she can and survives a motion of no confidence Julia will be PM for the next 3 years then as incumbent will win in 2013. If Gillard cannot form a working majority Abbott will be given a go. If he can’t do it (survive a no confidence motion) THEN we will go to the polls.

But Julia will stitch up a workable majority.

mellie wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:43pm:

Vanessa wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 5:37pm: bwood1946 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 5:18pm: On the ABC now Quentin Bryce is seeking advice more to come She's probably stuck in the middle with not a clue as to what to do. She should send us back to the polls in the hopes of fixing this mess. But if we go back to the polls, the Liberals will win. I already know that. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2991086.htm?section=justin Just unbelievable, you mean to say she's seeking independent advice as to whether or not her bias should be allowed to determine our nations next government? ;D   Is he for real? Either Labor concede defeat or we head back to the polls. End of story. 8-)

Why should Labor conceed defeat? They both have the same number of seats, so no one should be conceeding anything just yet.

Not the same number of seats: 72 Labor, 70 coalition, 3 former Nat MPs, Andrew Wilkie, Bandt and 5 undecided.

Darwin wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:47pm:

Not the same number of seats: 72 Labor, 70 coalition, 3 former Nat MPs, Andrew Wilkie, Bandt and 5 undecided.

Surely they have some idea about the undecided ones. It doesn't take that long.

Both parties should just work together and govern together as a team. They can't hate each other that much. They need to get over themselves and work something out.

Oh yeah, and when Quentin Bryce goes to the Queen for advice, she might want to alert her Majesty to Gillards post mortem plans, of which is to form a republic as soon as the queen croaks.

Yes, I'm sure that will go down well.


8-)..The question is, who will Quentin Bryce serve, her majesty as GG or her sanctimonious treacherous son in law Bill Shorten who wants to be Australia's first president?

Did you guys know  Bill Shortens best career move was knocking up Quentin Bryces daughter?

This and knew that he dumped his wife at a football game shortly after finding out she was pregnant?



I'm sure Quentin wants the father of her grandchild to succeed this election, but I doubt the Queen will be overly impressed with their familial vulture tendency's and or how just days before an election, Gillard told Australians what she had planned for when the queen died.

.....

Nice touch..

8-)

..A touch down even Bill?

;)

There's not really a mess, just we're not used to this happening, seems it's commonplace elsewhere, in Europe, Canada etc.

The independents will work it out like they did in England. We've got to give them a chance. They probably won't want to risk losing their own seat in a new election.

The final votes haven't been counted yet, so plenty of time to chit chat.

I for one hope the Libs get the nod.    This will be their big chance to put their money where their mouths are.   Stop the boats?  Not a chance.   Basic broadband -well some independants are not happy about that!   axe the super clinics - great in principle but at what cost?  

Let the Libs jump into the farter with the independants and greens - but who will up being the 'bottom' in the relationship and who will be the top?

ethelsidebottom wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 6:00pm:

I for one hope the Libs get the nod.    This will be their big chance to put their money where their mouths are.   Stop the boats?  Not a chance.   Basic broadband -well some independants are not happy about that!   axe the super clinics - great in principle but at what cost?   Let the Libs jump into the farter with the independants and greens - but who will up being the 'bottom' in the relationship and who will be the top?

He will be screwed. All his costings will be blown out the window. Imagine him negotiating with the greens on human rights? The guy who said climate change was 'crap' will be negotiating for an ETS. Imagine him having to tell the miners that he has to tax them after all.

It will make for an hilarious outcome.

This idea of a republic after lizzie karks it was first floated IIRC byTurnbull.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 6:09pm:

ethelsidebottom wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 6:00pm: I for one hope the Libs get the nod.    This will be their big chance to put their money where their mouths are.   Stop the boats?  Not a chance.   Basic broadband -well some independants are not happy about that!   axe the super clinics - great in principle but at what cost?   Let the Libs jump into the farter with the independants and greens - but who will up being the 'bottom' in the relationship and who will be the top? He will be screwed. All his costings will be blown out the window. Imagine him negotiating with the greens on human rights? The guy who said climate change was 'crap' will be negotiating for an ETS. Imagine him having to tell the miners that he has to tax them after all. It will make for an hilarious outcome.

Indeed, it could be worth giving them enough rope - just for the Karma factor, eh!?

This country needs to keep a monarchy for exactly situations like this. That is exactly what it is there for. Although most people don't really think so, or see this in the total perspective for what it is, Australia is a new country and a new experiment. It has always had a very strong undercurrent of extreme leftism. This situation has been evolving now since Federation in 1901, and this situation is just another step and result in the process. Australia is an experiment. If there was no monarchy of this country now, as you can see to "take the heat off" just by virtue of being able to consider that "Quentin Bryce is seeking advice", then in other countries, situations like this can descend very quickly into civil and military conflict. That won't happen here in all likelihood, because there is a monarch was has the legal right to appoint a government. It may come to that, and I hope it does, because this country at present is vulnerable. Any country in this sort of governmental stalemate is. We may need an interim military Commonwealth Guard if this cannot be resolved and resolved functionally.  We have absolutely top class and sensible military commanders more than capable of seeing to the job, and more capable than most of the civil politicians actually.

Yes, what we need is an interim military government.
Martial law is the best.
Curfews, public executions and lots of troops with guns wandering about asking for ID.

Australians are not like that and those things would not happen here. Our military is excellent as are the Australian Chiefs of Staff, and they are responsible to the Monarch as well.
If this continues, especially if there is a global meltdown on the political and economic front, and we are left with this mess, we will be viewed as vulnerable.
We need to be able to show a cogent government, even a military administration in the face of a situation like that.
If democracy has failed in this country, you still need a government.
The only other option is a military protectorate in the interim.
I hope Quentin Bryce obtains advice on this. Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston and the joint Chiefs of Staff would be excellent interim leaders. They are gentlemen of the highest calibre.

In fact, I think people should email Buckingham Palace immediately, as  concerned Australians, to ask the Queen to do exactly that.

What's it like to take all this so seriously?

I can only imagine it must suck.

it sucks because it IS so serious, mate. You are living in a country that has some of the most valuable resources in the world, a tiny population and no bloody government. You need to get your mind out of the computer games, mate, and serious up. This is not a game, it is a real problem.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 6:39pm:

This country needs to keep a monarchy for exactly situations like this. That is exactly what it is there for. Although most people don't really think so, or see this in the total perspective for what it is, Australia is a new country and a new experiment. It has always had a very strong undercurrent of extreme leftism. This situation has been evolving now since Federation in 1901, and this situation is just another step and result in the process. Australia is an experiment. If there was no monarchy of this country now, as you can see to "take the heat off" just by virtue of being able to consider that "Quentin Bryce is seeking advice", then in other countries, situations like this can descend very quickly into civil and military conflict. That won't happen here in all likelihood, because there is a monarch was has the legal right to appoint a government. It may come to that, and I hope it does, because this country at present is vulnerable. Any country in this sort of governmental stalemate is. We may need an interim military Commonwealth Guard if this cannot be resolved and resolved functionally.  We have absolutely top class and sensible military commanders more than capable of seeing to the job, and more capable than most of the civil politicians actually.

That is total rubbish. The GG (or a president witht he same powers) is all we need to resolve such simple matters as this. Many other countries have hung parliaments at EVERY election and they survive quite ok. It is a new experience for us but it probably wont happen for another 50 years after this time!

Quote:

Surely they have some idea about the undecided ones. It doesn't take that long

- Vanessa

Actually it does Vanessa, if they are very, very close that is.
The cut off for postal votes is not until next Tuesday, so some seats may not be decided until after that date.

It is noteworthy to see all the coalition supporters who just assumed the independents would side with Abbot, and claimed victory, on election night,, in as undignified and ungracious way as could be imagined, now bleating about intervention by the Queen, and/or The Army, and that is truly pathetic.
We have constitutional laws that define the procedure from here in, and they will be followed, as they should be, irrespective of the appalling bad will and lack of grace displayed by so many Coalition supporters.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 6:51pm:

Australians are not like that and those things would not happen here. Our military is excellent as are the Australian Chiefs of Staff, and they are responsible to the Monarch as well. If this continues, especially if there is a global meltdown on the political and economic front, and we are left with this mess, we will be viewed as vulnerable. We need to be able to show a cogent government, even a military administration in the face of a situation like that. If democracy has failed in this country, you still need a government. The only other option is a military protectorate in the interim. I hope Quentin Bryce obtains advice on this. Air Chief Marshall Angus Houston and the joint Chiefs of Staff would be excellent interim leaders. They are gentlemen of the highest calibre.

Good grief. that is even STUPID than your last post! we all ready have a functioning govt - the labor one. without a parliament in place they are extremely limited in what they can do but they are still functioning for the at most 2 weeks this wil take to resolve itself. stop panicing, you sound silly!

Quote:

it sucks because it IS so serious, mate. You are living in a country that has some of the most valuable resources in the world, a tiny population and no bloody government. You need to get your mind out of the computer games, mate, and serious up. This is not a game, it is a real problem.

Nup. I'm still not worried.

Give it a few days, a week, two weeks.... things will sort themselves out. While we wait we have a caretaker government.

Whoever ends up in the top job... Liberals, Labor.... and a few independents.... suck it and see how it works out for while...

No matter what happens..... life goes on.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 7:04pm:

Quote: Surely they have some idea about the undecided ones. It doesn't take that long - Vanessa Actually it does Vanessa, if they are very, very close that is. The cut off for postal votes is not until next Tuesday, so some seats may not be decided until after that date. It is noteworthy to see all the coalition supporters who just assumed the independents would side with Abbot, and claimed victory, on election night,, in as undignified and ungracious way as could be imagined, now bleating about intervention by the Queen, and/or The Army, and that is truly pathetic. We have constitutional laws that define the procedure from here in, and they will be followed, as they should be, irrespective of the appalling bad will and lack of grace displayed by so many Coalition supporters.

not ALL lib supporters. in fact, it only sounds like one. and i will trade you him for Equitist in the 'extremist crazy' stakes any day!

Tell Quentin Bryce, she's the one seeking advice.

There is no guarantee that any outcome here will be stable, and no guarantee that another election or another one after that will show any different result or one that is acceptable to everyone.

It is not a matter of panic at all, it is simply a matter of considering what the options are.

Democracy is an experiment, the people need to see that it succeeds. Prior to democracies, there was monarchical government. What is so outlandish about that? It is historical fact; monarchical governments used the military and a bureaucracy, instead of a parliament.
Very simple.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 7:06pm:

Nup. I'm still not worried. Give it a few days, a week, two weeks.... things will sort themselves out. While we wait we have a caretaker government. Whoever ends up in the top job... Liberals, Labor.... and a few independents.... suck it and see how it works out for while... No matter what happens..... life goes on.

Exactly! this is not some tinpot 3rd world pseudo democracy like Fiji. we have greatly entrenched rules and conventions for such times as these. I would support Gilalrd for PM before Id support a military govt. Stiff that Id support Bob Brown (ugh) for PM over that as well.

Talk about some insanity!!!!

don't panic! We are not Fiji, we have an excellent, competent, professional and very humanitarian military in all services. AND, we are lucky enough to have a Monarch who has the right to protect us by allowing an interim government.
I would very much welcome that development right now. It would send an extremely good counterbalance view to the world that we are mature enough and have quality military personnel to entrust our Commonwealth to their care until the civil politicians sort it out.
This has happened before, in 1940 (not that I was around, if that makes you feel any better!), right before the second world war. Then, our military protected us.

see, one of the major problems in this country is all the people who vote for these tin-pot minority parties with stupid, flippant agendas who have no chance whatsoever of getting into government, but who simply fracture the community vote and stop the majors from getting enough to govern in their right.
So, go ahead folks, it's all a big funny game isn't it, you keep voting for all the idiot little parties and you will see that this is the eventual outcome.

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 6:43pm:

Yes, what we need is an interim military government. Martial law is the best. Curfews, public executions and lots of troops with guns wandering about asking for ID.

Open season on lefties?

the military in this country is apolitical. It is simply a disciplined organisation that is task-orientated to protect the country and see to operational functionality. That is all. That is what is needed.
It is not about politics.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 7:18pm:

don't panic! We are not Fiji, we have an excellent, competent, professional and very humanitarian military in all services. AND, we are lucky enough to have a Monarch who has the right to protect us by allowing an interim government. I would very much welcome that development right now. It would send an extremely good counterbalance view to the world that we are mature enough and have quality military personnel to entrust our Commonwealth to their care until the civil politicians sort it out. This has happened before, in 1940 (not that I was around, if that makes you feel any better!), right before the second world war. Then, our military protected us.

you are a moron. military leadership is ONLY the provicne of dictators.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 8:02pm:

the military in this country is apolitical. It is simply a disciplined organisation that is task-orientated to protect the country and see to operational functionality. That is all. That is what is needed. It is not about politics.

You seem to forget that we didnt vote for them. we DID however vote for the labor party at the 2007 election (well not me but the majority did!). until the new election results are sorted out it is only fair and fitting and SAFE for that govt to remain in control. you idea is probably one of the stupidest things Ive ever read on here - and that is one helll of a challenge!

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 7:09pm:

Tell Quentin Bryce, she's the one seeking advice. There is no guarantee that any outcome here will be stable, and no guarantee that another election or another one after that will show any different result or one that is acceptable to everyone. It is not a matter of panic at all, it is simply a matter of considering what the options are. Democracy is an experiment, the people need to see that it succeeds. Prior to democracies, there was monarchical government. What is so outlandish about that? It is historical fact; monarchical governments used the military and a bureaucracy, instead of a parliament. Very simple.

you [insert any and all expletives] moron.

only in dictatorships. Australia is not a dictatorship, it is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The relationship is quite clear.
If a government cannot be formed in the democratic process, the monarch may appoint one, as in a Commonwealth Administration, under the leadership of whoever, as an interim measure.
No problem.
Now start panicking!

you don't vote for an Administrator appointed by the Crown. It happens at local councils all the time when they become dysfunctional.
At the national level, that Administration could be whoever the Crown deems fit to keep order and national security.
You don't vote for the Monarch either, so you wear what is given. That is the law.
If you, as a democratic voter cannot ensure a cogent national government (possibly because a lot of people flippantly vote for stupid little parties that are there just to stir), then the Crown is there to step in and protect the country.
It's not a game, mate.  Learn.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:35pm:

only in dictatorships. Australia is not a dictatorship, it is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. The relationship is quite clear. If a government cannot be formed in the democratic process, the monarch may appoint one, as in a Commonwealth Administration, under the leadership of whoever, as an interim measure. No problem. Now start panicking!

try reading your constitution you idiot. the GG CANNOT just appoint anyone she wants. the only choice of PM has to come from the lower house and anyone cho can form a majority. in practical terms that is only two people - Gillard or Abbott.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:39pm:

you don't vote for an Administrator appointed by the Crown. It happens at local councils all the time when they become dysfunctional. At the national level, that Administration could be whoever the Crown deems fit to keep order and national security. You don't vote for the Monarch either, so you wear what is given. That is the law. If you, as a democratic voter cannot ensure a cogent national government (possibly because a lot of people flippantly vote for stupid little parties that are there just to stir), then the Crown is there to step in and protect the country. It's not a game, mate.  Learn.

You just got EVERYTHING wrong. congratulations. It is a real skill to get every single point in a post totally wrong.

You still don't have a government no matter how angry you get.
You do have a monarch, and if you fail to make the democratic process work,  don't overlook the power and influence of the Crown to step in in emergency situations.
They have great lawyers.
You can be absolutely certain that the powers that be at that level are considering this situation right now. Definitely.
Would you like to join the Army, Navy or Airforce?

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:47pm:

You still don't have a government no matter how angry you get. You do have a monarch, and if you fail to make the democratic process work,  don't overlook the power and influence of the Crown to step in in emergency situations. They have great lawyers. You can be absolutely certain that the powers that be at that level are considering this situation right now. Definitely. Would you like to join the Army, Navy or Airforce?

We still DO have a Government.....Which has all the same powers as any 'interim' government or 'Administrator' would have...

Until the finalisation of the vote count....the last government continues with routine functions...

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:47pm:

You still don't have a government no matter how angry you get. You do have a monarch, and if you fail to make the democratic process work,  don't overlook the power and influence of the Crown to step in in emergency situations. They have great lawyers. You can be absolutely certain that the powers that be at that level are considering this situation right now. Definitely. Would you like to join the Army, Navy or Airforce?

if you had even a moderate understandong of our constitutional democracy you woudl realise that we DO have a government. the government was not dissolved - just parliament and can exist constitutuionally without parliament until November. this govt has no legisltaive powers due to no parliament but it has full executive powers. Convention (ie not law) dictates that no major policies are enacted in this period without the support of the opposition. So just to make it clear...

WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT STILL.

you better go tell Quentin Bryce...she's seeking legal advice.
You better check the historical emergency powers of the Crown when parliament or government cannot be formed.
If it cannot be resolved now or with repeated elections, an appointed Administration will be necessary.

Its actually not dissimilar to the USA which holds it presidential election in november but the govt doesnt change until 10 weeks later. In the meantime the existing president has full executive power but is expected to consult the incoming administration on major matters.

just to clarify the situation further, this situation is not unique. it does in fact happen EVERY TIME and election is called. the govt goes into caretaker mode until some time after the election and the numbers are counted. The opposition leader doesnt take the reigns of office the moment the other leader concedes defeat. the PM remains PM until he/she resigns.

I cant believe people dont get this? it happens EVERY TIME. the only difference this time is that it will take a few more days or a week to do the counting.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:57pm:

you better go tell Quentin Bryce...she's seeking legal advice. You better check the historical emergency powers of the Crown when parliament or government cannot be formed. If it cannot be resolved now or with repeated elections, an appointed Administration will be necessary.

Good greif. She is gettinglegal advice to make sure she does the right thing you idiot. 'legal advice' doesnt mean she doesnt know what to do.

But since you seem to think you are such an expert please refer me to these 'emergency powers' you seem to think exist or at least refer me to an expert who agrees with you.

a president is not a monarch.
It remains to be seen whether a functioning parliament OR government can be formed. If an emergency situation arises...
bring in a military administration.

I think it might be you who thinks you are the expert. In that case, keep researching.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:57pm:

you better go tell Quentin Bryce...she's seeking legal advice. You better check the historical emergency powers of the Crown when parliament or government cannot be formed. If it cannot be resolved now or with repeated elections, an appointed Administration will be necessary.

And?.....
Is it a great surprise that the GG is seeking advice now, IN CASE it ends up as a hung parliment???

She's checking the options that are available.....if neither side can form a Government..

And that is exactly the correct action, at this time, and in this situation....

It shouldn't come to this, but I would totally hate the queen having any say in who is to govern us!  

We would HAVE to go back to the polls if it cannot be sorted. I refuse to be dictated to by Britain!!  
Even the way things are, to be at the mercy of 3 independants like this doesn't seem to be a great idea to me.

These guys are mostly for their own electorates and not so much for the country as a whole, if 1 or 2 of them cross the floor over anything, no matter who they align with in the beginning,  then we will end up with supply blocked and in a double dissolution, this could happen very easily as they are fundamentally not aligned to either party.

Kattell seems very concerned about flying bats up there, if he wants a mandate on flying bats and the gov who ends up in charge, says stuff ur flying bats, and the opposition says hey we hate flying bats as well,  he will cross the floor and we will be in a mess again. lol!

I can see us returning to the polls within the year. IMO

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:59pm:

a president is not a monarch. It remains to be seen whether a functioning parliament OR government can be formed. If an emergency situation arises... bring in a military administration. I think it might be you who thinks you are the expert. In that case, keep researching.

Then prove your point by referring to the constitution or a legal expert who agrees with you. If not, then you are just a pile of crap.

Ive now seen it all... here we have a first rate idiot BEGGING for a military government.

and i thought bill_crany and equitist were insane!

Quentin Bryce... seeking advice...

That's the good sh!t about being the President of Nauru (If you're the President of Nauru) ... You're related to the entire friggin electorate.

"She's checking the options that are available.....if neither side can form a Government.."

yes, that's right, and one of the options to be considered can be the appointment of an interim Administration from neither of the political parties. Who's left to fill that role?

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:03pm:

yes, that's right, and one of the options to be considered can be the appointment of an interim Administration from neither of the political parties. Who's left to fill that role?

One of the glories of a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy is that you dont say 'we cant make up our minds in 3 days so lets appoint someone to the role of dictator'.

But I guess thats what you want right? tanks on the street and machine guns on the corners and some admiral calling the shots in canberra?

are you stupid or what?

fortunately we have a better system in place - the same one we've used for dozens of elections over 109 years.

you don't need tanks, howitzers and machine guns on the street. You just need someone to administer the country. If the constitutional democratic process can't get it done, it has failed and there needs to be an Administration appointed. Simple. Thankfully, there is a monarch to make that appointment.
You will not be dictated by Britain as someone said above, the Queen is Queen of Australia. Isn't that great!
Gough Whitlam, the great Labor luminary achieved that.

Are we seriously discussing a military dictatorship.
Are you guys nuts??????????
Careful what you wish for because the first people lined up against the wall are people unafraid to express an opinion and you'll notice all our ip's are logged here.
You might get a midnight knock at the door.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:09pm:

you don't need tanks, howitzers and machine guns on the street. You just need someone to administer the country. If the constitutional democratic process can't get it done, it has failed and there needs to be an Administration appointed. Simple. Thankfully, there is a monarch to make that appointment. You will not be dictated by Britain as someone said above, the Queen is Queen of Australia. Isn't that great! Gough Whitlam, the great Labor luminary achieved that.

You make the same mistake that other 3rd rate tinpot countries do. when their constitutions are inconvenient to the ruling party they just throw it out. the point in our democracy is that the constitution CANNOT be thrown out under any circumstances other than the majority vote of the people. your idea is probably the most dangerous thing Ive ever heard.

what, a midnight knock at the door, like Kevin Rudd?

Look, a military (or any other) protectorate is NOT a dictatorship, it is an Administration appointed by the Monarch to see to order, functionality and national security until the democratic process can choose a functioning government. You can't run a country without a functioning parliament or government.

The most dangerous thing, weekend, would be to have Australia without a government in the event of a global economic and political meltdown. That appears to be imminent if you have been following informed analysis and commentary around the world. Australia is cushioned from all of that...one of only around three countries (Canada, New Zealand and ourselves) in that situation. Go to another country and see what is really happening.

America is our strongest ally. If they crash, and this appears very possible now, even likely, we are sitting here without a government.
You are kidding that that is not a dangerous situation.

If this cannot be sorted, we will need an Administration, preferably a military one.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:10pm:

Are we seriously discussing a military dictatorship. Are you guys nuts?????????? Careful what you wish for because the first people lined up against the wall are people unafraid to express an opinion and you'll notice all our ip's are logged here. You might get a midnight knock at the door.

Fortunately there is only one idiot here handkering for a military govt. I stil dont know why. I keep asking. It isnt as if the country is at risk or falling apart inthe space of the 5 weeks we have already been under caretaker govt or the next week that wil take to get (hopefully) Abbott into the PM spot.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:13pm:

what, a midnight knock at the door, like Kevin Rudd? Look, a military (or any other) protectorate is NOT a dictatorship, it is an Administration appointed by the Monarch to see to order, functionality and national security until the democratic process can choose a functioning government. You can't run a country without a functioning parliament or government.

Do you not realise that we still have a government or do you disagree?

Whats the difference between a caretaker govt such as currently and a govt when parliament is not sitting? answer? NOTHING. there are conventions on behaviour but they are only guidelines and nothing more. and somehow we managaed to survive quite ok for 100+ years.

The most dangerous thing, weekend, would be to have Australia without a government in the event of a global economic and political meltdown. That appears to be imminent if you have been following informed analysis and commentary around the world. Australia is cushioned from all of that...one of only around three countries (Canada, New Zealand and ourselves) in that situation. Go to another country and see what is really happening.

America is our strongest ally. If they crash, and this appears very possible now, even likely, we are sitting here without a government.
You are kidding that that is not a dangerous situation.

If this cannot be sorted, we will need an Administration, preferably a military one.

at present, we only have a long weak end.

lol @ the military!

And a pox on the queen!!!  

We will go back to the polls and Gillard will stay in caretake mode till we vote again.

Hopefully those idiots that drew penis's on their ballot papers will think a little clearer this time.    :(

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:18pm:

The most dangerous thing, weekend, would be to have Australia without a government in the event of a global economic and political meltdown. That appears to be imminent if you have been following informed analysis and commentary around the world. Australia is cushioned from all of that...one of only around three countries (Canada, New Zealand and ourselves) in that situation. Go to another country and see what is really happening. America is our strongest ally. If they crash, and this appears very possible now, even likely, we are sitting here without a government. You are kidding that that is not a dangerous situation. If this cannot be sorted, we will need an Administration, preferably a military one. at present, we only have a long weak end.

You apparently lack the ability to read. we HAVE a government and have never been without one. What we have is a temporarily unresolved election result - nothing more. this will be resolved in short order.

phantomlady wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:19pm:

lol @ the military! And a pox on the queen!!!   We will go back to the polls and Gillard will stay in caretake mode till we vote again. Hopefully those idiots that drew penis's on their ballot papers will think a little clearer this time.    :(

I wouldnt bet on that LOL!

if you go back to the polls and the same thing happens, and happens again, you will end up with rioting in the streets and no government, especially if the libs get a minority government.

The strength of this country's system is that it has a monarch, which is also backed by Britain.
The Australian military is ultimately responsible to the Crown, so in the absence of a functioning parliament and government in Australia, it is there to protect Australia externally and internally.

Great people, the Australian military. Bring them in.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:18pm:

The most dangerous thing, weekend, would be to have Australia without a government in the event of a global economic and political meltdown. That appears to be imminent if you have been following informed analysis and commentary around the world. Australia is cushioned from all of that...one of only around three countries (Canada, New Zealand and ourselves) in that situation. Go to another country and see what is really happening. America is our strongest ally. If they crash, and this appears very possible now, even likely, we are sitting here without a government. You are kidding that that is not a dangerous situation. If this cannot be sorted, we will need an Administration, preferably a military one. at present, we only have a long weak end.

I agree that a double dip is coming however as you point out we have a buffer.
Anarchy will not break out in the streets overnight and besides the count will be in before the end of the week and by the end of next week maybe one more we'll have a government.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:22pm:

if you go back to the polls and the same thing happens, and happens again, you will end up with rioting in the streets and no government, especially if the libs get a minority government. The strength of this country's system is that it has a monarch, which is also backed by Britain. The Australian military is ultimately responsible to the Crown, so in the absence of a functioning parliament and government in Australia, it is there to protect Australia externally and internally. Great people, the Australian military. Bring them in.

So i gather by your refusal to show an legal or constitutional  support for your patently ridiculou position that you dont have any such support?

of course not and we knew you didnt because brighter people than you (ie everyone - including skippy!) know better than you.

Time for you to move to Myanmar or Zimbabawe so you can enjoy military government.

"This will be resolved in short order";
"by the end of next week maybe one more we'll have a government. "

...and if it is not, and if we do not?
Another election? and the same process again and again.
It does not matter which party gets into government now, it will not be acceptable to a large proportion of the population.

If it goes on, especially if there is a global emergency, an appointed Administration must be installed. The best option is the military Chiefs of Staff. Excellent solution, and will surely be under consideration.

(don't presume that the politicians tell you everything that is really going on.) They are already talking about the when, not if, of the American crash. Don't you think they are very worried about this?
You better believe it. They are talking about it to their friends and colleagues outside of government and word is filtering around. You will see.

listen, long weak end, it isn't for me to decide the interpretation of constitutional law, there are plenty qualified to do that as you know. If a military administration is what ends up being needed, they will find the legal interpretation to do it. It happens all the time.
So? Take them to court!

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:28pm:

"This will be resolved in short order"; "by the end of next week maybe one more we'll have a government. " ...and if it is not, and if we do not? Another election? and the same process again and again. It does not matter which party gets into government now, it will not be acceptable to a large proportion of the population. If it goes on, especially if there is a global emergency, an appointed Administration must be installed. The best option is the military Chiefs of Staff. Excellent solution, and will surely be under consideration. (don't presume that the politicians tell you everything that is really going on.) They are already talking about the when, not if, of the American crash. Don't you think they are very worried about this? You better believe it. They are talking about it to their friends and colleagues outside of government and word is filtering around. You will see.

And there is the answer we have all been looking for... YOU ARE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST! and you are just BEGGING for a military dictatorship to 'save' you from some imagined world-wide disaster. I didnt realise how easy it was for people like you to be fooled into submitting all your freedoms to an unelected dictator. You would be the first to line up and give the salute to a new Hitler to save you from... your imagination and your fears.

You arent just stupid; you are weak and pathetic.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:32pm:

listen, long weak end, it isn't for me to decide the interpretation of constitutional law, there are plenty qualified to do that as you know. If a military administration is what ends up being needed, they will find the legal interpretation to do it. It happens all the time. So? Take them to court!

You woudl love Fiji. Things get difficult so the military suspends the constitution and takes over. Oh! Pity about those new elections we promised? we decided not to hold them! AND YOU WANT THIS?

If you can find ONE expert to support you position I will give you my house car and my firstborn.

over to you, moron.

if you don't want to read wider than this forum or the Australian media, which apparently you don't, you had the opportunity tonight on the ABC program Four Corners exactly what has been said globally now for the past 18 months or more.

It is not a conspiracy, it is a reality, and it is now right there in front of you on the A...B...C television screen. So, if it is the Australian ABC that should now have some credibility for you.

The Australian Chiefs of Defence Staff for the Australian Government!!
Excellent!

You do not need to suspend the constitution to have a military administration in Australia. Australia has a constitutional monarchy, Fiji doesn't.

Quote:

You do not need to suspend the constitution to have a military administration in Australia. Australia has a constitutional monarchy, Fiji doesn't.

My dog has more understanding of our constitution than you and frankly he is more loyal to it as well.

Honestly, just move to myanmar and enjoy what you are proposing.

You just won the prize of the BIGGEST IDIOT on this forum. Move over skippy... you've been dethroned!

it's high praise indeed to be proclaimed the biggest idiot on this forum, because there sure are some good ones here, but to get acknowledgement from one of them...wow, now I feel really vindicated.

If you people can't secure a democratically elected government in this excellent country, you probably do need a military government, but you'd be very lucky to have an *Australian* military administration than what you would get in Fiji or Myanmar.
No, I would much prefer stay in Australia, and have the military administration in operation here. Why do you think I am advocating it so strongly? Bring it on. It will solve the problems and fix the country.

double post!   :-?

phantomlady wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:21pm: phantomlady wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:19pm: lol @ the military! And a pox on the queen!!!   We will go back to the polls and Gillard will stay in caretake mode till we vote again. Hopefully those idiots that drew penis's on their ballot papers will think a little clearer this time.    :( I wouldnt bet on that LOL! I did vote counting in my electorate Saturday night and you would not believe some of the things peeps wrote on their ballot papers! I saw:  Mickey Mouse three times, nothing else, just Mickey Mouse. Pauline Hanson about 20 times! Waste of sperm 4 times. 20 odd sex party votes with boobs drawn all over the papers. Get bugger*ed around 15 times. Lady gaga rules once. 30 odd for a good time ring this number. Lots of penis's all shapes. It was all very enlightening, and sometimes funny as, but I ended up feeling a little sad as women fought hard for the vote and good men and women died for the right.   :'(

phantomlady wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:57pm:

phantomlady wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:21pm: phantomlady wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:19pm: lol @ the military! And a pox on the queen!!!   We will go back to the polls and Gillard will stay in caretake mode till we vote again. Hopefully those idiots that drew penis's on their ballot papers will think a little clearer this time.    :( I wouldnt bet on that LOL! I did vote counting in my electorate Saturday night and you would not believe some of the things peeps wrote on their ballot papers! I saw:  Mickey Mouse three times, nothing else, just Mickey Mouse. Pauline Hanson about 20 times! Waste of sperm 4 times. 20 odd sex party votes with boobs drawn all over the papers. Get bugger*ed around 15 times. Lady gaga rules once. 30 odd for a good time ring this number. Lots of penis's all shapes. It was all very enlightening, and sometimes funny as, but I ended up feeling a little sad as women fought hard for the vote and good men and women died for the right.   :'(

Im with you. I despise people who treat their right to vote in this wonderful democracy with such disdain and disrespect.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:56pm:

it's high praise indeed to be proclaimed the biggest idiot on this forum, because there sure are some good ones here, but to get acknowledgement from one of them...wow, now I feel really vindicated. If you people can't secure a democratically elected government in this excellent country, you probably do need a military government, but you'd be very lucky to have an *Australian* military administration than what you would get in Fiji or Myanmar. No, I would much prefer stay in Australia, and have the military administration in operation here. Why do you think I am advocating it so strongly? Bring it on. It will solve the problems and fix the country.

If it would be possible to have you arrested for treason, I would support it. You are worse than an idiot. You are  a traitor to the democracy that gives you the freedoms you give up so easily. And a coward for refusing to fight for those freedoms.

Go away. you are a creep and a danger to all this country holds dear.

and why do you think people do that? there are a lot of alienated people in this country, haven't you noticed that? the government is irrelevant to them and completely out of touch. Why should they help these people get into a comfy lifestyle in parliament?
The people who put in those sorts of informal votes are probably quite happy now to see these bastards grappling impotently with one another; and I don't blame them.

no, long weak end, I have as much right to be here as you do, and free to express the concerns that I have and options that are available.
If you do not like that, that is too bad. It is a democracy. You are the one who appears not to be tolerant of free speech. your language is actually personally abusive and bordering on the violent. See to it.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:56pm:

it's high praise indeed to be proclaimed the biggest idiot on this forum, because there sure are some good ones here, but to get acknowledgement from one of them...wow, now I feel really vindicated. If you people can't secure a democratically elected government in this excellent country, you probably do need a military government, but you'd be very lucky to have an *Australian* military administration than what you would get in Fiji or Myanmar. No, I would much prefer stay in Australia, and have the military administration in operation here. Why do you think I am advocating it so strongly? Bring it on. It will solve the problems and fix the country.

This is Australia, not Somalia --in case you haven't noticed.  

yes, I have noticed that. Administrations are appointed routinely in Australia, particularly at local government level in the event of dysfunctionality.
Governments have also been dismissed in Australia by the Crown, namely in 1975 when the Labor Whitlam government was dismissed, and also in the 1930s again when a Labor government under Jack Lang was dismissed by the Governor of New South Wales.
That's what they are there for, among other things. That's our system.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:56pm:

If you people can't secure a democratically elected government in this excellent country, you probably do need a military government, but you'd be very lucky to have an *Australian* military administration than what you would get in Fiji or Myanmar. No, I would much prefer stay in Australia, and have the military administration in operation here. Why do you think I am advocating it so strongly? Bring it on. It will solve the problems and fix the country.

UNF*CKEN BELIEVABLE

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 11:02pm:

and why do you think people do that? there are a lot of alienated people in this country, haven't you noticed that? the government is irrelevant to them and completely out of touch. Why should they help these people get into a comfy lifestyle in parliament? The people who put in those sorts of informal votes are probably quite happy now to see these bastards grappling impotently with one another; and I don't blame them.

I can see the viewpoint, but it doesn't help anything to throw your vote away.

I don't even like the greens to be honest. A very silly party and to think they got a seat in Melbourne staggers me.

It just goes to show how unhappy labor voters are with labor, and couldn't bring themselves to vote liberal.  I have no doubt this is what happened and I don't blame them at all.

That worm of a guy couldn't wait to spit out that he will align with labor immediately so he is essentially labor in my opinion. If he was honest, he would have waited to see what happened before shooting his stupid mouth off. It made one realise that he would not be open to negotiations with the libs at all.  Poor old Bob was trying desperately to shut the fool up.

Melbourne you are crazy!  all we can hope for if the libs get in is that this fool will keep them honest, but I doubt he has the brains.

good to think outside the square isn't it.

and if the libs get in, in minority government, phantom, what do you really think is going to happen? Come on now.
Don't you think you will shortly see mass demonstrations of red banner waving left wingers marching down streets in their thousands and strike action by unions all over the place?
It's happened before.
There is actually, in my observation, a searing hatred in this country between the left and the right. It is not new though, it is an old tradition in this country going back probably to the very start of European colonisation of this country. It is not resolved, and I think eventually it is going to cause us quite big problems, the current situation of which is probably just one, but the most serious symptom so far.