TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Rudd For Emperor
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by narcism raja ram for pm?

Certainly has my vote... except he's not running and I'm not old enough unfortunately.

quote:

Originally posted by FiK this coming from someone with tiesto as their avatar lolol

And this coming from someone with Armin as their avatar.

Oh the irony!

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz And this coming from someone with Armin as their avatar. Oh the irony!

this coming from someone who has a monkey in their avatar


couldnt help myself

this comming from me

...


o_O

tv time people!

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/

ABC have given Bennelong to Maxine

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI ABC have given Bennelong to Maxine

ya, aint that a kick in the pants for howard LOL

Im so confused if howard even won, would he be allowed to pm considering he can't hold his own seat?

lol at anthony green, always a highlight at election time

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Es-Dva Im so confused if howard even won, would he be allowed to pm considering he can't hold his own seat? lol at anthony green, always a highlight at election time

If he looses his own seat , That's it !! You can't be Pm without a seat. But I think it's pretty well a Labor victory anyway.
His seat is actually still counted as doubtful . I'm not going out until we have a result in his seat

lol, better watch out for that "postal vote".

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm lol, better watch out for that "postal vote".

If it was any other candidate bar the PM they would have called it for Maxine by now. She has been consistently in front by enough to cover the postal votes. Do we have an emoticon for crossed fingers?? Mal Brough has gone !!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI If he looses his own seat , That's it !! You can't be Pm without a seat. But I think it's pretty well a Labor victory anyway. His seat is actually still counted as doubtful . I'm not going out until we have a result in his seat

Well technically you can still be in government if you lose your seat. What happens though is that someone else has to give you theres and the local area has to have a by-election.

Anyway, no need for it now.

A bit surprised Costello isn't going to be leader, though I do see where he's coming from.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Well technically you can still be in government if you lose your seat. What happens though is that someone else has to give you theres and the local area has to have a by-election. Anyway, no need for it now. A bit surprised Costello isn't going to be leader, though I do see where he's coming from.

No you can't !! The liberal party could still be in government if they won enough seats,but they would have to elect a new leader. They can't just put a hold on the leadership while you organize yourself a safe seat.

I remember reading something along those lines, that it is still possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz I remember reading something along those lines, that it is still possible.

Think about it logically . if you don't have a seat in parliament, how can you lead it??

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI Think about it logically . if you don't have a seat in parliament, how can you lead it??

thats what he's saying. A polly in another seat falls on their sword, the PM steps in and gets voted in at the by-election. Therefore the PM is now in Parliament, just not representing his original seat.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter thats what he's saying. A polly in another seat falls on their sword, the PM steps in and gets voted in at the by-election. Therefore the PM is now in Parliament, just not representing his original seat.

And not PM!! As soon as he loses his seat he ceases to be PM. He just say "bags that seat" he would have to be voted in. Btw see you got your wish in your seat.

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI And not PM!! As soon as he loses his seat he ceases to be PM. He just say "bags that seat" he would have to be voted in. Btw see you got your wish in your seat.

yup. Althought she's now starting to talk about state politics


Yes he won't be PM for a short time, there'll be a caretaker PM until he wins the by-election, at which point he rejoins Parliament and can become PM again.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter yup. Althought she's now starting to talk about state politics Yes he won't be PM for a short time, there'll be a caretaker PM until he wins the by-election, at which point he rejoins Parliament and can become PM again.

If he wins a byelection, and if his party would want him back as leader after he had lost his own seat. I don't believe you will find any precedent for a caretaker PM in these circumstances!! it would be totally against just about any form of democracy!! He would have to be voted on by the people and by the party . The answer to the original question is still, no seat, no PM!

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Well technically you can still be in government if you lose your seat. What happens though is that someone else has to give you

like craig stevens?

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI If he wins a byelection, and if his party would want him back as leader after he had lost his own seat. I don't believe you will find any precedent for a caretaker PM in these circumstances!! it would be totally against just about any form of democracy!! He would have to be voted on by the people and by the party . The answer to the original question is still, no seat, no PM!

FFS Are you even reading what we're saying?

We're not saying that it would automatically happen, we're just saying that is in fact possible to still be in government if you lose your seat, provided you then win another in a by-election and then your party can vote you back into the PM position.

It is unlikely but definitely possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz FFS Are you even reading what we're saying? We're not saying that it would automatically happen, we're just saying that is in fact possible to still be in government if you lose your seat, provided you then win another in a by-election and then your party can vote you back into the PM position. It is unlikely but definitely possible.

FFS I'm answering the original question! In fact if you read my post you will see that I said essentially what you did then. Btw Sorry you lost!!

quote:

Originally posted by DIDI FFS I'm answering the original question! In fact if you read my post you will see that I said essentially what you did then. Btw Sorry you lost!!

I honestly don't mind that much that we lost. Here's my post from another forum:
People needed a change. The downfall of the Coalition and the implementation of the IR laws was the voters fault. A government should never be given such a majority and due to the landslide victory in the previous election, everything went downhill. The IR laws were not a good idea and while they do help small business and minimise the impact of unions, they are far from perfect and we need a better system.

It's good to see that now the senate is pretty much split which will keep Labor honest and won't allow them to do what the Libs did in the last 3 years. The Coalition was good before, but the power got to their heads a bit too much.

John Howard should have retired 12 months ago and given Costello an honest chance of actually leading. Has that happened, Labor may not have come to power. By staying in, he has totally doomed his own party.

Not to take anything away from him but the majority of his success comes from the first 8 years and not the last 3.

Some would say that to claim it was all the Coalitions responsibility for where we are is untrue because the Labor government set the foundations for what came later, but that is always going to be a big debate. At the end of the day, I think the Coalition of the 90s and the early 2000's really set this country up for what it is now by utilising what was previously established and making the most of the moment. Something that the Labor government was woefully unable to do before they lost the election in 96.

Now we have to see what Labor can do. Honestly, I think Rudd should be given a fair go and he seems like the type of person that won't crack to the left wing of the Labor party, such as Julia Gillard and all her unionists. Time will tell. The beauty of this election system is that we can easily vote them out in 3 years if we're unhappy with their performance. 3 years isn't too long and due to the Liberals holding the majority of the senate, we will finally see a well balanced governing body where new laws will be thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed before being implemented.

I still voted for the Liberals because I believed that Costello would be a good PM and I didn't want to risk Labor ruining anything, but I think my views above echo many Liberals views who actually voted for Labor this time around. My parents were always Liberals but they both ended up voting Labor which tells you enough. Howard pushed it too much and too long. Not to take away anything from him for all his contributions but sadly he's tarnished his reputation a bit and not only made it worse for himself but made it much worse for his party. His selfishness has caused the downfall of the Coalition and they should have had the balls to get rid of him when they had the chance. He should have been forced out.

Anyway, that's all over now. Time to give Rudd a go and see what happens. I'm also eager to see who will take up the Coalition leadership.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz I honestly don't mind that much that we lost. Here's my post from another forum: People needed a change. The downfall of the Coalition and the implementation of the IR laws was the voters fault. A government should never be given such a majority and due to the landslide victory in the previous election, everything went downhill. The IR laws were not a good idea and while they do help small business and minimise the impact of unions, they are far from perfect and we need a better system. It's good to see that now the senate is pretty much split which will keep Labor honest and won't allow them to do what the Libs did in the last 3 years. The Coalition was good before, but the power got to their heads a bit too much. John Howard should have retired 12 months ago and given Costello an honest chance of actually leading. Has that happened, Labor may not have come to power. By staying in, he has totally doomed his own party. Not to take anything away from him but the majority of his success comes from the first 8 years and not the last 3. Some would say that to claim it was all the Coalitions responsibility for where we are is untrue because the Labor government set the foundations for what came later, but that is always going to be a big debate. At the end of the day, I think the Coalition of the 90s and the early 2000's really set this country up for what it is now by utilising what was previously established and making the most of the moment. Something that the Labor government was woefully unable to do before they lost the election in 96. Now we have to see what Labor can do. Honestly, I think Rudd should be given a fair go and he seems like the type of person that won't crack to the left wing of the Labor party, such as Julia Gillard and all her unionists. Time will tell. The beauty of this election system is that we can easily vote them out in 3 years if we're unhappy with their performance. 3 years isn't too long and due to the Liberals holding the majority of the senate, we will finally see a well balanced governing body where new laws will be thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed before being implemented. I still voted for the Liberals because I believed that Costello would be a good PM and I didn't want to risk Labor ruining anything, but I think my views above echo many Liberals views who actually voted for Labor this time around. My parents were always Liberals but they both ended up voting Labor which tells you enough. Howard pushed it too much and too long. Not to take away anything from him for all his contributions but sadly he's tarnished his reputation a bit and not only made it worse for himself but made it much worse for his party. His selfishness has caused the downfall of the Coalition and they should have had the balls to get rid of him when they had the chance. He should have been forced out. Anyway, that's all over now. Time to give Rudd a go and see what happens. I'm also eager to see who will take up the Coalition leadership.

Well said!! Even if I don't agree with everything.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.