Hardly unusual for MPs from the ex government side quitting shortly after the election. Perhaps in the case of the PM, they should be allowed to step down and replaced with a nominee from that party just like a senate vacancyCertainly not! It's the idea of losing a by-election is one of the things that keeps such (bat and ball) resignations from happening.
I know people say it is for checks and balances but if people don't like what a Government stands for well that is what elections are for; leave it up to the people to decide - not the whacky Senators.
Can't have it both ways on that one - Abbott (in July last year) initially used the Senate to block changes Labor tried to make to stop the flow of boats and then blamed them when the boats kept coming. Tony might whinge now that he's PM but they've used it themselves as a political tool quite a bit in the past.Even more reason Don to get rid of the Senate. I just can't see the point in electing a Government to pass legislation only to have the business of Government obstructed by people and/or parties with their own agenda.
Even more reason Don to get rid of the Senate. I just can't see the point in electing a Government to pass legislation only to have the business of Government obstructed by people and/or parties with their own agenda.Fair point. Originally the senate was supposed to stop the larger states like NSW and VIC running roughshod over the smaller ones; the election of those senators on the smallest of margins (what was it, 11,000 or so first preferences for the Motoring Party?) kinda makes a mockery of our political process. One of my friends suggested on the weekend that this could be solved by allowing preferential voting above the line; maybe that should be seriously considered. I don't think you'll ever get consensus on abolishing the senate completely though.
2301 wants absolute power because the new mob suits his political leaning. Hardly surprising !TBF even Paul Keating called the Senate "unrepresentative swill"
However inconvenient a two house parliament does provide checks and balances that many countries don't enjoy.
And let me guess, the Daily TeleRubbish & the other News Crop papers have a "happy" story on their front pages?
We think that the Liberals and Nationals should be counted as separate parties.
If the Coalition was counted as separate parties, at the moment it would be 57 seats each for both Labor & Liberals.
I think the PUP are to preference Family First, which will give their preferences to Liberals.
So no matter what way a person preferences, your vote will eventually go to either Labor or Liberal.
Should we be getting rid of preferential & compulsory (includes signing name off) voting
The Liberal and national parties are in a formal Coalition and have been for many years. You can see the share that each party gets of the 2PP but they are combined seat wise. The ALP and Greens are always welcome to formalise their arrangements if they so wish and share power.Nah, Labor and the Greens are fair weather friends at best.
So Abbott, when are you going to turn the Asylum Seeker/illegal migrant boat around that arrived today, under YOUR (repeat YOUR) watch?Now sure, he may still be prime minister elect, but Tony Abbott (according to the news) that this policy of turning the boats around would start immediately.
Now sure, he may still be prime minister elect, but Tony Abbott (according to the news) that this policy of turning the boats around would start immediately.Um, well after he has assumed office might be a good time to start, right now Abbott is not in control of anything.
Wonder how soon this "immediately" will start?
TBF even Paul Keating called the Senate "unrepresentative swill"Having a Senate as a house of review helps makes our democracy more robust. However how people get elected on such small numbers is an issue.
On the other hand most of the word's democracies operate on a two tier system, so it ain't likely to change anytime soon.
(probably could well do without upper houses at a state level though)
One of my friends suggested on the weekend that this could be solved by allowing preferential voting above the line; maybe that should be seriously considered. I don't think you'll ever get consensus on abolishing the senate completely though.
Some FAIR options that have been floated in the media. Simplest would be to allow voters to number candidates against the number of senate seats up for election i.e. 1 to 6 and remove above the line nominating.
Loving how labor is so useless they cannot even get someone to put their hand up to lead the mob, perhaps they need a Judas goat to lead them like the mob of sheep they are.It's not going to happen overnight, as Labor need to find a leader that both factions of the party can get behind and support. If they can't operate as a cohesive team, then we're doomed to a Liberal leadership indefinately.
Oh wait they already tried that with krud didnt they.
Apparently according to CH10 news there are lots of Labor members calling for krudd to quit the labor party alltogether and 3 days after the election still no one wants the job.You've pretty much already made that point already, to which I've answered. Abbott has also said that parliament might not sit until November, so the Labor Party has a little time to get their stuff together.
I'm still curious to know why Turnball is no longer in the top spot, and suspect it's only a matter of time before Abbott is turfed out, or is forced to step down - it's already happened in Victoria with Toorak Ted being replaced by Naptheline.Turnbull is really in the wrong party, he is more left than most in the Labor Party.
Turnbull is really in the wrong party, he is more left than most in the Labor Party.
He still follows the Labor line on global warming and is totally out of step with the rest of the party.