On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:53:17 +1000, James Last plays in Miami <no
spam@no spam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 16:00:23 +1000, Petzl posted:-
>
>> >> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>> >> election is very close.
>> >
>> >How close?
>>
>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.
>
>Does this apply in Australia?
>
Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
of Reps to be PM, most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters
back to the polls.
--
Petzl
Australia's parliament needs to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law!
Sir John Downer Kings Council, stated, when the Australian Constitution was finally adopted and on behalf of future generations,
‘Our Australian Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth’.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 17:47:34 +1000, Petzl posted:-

> >Does this apply in Australia?
> >
> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
> of Reps to be PM, most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters
> back to the polls.

So what has this back to the polls, or whatever, have to do with
Lizzie? She doesn't have any say here.

On 9/08/2021 5:47 pm, Petzl wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:53:17 +1000, James Last plays in Miami <no
> spam@no spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 16:00:23 +1000, Petzl posted:-
>>
>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>>>>> election is very close.
>>>>
>>>> How close?
>>>
>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.
>>
>> Does this apply in Australia?
>>
> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
> of Reps to be PM,

The PM is the head of the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the
floor of the House of Reps. Many Governments have faced a minority in
the Senate and have lost votes in the Senate so they don't need a
majority there.

> most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters
> back to the polls.
>

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 18:30:01 +1000, Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/08/2021 5:47 pm, Petzl wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 16:53:17 +1000, James Last plays in Miami <no
>> spam@no spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 16:00:23 +1000, Petzl posted:-
>>>
>>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>>>>>> election is very close.
>>>>>
>>>>> How close?
>>>>
>>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.
>>>
>>> Does this apply in Australia?
>>>
>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
>> of Reps to be PM,
>
>The PM is the head of the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the
>floor of the House of Reps. Many Governments have faced a minority in
>the Senate and have lost votes in the Senate so they don't need a
>majority there.
>
You are assuming that a party becomes elected
A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get the GG to allow the
formation of a working government
Parties do not have a legal standing in the formation of government
just their number of votes needed to pass legislation.

A reason why politicians are weak is they are not in there to run a
government. they are there just to get re-elected.

Where as Communist China Government are there to run Government,
Don't mean they are not corrupt both systems are the same.

Who would vote in a politician, as example to do the right thing.

Like ban FREE parking around major suburban train stations, hospitals,
etc (1 car, 1 driver, 1 free parking spot).
Push a incentive for home owners not to park on the road curb by
charging $100 per car a week for those that do, suburb's in Sydney
have road access made very narrow by having cars/4WD's, Trucks parked
both sides of street emergency vehicles cannot access many properties
because of this.
Don't happen in China.

A politician advocating such would not be elected in Australia

>> most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters
>> back to the polls.
>>
--
Petzl
"Our" Media and Major parties are run by lobbyists

Lobbyists write the laws, parliament sells the laws,
paid lucrative commissions for passing their laws.
That’s the modern legislative business of parliament.

When we talk about paying-off politicians in third-world
countries we call it bribery.
However, when we undertake the same process in parliament.
we call it lobbying.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 23:17:40 +1000, Petzl posted:-

> A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get the GG to allow the
> formation of a working government

Shouldn't that be 50%, plus one vote?

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl wrote
>>> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote

>>>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt
>>>>>>> when the result of the election is very close.

>>>>>> How close?

>>>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.

>>>> Does this apply in Australia?

>>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count
>>> from both Senate and House of Reps to be PM,

>> The PM is the head of the Party/Coalition

Yes.

>> that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.

Nope, most obviously when their party politically assassinates
the current one and replaces it with a new one. The new one
is the new PM regardless of that the HoR thinks.

>> Many Governments have faced a minority in the Senate

And even a few in the HoR too.

>> and have lost votes in the Senate so they don't need a majority there.

Or in the HoR either.

> You are assuming that a party becomes elected

Nope.

> A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get the
> GG to allow the formation of a working government

There never is a vote in parliament on who will be
the PM before the GG decides who will be the govt.

And there never is any vote on who will be the PM when the
current one is politically assassinated and replaced by a vote
in the govt party room either. And in that case even the GG
isn't involved except in the sense of swearing in the new one.

> Parties do not have a legal standing in the formation of government
> just their number of votes needed to pass legislation.

> A reason why politicians are weak is they are not in there
> to run a government. they are there just to get re-elected.

That mangles the real story too.

James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
> Petzl wrote
>> A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get
>> the GG to allow the formation of a working government
> Shouldn't that be 50%, plus one vote?

There never is any vote in parliament on who will be the PM.

The only vote on who will be PM is in the govt party room.

James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
> Petzl wrote

>>> Does this apply in Australia?

>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both
>> Senate and House of Reps to be PM, most likely a caretaker
>> Gov would form, then voters back to the polls.

That's all completely wrong.
> So what has this back to the polls,
> or whatever, have to do with Lizzie?

Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election
if one happens early, in theory. In practice the PM decides
that most of the time but Gough clearly didn't.

> She doesn't have any say here.

True.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>> Petzl wrote

>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt
>>>>> when the result of the election is very close.

>>>> How close?
>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.

>> Does this apply in Australia?

> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count
> from both Senate and House of Reps to be PM,

Nope. The PM is the decided by the govt, no vote in parliament involved.

> most likely a caretaker Gov would
> form, then voters back to the polls.

Nope, minority govts have been seen.

On 10/08/2021 6:49 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>> Petzl wrote
>
>>>> Does this apply in Australia?
>
>>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and
>>> House of Reps to be PM, most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then
>>> voters back to the polls.
>
> That's all completely wrong.
>> So what has this back to the polls, or whatever, have to do with Lizzie?
>
> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election if one
> happens early, in theory.

On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house

> In practice the PM decides that most of the
> time but Gough clearly didn't.

Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of the
reps so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the confidence of
the House.

>> She doesn't have any say here.
>
> True.

On 10/08/2021 6:47 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote
>>>> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>>>>> Petzl wrote
>
>>>>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>>>>>>>> election is very close.
>
>>>>>>> How close?
>
>>>>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.
>
>>>>> Does this apply in Australia?
>
>>>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and
>>>> House of Reps to be PM,
>
>>> The PM is the head of the Party/Coalition
>
> Yes.
>>> that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.
>
> Nope, most obviously when their party politically assassinates
> the current one and replaces it with a new one. The new one
> is the new PM regardless of that the HoR thinks.

If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of
the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.

>>> Many Governments have faced a minority in the Senate
>
> And even a few in the HoR too.
>>> and have lost votes in the Senate so they don't need a majority there.
>
> Or in the HoR either.
>> You are assuming that a party becomes elected
>
> Nope.
>> A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get the GG to allow the
>> formation of a working government
>
> There never is a vote in parliament on who will be the PM before the GG
> decides who will be the govt.
> And there never is any vote on who will be the PM when the
> current one is politically assassinated and replaced by a vote
> in the govt party room either. And in that case even the GG
> isn't involved except in the sense of swearing in the new one.
>> Parties do not have a legal standing in the formation of government
>> just their number of votes needed to pass legislation.
>
>> A reason why politicians are weak is they are not in there to run a
>> government. they are there just to get re-elected.
>
> That mangles the real story too.

On 10/08/2021 6:49 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote
>
>>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>>>>>> election is very close.
>
>>>>> How close?
>
>>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.
>
>>> Does this apply in Australia?
>
>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
>> of Reps to be PM,
>
> Nope. The PM is the decided by the govt, no vote in parliament involved.
>> most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters back to the polls.
>
> Nope, minority govts have been seen.

and keep going till they lose the confidence of the House

Dechucka wrote:
===============
> > Nope, most obviously when their party politically assassinates
> > the current one and replaces it with a new one. The new one
> > is the new PM regardless of that the HoR thinks.
----------------------------------------------------
> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of
> the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.

** Wot ambiguous, meaningless drivel.

FFS *learn to trim* you ridiculous wanker.

Dechucka wrote:
==============
>
> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of the
> reps so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the confidence of
> the House.

** Fraser's interim govt did not have a majority in the Reps.
So he lost a vote of "no confidence " in the PM - only PM ever to do so.
Mad situation brought on by him playing foul with the replacement of one senator.

What was the motivation for all the hostility back then ?

1. The Whitlam govt had introduced the leglislation " Medicare" - passed in a rare joint sitting.

2. They also wanted to borrow to "buy back the farm" using Arab oil money at low interest.

Just awful.......

...... Phil

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>>> Petzl wrote

>>>>> Does this apply in Australia?

>>>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
>>>> of Reps to be PM, most likely a caretaker Gov would form, then voters
>>>> back to the polls.

>> That's all completely wrong.

>>> So what has this back to the polls, or whatever, have to do with Lizzie?

>> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election if one
>> happens early, in theory.

> On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house

There is no confidence vote.

>> In practice the PM decides that most of the time but Gough clearly
>> didn't.

> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of the reps
> so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the confidence of the
> House.

What I said.

>>> She doesn't have any say here.

>> True.

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl wrote
>>>>> James Last plays in Miami <no spam@no spam.com> wrote
>>>>>> Petzl wrote

>>>>>>>>> She does get to decide who forms govt when the result of the
>>>>>>>>> election is very close.

>>>>>>>> How close?

>>>>>>> When there is not enough house votes to elect a PM.

>>>>>> Does this apply in Australia?

>>>>> Don't see why not a PM needs 51% vote count from both Senate and House
>>>>> of Reps to be PM,

>>>> The PM is the head of the Party/Coalition

>> Yes.

>>>> that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.

>> Nope, most obviously when their party politically assassinates
>> the current one and replaces it with a new one. The new one
>> is the new PM regardless of that the HoR thinks.

> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of the
> Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of Reps.

Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing
to do with who gets to be the new PM, that is entirely
determined by the party room vote and confidence on the
floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change when the PM changes.

>>>> Many Governments have faced a minority in the Senate

>> And even a few in the HoR too.

>>>> and have lost votes in the Senate so they don't need a majority there.

>> Or in the HoR either.

>>> You are assuming that a party becomes elected

>> Nope.

>>> A PM needs a 51% of the vote before s/he can get the GG to allow the
>>> formation of a working government

>> There never is a vote in parliament on who will be the PM before the GG
>> decides who will be the govt.

>> And there never is any vote on who will be the PM when the
>> current one is politically assassinated and replaced by a vote
>> in the govt party room either. And in that case even the GG
>> isn't involved except in the sense of swearing in the new one.

>>> Parties do not have a legal standing in the formation of government
>>> just their number of votes needed to pass legislation.

>>> A reason why politicians are weak is they are not in there to run a
>>> government. they are there just to get re-elected.

>> That mangles the real story too.

snip

>>> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election if one
>>> happens early, in theory.
>
>> On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house
>
> There is no confidence vote.

Correct but so what?

>
>>> In practice the PM decides that most of the time but Gough clearly
>>> didn't.
>
>> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of the
>> reps so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the confidence of
>> the House.
>
> What I said.
>
>>>> She doesn't have any say here.
>
>>> True.
>
>

snip

>> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of
>> the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of
>> Reps.
>
> Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing
> to do with who gets to be the new PM, that is entirely
> determined by the party room vote

Yes I agree, we are arguing the same thing from different angles

> and confidence on the
> floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change when the PM changes.

It may eg the Nats or enough members of the coalition hate whoever the
Libs are going to replace SloMo with and join the opposition in a vote
of no confidence.

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will
>>>> be an election if one happens early, in theory.
>>> On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house
>> There is no confidence vote.
> Correct but so what?

So your previous snipe that you carefully deleted
from the quoting was just an irrelevant snipe.
>>>> In practice the PM decides that most
>>>> of the time but Gough clearly didn't.

>>> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes
>>> on the floor of the reps so it could be argued that
>>> Fraser did not have the confidence of the House.
>> What I said.
>>>>> She doesn't have any say here.
>>>> True.

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of
>>> the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of
>>> Reps.

>> Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing to do with who
>> gets to be the new PM, that is entirely determined by the party room vote

> Yes I agree, we are arguing the same thing from different angles

>> and confidence on the floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change when the
>> PM changes.

> It may eg the Nats or enough members of the coalition hate whoever the
> Libs are going to replace SloMo with and join the opposition in a vote of
> no confidence.

Not going to happen when that would produce an
election with too much risk of losing govt given
that it would be straight after the PM change.

On 10/08/2021 9:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election if one
>>>>> happens early, in theory.
>
>>>> On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house
>
>>> There is no confidence vote.
>
>> Correct but so what?
>
> So your previous snipe that you carefully deleted from the quoting was
> just an irrelevant snipe.

Snipes, they were just educating you the actual situation

>>>>> In practice the PM decides that most of the time but Gough clearly
>>>>> didn't.
>
>>>> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of
>>>> the reps so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the
>>>> confidence of the House.
>
>>> What I said.
>
>>>>>> She doesn't have any say here.
>
>>>>> True.
>

On 10/08/2021 9:21 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head
>>>> of the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House
>>>> of Reps.
>
>>> Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing to do with
>>> who gets to be the new PM, that is entirely determined by the party
>>> room vote
>
>> Yes I agree, we are arguing the same thing from different angles
>
>>> and confidence on the floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change when
>>> the PM changes.
>
>> It may eg the Nats or enough members of the coalition hate whoever the
>> Libs are going to replace SloMo with and join the opposition in a vote
>> of no confidence.
>
> Not going to happen when that would produce an
> election with too much risk of losing govt given
> that it would be straight after the PM change.

Maybe it won't happen but under our Constitution it shows that
ultimately the House decides who forms the executive and thus who
is/becomes the PM.

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> Nothing but the GG does decide if there will be an election if one
>>>>>> happens early, in theory.

>>>>> On the advice of the person who has the confidence of the house

>>>> There is no confidence vote.

>>> Correct but so what?

>> So your previous snipe that you carefully deleted from the quoting was
>> just an irrelevant snipe.

> Snipes, they were just educating you the actual situation

No said nothing I didn’t know already so that
is just another of your bare faced trollshit lies.

>>>>>> In practice the PM decides that most of the time but Gough clearly
>>>>>> didn't.

>>>>> Kerr took the advice of Fraser who had lost votes on the floor of the
>>>>> reps so it could be argued that Fraser did not have the confidence of
>>>>> the House.
>>
>>>> What I said.
>>
>>>>>>> She doesn't have any say here.
>>
>>>>>> True.
>>
>

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head of
>>>>> the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the House of
>>>>> Reps.

>>>> Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing to do with who
>>>> gets to be the new PM, that is entirely determined by the party room
>>>> vote

>>> Yes I agree, we are arguing the same thing from different angles

>>>> and confidence on the floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change when
>>>> the PM changes.

>>> It may eg the Nats or enough members of the coalition hate whoever the
>>> Libs are going to replace SloMo with and join the opposition in a vote
>>> of no confidence.

>> Not going to happen when that would produce an election with too much
>> risk of losing govt given
>> that it would be straight after the PM change.

> Maybe it won't happen

It has never happened and never will for the reason I stated.

> but under our Constitution it shows that ultimately the House decides who
> forms the executive

Bullshit it does. That actually determines
when fresh elections have to be held.

> and thus who is/becomes the PM.

More mindless bullshit.

On 10/08/2021 10:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> If the Party changes it's leader that leader is no longer the head
>>>>>> of the Party/Coalition that has confidence on the floor of the
>>>>>> House of Reps.
>
>>>>> Confidence on the floor of the House of Reps has nothing to do with
>>>>> who gets to be the new PM, that is entirely determined by the party
>>>>> room vote
>
>>>> Yes I agree, we are arguing the same thing from different angles
>
>>>>> and confidence on the floor of the House of Reps doesn’t change
>>>>> when the PM changes.
>
>>>> It may eg the Nats or enough members of the coalition hate whoever
>>>> the Libs are going to replace SloMo with and join the opposition in
>>>> a vote of no confidence.
>
>>> Not going to happen when that would produce an election with too much
>>> risk of losing govt given
>>> that it would be straight after the PM change.
>
>> Maybe it won't happen
>
> It has never happened and never will for the reason I stated.
>
>> but under our Constitution it shows that ultimately the House decides
>> who forms the executive
>
> Bullshit it does. That actually determines
> when fresh elections have to be held.

Well done you are as pig ignorant of the Constitution as Pez