Political question

[lal-au0]

This thread is about a technicality and NOT about who is the worst/most inept party/politician.

Please stay within the topic.

I am NOT interested in another tony/the other labor guy/whoever bashing.

My questions are:

1) can tony just bumble around until the next election (in 4 years?) not getting his budget through until then?

2) isn't that what a double dissolution is for?

3) if almost every single thing he wants to do gets thrown out by the senate doesn't that mean that his government isn't working and therefore there must be new elections?

[creative*crisis]

Once again according to wiki the next budget is expected to be read in May

[cherry*135 · Accepted solution]

Bishop is not necessarily next in line, she may know about Foreign Affairs but she knows nothing about Domestic Affairs.

My questions are:

1) can tony just bumble around until the next election (in 4 years?) not getting his budget through until then?

Next election is in November next year 2016. No, he can't keep bumbling along, he has been given 6 months to improve by his MP's. Then if not, a new leader.

2) isn't that what a double dissolution is for?

He seems to want to avoid that... I wonder why... 'cause he would lose.

3) if almost every single thing he wants to do gets thrown out by the senate doesn't that mean that his government isn't working and therefore there must be new elections?

Not really, means they have billions of dollars hole in their Budget... what else can they do to cut costs/raise revenue to replace expected refence from the dud measures they proposed in the last budget? Raise GST... etc

[lal-au0]

i see. so when he doesn't get it through then it will be a dd right?

[poddster]

lal,

LOL !!

You never fail to give me a laugh 🙂

[village_person]

---

@lal-au0 wrote:

i see. so when he doesn't get it through then it will be a dd right?

---

A dd is an option that the PM has. It's up to him to use the dd if he feels he has a good chance of being re-elected. If the budget is watered down that's what's known as a 'backflip', i.e., compromise, logrolling, deal making, horse trading and that sort of thing. Unless the government is in gross breach of conventions etc, it can limp along until the PM calls an election. He has the whip hand.

[lal-au0]

---

@poddster wrote:

lal,

LOL !!

You never fail to give me a laugh 🙂

---

undear poddy,

i usually appreciate trolls as they are usually amusing and bring some badly needed life to this board. however, you are boring and tedious to read.

i very well know that your aim is to annoy ppl and you succeeded in your boring dull way.

most ppl want to be loved unless they are psychopaths so it's either:

you are a sadistic psychopath who finds pleasure in boring ppl to tears

or

maybe try to be less boring.

regards, evu

[lal-au0]

---

@village_person wrote:

---

@lal-au0 wrote:

i see. so when he doesn't get it through then it will be a dd right?

---

A dd is an option that the PM has. It's up to him to use the dd if he feels he has a good chance of being re-elected. If the budget is watered down that's what's known as a 'backflip', i.e., compromise, logrolling, deal making, horse trading and that sort of thing. Unless the government is in gross breach of conventions etc, it can limp along until the PM calls an election. He has the whip hand.

---

as far as i understood it he can't bumble along forever but there is a timeline.

6 months from when he introduced the budget (as someone stated earlier) he has to try again and if he fails there will be a dd and he will be gone.

or not if the australian wallies vote for him again.

[baybizz]

 
A comment from a Brit:  

>> #3: Australia follows, to a great extent, the conventions of the Westminster system...

>> #1:  can tony (Prime Minister?) just bumble around until the next election (in 4 years?) not getting his budget through until then?

Such deadlocks as are being suggested here, are not possible in the UK (as I am frequently pointing out on American forums).

In the UK, the powers of the upper house (House of Lords) to prevent or delay legislation in the lower house (House of Commons) was severely curtailed by the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts:

>> The powers of the House of Lords are limited by a combination of law and convention. The Parliament Acts, although rarely used, provide a way of solving disagreement between the Commons and the Lords.
Until the early years of the 20th century, the House of Lords had the power to veto (stop) legislation...

>> The Parliament Act 1911 removed from the House of Lords this power to veto a Bill, except one to extend the lifetime of a Parliament. Instead, the Lords could delay a Bill by up to two years.

>> The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the Lords' delaying powers to one year.

>> Money Bills (Bills designed to raise money through taxes or spend public money) start in the Commons, and must receive Royal Assent no later than a month after being introduced in the Lords  -  even if the Lords has not passed them... The Lords cannot amend Money Bills...

>> Most other Commons Bills can be held up by the Lords, if they disagree with them, for about a year.   But ultimately the elected House of Commons can reintroduce them in the following session, and pass them without the consent of the Lords...

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

[vicr3000]

We need something like the last two paragraphs here in Aus.

It is too easy for people to get elected to our senate with minimal votes.

Sarah Hanson Young for one, and some of the other independants for another.

[fourandsixpants · Accepted solution]

What we need.....is to be rid of self-serving, lying politicians like Tony Abbott and his Team 'Astraya maaates