Election - Australia

[notyoueither]

It took over 200 years for a Bush v. Gore to happen. I no longer think that we can get by calling these possibilities theoretical.

We've faced Bush vs Gore many times. It happens any time a group of MPs is not large enough to have a majority in the House of Commons (no party wins a majority of seats in an election). We get by fine.

The GG asks the politicians to sort themselves out as to who could form a government that would survive confidence in the House of Commons.

Really, you seem stuck on the head of state needing to be elected due to the power yours wields in your system. The Queen and GGs have no such power in ours. By convention they have to go along with whatever the PM asks them to, or pick a PM based on ability to pass confidence tests in the Commons.

The only time the reserve powers would be used without the politicians agreeing would be when the politicians have gone seriously off the rails. Then there is a need for the politicians to be smacked down in the interests of the broader public.

[notyoueither]

... and the fact that the monarch or GG is a final check against the political class is precisely why I would not be in favour of changing our system to make the head of state elected.

It is a depoliticised institution, and it needs to stay that way.

[Krill]

Describe, please.

Who do you think gives the Queen her pocket money?

[Zevico]

Never mind.

[Frozzy]

Describe, please.

While there is no written constitutional accountability the monarch is very much accountable to the government of the day.

Convention is very powerful in the Westminster system. The monarchy is to be strictly non-political and act on minister's advice. While "technically" this could be challenged, in reality the monarch hasn't refused the first minister's advice for over 100 years, and hasn't vetoed legislation for over 300.

When Edward VIII attempted to hold onto the throne and marry Simpson, he tried to make a speech to the nation to defend himself, which the government blocked. Had he attempted to hold on to the throne, the government would have been forced to resign and hold an election, essentially a referendum on the monarchy.

Such deadlock would continue until the monarch is accepted, rejected, or parliament legislates the removal of the monarch's powers.

Fortunately, due to the common law system, the royal prerogative was established in 1610 in the case of proclaimations Further, the Bill of Rights of 1698 (long time ago, eh, but still law) basically established that no powers of the Crown were immune from removal by statute.

So, it's not an insoluble constitutional crisis.

[Frozzy]

Think of it this way. While the US and a large number of other presidential systems invest a lot of power within the president, the Westminster system has a non-political actor as head of state. They choose to have a head of state solely vested with reserve powers to avoid eventualities like an attempted fascist coup for example, but then they can be removed if need be by popularly elected parliament to avoid deadlock.

Hereditary or otherwise, there's not much wrong with that if they're trained for the role parliament delegates them, and can be disposed of if they attempt to go above their station.

Metaphorically, the queen is like the security guard with the big red stop button if it all goes haywire. The board can sack the security guard, but then the shareholders can sack the board, or force the board to sack the security guard.

A very over paid and over elaborate security guard, but not a security guard with the power to take over Commonwealth, Inc.

[trev]

Opinion polls since election called have varied, Galaxy was 50/50 for 2 main parties, Newspoll was labor 55%/Liberal45%.

[trev]

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has taken a battering in the latest opinion poll which shows the Coalition would win the election if it was held now.

Support for both Ms Gillard and Labor has fallen dramatically while the Opposition has taken the lead in the Nielsen poll, published in Fairfax newspapers on Saturday.

The Coalition is now ahead of Labor on a two-party preferred basis by 52 per cent to 48 per cent - a six percentage point swing against the government since the last Nielsen poll a week ago.

Labor's primary vote has plummeted six points to 36 per cent while the Coalition's primary vote has risen four points to 45 per cent, the poll shows.

Ms Gillard's popularity has even fallen among women, with her 58-42 lead over Mr Abbott narrowing to 49-51.

Her approval rating fell five points to 51 per cent and her disapproval rating rose six points to 39 per cent.

Mr Abbott's approval rose six points to 49 per cent and his disapproval dropped six points to 45 per cent.

On the question of preferred prime minister, Ms Gillard's 21-point lead plummeted by 13 points to 49-41.

The last week of campaigning has been an absolute shocker for the Labor Party. Several anonymous people with access to government information at the highest level (probably cabinet ministers) have been selectively leaking extremely damaging information to the media. It appears their purpose is to ensure that Julia Gillard and the Labor Party are not re-elected to government. It appears that the toppling of Kevin Rudd as PM 5 weeks ago has resulted in extreme hate and anger by individuals in the party who are now willing to do anything to destroy the Gillard government and they are succeeding.

[Zevico]

In this whodunnit mystery I put my finger on the one man no one would suspect: Kevin Rudd.

[trev]

In this whodunnit mystery I put my finger on the one man no one would suspect: Kevin Rudd.

Laurie Oakes has said he published the leaks when they were confirmed by a 2nd person, Kevin may be one, but who is the 2nd. Maybe Wayne Swan the deputy is in a hurry to climb to No 1 in the party. Both Kevin and Wayne have been reported as regular leakers to Laurie Oakes in the past. However would Laurie consider Kevin and Wayne as one source or two seeing they have cooperated on much in the past. Laurie with his reputation to protect may have verified the information from somewhere else to be sure of it.