What’s Next? Friday

My thanks to RNM 1953, who wrote earlier this week:

If you didn’t have anything planned for this Friday, what about our best guesses on where the election leaves the conservatives? At the moment it would appear that they’ll form government. Whether that is minority or in their own right we don’t know.

But it could be a bit of fun coupled with some serious thoughts.

Seems a good idea to me, especially when taken in conjunction with

Friday 24 June 2016, UK:

Capital Market Laboratories

Friday 1 July 2016, Dacca:


Sunday 3 July 2016, Baghdad:

Voice of America

Friday 8 July 2016, Dallas:

ABC News

As the allegedly ancient Chinese curse puts it,

“May you live in interesting times.”


Are we going to hell in a handbasket? As Tom Lehrer sang,

Now, there’s a thought – every American Police Department should have its own nuke . . .


To answer my own question, I hope not, but if we are careering down that primrose path, at least we have our friends.

254 thoughts on “What’s Next? Friday

  1. A few of those phone calls were mine, a minuscule bit of the fundraising was mine. Some of the HTV and scrutineering was mine. I know it is much less than others, but I feel a bit prideful today.

    Now also that is what so many Labor volunteers will be thinking. We are part of something worthwhile, even if we are each a tiny part

    • Know what you are saying Puffy, did a little bit myself but I also think we did something that the conservatives will never be able to do as well, as much as Erica might think we are all tax deductible charities etc, etc. Just cannot see the Sloan Rangers on display when I walked into the Wentworth on Saturday night ever getting out past Strathfield, let alone knocking on someone’s door without a proper introduction. Most of the older HTV.s I saw on Saturday for the Fibs were too light on for social skills to try it either , so augers well for the future I guess.

  2. Shakespeare always has something relevant to say.

    Guess who?
    “Why, here he comes, swelling like a turkey-cock”
    Henry V, Act 5, Scene I

  3. Someone should take bets on how long it will be before the first disaster strikes the new government. Or how long before Fizza gets bored and chucks it in. Or how long before the first newly sworn-in minister has to resign over some scandal or other.

  4. Is it a case of robocalls from Labor = bad, robocalls from Fizza = good?

    Looks like it.

  5. No press club journalists wanting to say Fizza’s win was a Pyrrhic victory. none at all. If you dropped in from another planet today and read the press coverage you’d think Fizza had had a fantastic, overwhelming win, rather than just squeaking over the line by a few thousand votes and one or two seats.

  6. You really have to wonder about The Born To Rules’ attitude to Labor’s robo-calls. They must seriously believe that their own are their god-given right.

    Another explanations is that they are bastards.

    I think I’ll apply Ockham’s razor.

  7. They wonder why the fourth estate is failing, but by only ‘reporting ‘from one view point they are diminishing their own readership. They miss the obvious are vastly overpaid and no longer representative. If only the could be sent out into wider Australia

  8. Catalyst,

    . . . sent out into wider Australia

    Like the average 4WD (especially the European marques) if sent away from the safety of the city, those churnoes would catch cold, lie down on one side, and die.

  9. Going on from why the Fourth Estate behaves as it does, two of my favourites on analyzing human behaviour: Robert Ardrey with The Territorial Imperative and Konrad Lorenz On Aggression.

    • Sorl right. I’ve huge respect for Lorenz – he was a colleague of the wonderful woman who was my Biol teacher in Forms 5 and 6.

    • It’s about 30 years since I read that book.

      Two things stick in my mind: him being followed around by ducks and his lying on his back on a grassy hill, looking at the clouds and getting into the trance-like state where time doesn’t exist. Lovely stuff.

  10. And Nicola Sturgeon doing it for the Scots!

    She’s a feisty lady.

  11. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/the-seriously-weird-beliefs-of-freemen-on-the-land/news-story/cd91441f8f406a48457d5450b0a264f9





  12. So, Ms Williams wins another major tennis tournament and SHE’S ABOUT TO PASS STEFFI GRAF’S NUMBER OF WINS!

    Great athlete as she is, she never had, and never will have, the grace and agility that made Steffi so great to watch.

    Not much to watch on women’s tennis these days but this lady is promising

    Garbiñe Muguruza

    • I went totally off the Williams sisters when they started playing in the doubles matches as well. They already win everything in the singles and good on them for that. But taking the doubles as well is, in my opinion, showing greed and lack of class.

  13. As far as I know, teh precedent is that they count back if the first Senator can’t take up the seat by disqualification. It’s only if someone takes the seat, then resigns, that a casual vacancy is created and filled as per the constitution.


    “Heather Hill, a woman with Australian and United Kingdom dual citizenship, was a Queensland candidate for the Australian Senate for One Nation who contested the 1998 federal election. At the election on 3 October 1998, Hill received 295,903 first preference votes and was accordingly elected without the need to consider the distribution of preferences.

    Henry Sue, a voter from Queensland, disputed the election of Hill and filed a petition under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 in the High Court of Australia, sitting in its capacity as the Court of Disputed Returns. Sue argued that on the date of Hill’s nomination to the Senate she was still a citizen of the United Kingdom and thus, because of the operation of section 44 of the Australian Constitution, was ineligible to be elected to the Parliament of Australia.

    Terry Sharples, a former One Nation candidate who had stood for the Senate in the 1998 election as an independent candidate, made a similar petition. Because both cases involved constitutional questions, and were substantially identical, they were heard together from 11–13 May 1999.


    The court declared that Hill was not validly elected at the 1998 federal election. However, they did not declare the whole election invalid, acting on an earlier decision of the court, because although no effect could be given to voters’ preferences for Hill, their other preferences were not invalid, and those could be used to determine who should be elected in Hill’s stead. The court did not reach a definite decision about what action should be taken, remitting that question to a lower court. Eventually, Len Harris, the number two candidate on the One Nation ticket, was elected in Hill’s stead, taking up his seat on 1 July 1999.”

    • Funny how both the Hill thing and the Culleton thing involve One Nation candidates who should never have been allowed to run in the first place.

Comments are closed.