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





  2. 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.

  3. 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.