TOPIC:

it was a fluke when his lordship cornstalker won the last election -- looking back, Bolte, was right to demand his resignation on election night. If they run proper policies, aiming at reducing immigration in all categories over time, getting rid of greenism completeley, then taking those together, they would defeat Labour whom ever the party's leader.

Aboot's win was proof of the above.

Fat Trev, Lady Downer and Recycled Brett were dud candidates. That didn't help.

Weren't these by-elections due to the citizenship fiasco that's cost us millions of wasted tax payers money? And those that won were simply re-elected? All that says is Australians think it was ridiculous and simply returned those they voted for in the first place. And Bill Shock Shorten is celebrating like he's won the federal election. Bunch of flogs. Stop wasting our fucken money and do something productive.

DD wrote: Weren't these by-elections due to the citizenship fiasco that's cost us millions of wasted tax payers money? And those that won were simply re-elected? All that says is Australians think it was ridiculous and simply returned those they voted for in the first place. And Bill Shock Shorten is celebrating like he's won the federal election. Bunch of flogs. Stop wasting our fucken money and do something productive.

Exactly who was wasting money? I presume you aren't saying that the Australian Constitution should be ignored. Mayo was an unmitigated debacle for Turnbull. And perhaps you might like to check the last Tasmanian state election.

the high court caused those partial elections trying to prove its relavance -- there is nothing to stop them rulling the opposite in twenty years either.

ArkRoyal wrote: the high court caused those partial elections trying to prove its relavance -- there is nothing to stop them rulling the opposite in twenty years either.

Seriously do you think the High Court need to prove its relevance?

yep -- what does it do Swan 42? On issues of the constitution, I mean, not other areas of the law which are its remit -- if they had of taken a liberal view on the question, the whole saga would have been over in day. Instead they took a very strict view of the constitution and stuffed everybody up -- Shorten and Turnbull one and the other.

ArkRoyal wrote: yep -- what does it do Swan 42? On issues of the constitution, I mean, not other areas of the law which are its remit -- if they had of taken a liberal view on the question, the whole saga would have been over in day. Instead they took a very strict view of the constitution and stuffed everybody up -- Shorten and Turnbull one and the other.

Accepting your premise that the HC changed the accepted meaning of the section in the constitution doesn't that confirm Labor's and Bill Shorten's contention that the Labor Party members that were forced to a by-election were eligible to be elected in the 2016? Further does that run counter to the Liberal Party's view on those Labor members?

yes, and because you follow those things closely Swan 42, you will know that it was indeed the PM whom stood up and said at the dispatch box that the High Court 'will so hold' in relation to one of his members place in parliament. He was right at the time; as I say, the judges chose to change the rules on everybody to suit themselves.

ArkRoyal wrote: yes, and because you follow those things closely Swan 42, you will know that it was indeed the PM whom stood up and said at the dispatch box that the High Court 'will so hold' in relation to one of his members place in parliament. He was right at the time; as I say, the judges chose to change the rules on everybody to suit themselves.

AR Turnbull did most certainly presume to preempt the HC's decision based on legal advice that he refused to release.

Based on the HC's most recent decision a question mark hangs over people like Josh Frydenberg and Jason Falinski.