The air would be full of grim news, horrific stories and dire warnings. There would be ministerial announcements galore and calls to be calm and steadfast and unified in the face of great peril. Official documents authorizing severe actions and extraordinary powers would be in wide circulation in no time flat. It would become the patriotic duty of every decent citizen to seek out doubters, sceptics and other agents of the Enemy as fast as possible, before we are all murdered in our beds.

Illegal? Of course not …. because the Law is what we say it is – and that includes the Electoral Act. By the time anyone gets half-way to challenging what has happened, they’ll be behind the razor-wire – or worse.

That’s how it is done and it works a treat every time.

Your faith in the High Court is charming – they have truly defended all of our traditional rights, obligations and privleges so well in the past couple of years, haven’t they? Protected by the Governor-General? I wasn’t aware Rev.Dr. Peter Hollingswoth had returned to the position. As for all the other insitutions you mentioned; they would be only minor obstacles to anyone with their heart set on seizing or retaining power at any cost …. and maybe they would willingly help it happen.

Thank-you. But I’m not sure what legal grounds there could be for suspension of an election. I’m not across “states of emergency’ but there’s no provision in the Electoral Act for such a thing. Individual elections (eg an election for a particular Division) can be declared to have failed, but not until after an attempt is made to conduct the election (except in the case of a death of a candidate after nominations close and before polling day).

You could argue (and you sort of are arguing) that little things like the law won’t stop him, but he’d need the Governor-General, The High Court, the State Governors (& therefore the premiers) and probably the State Supreme courts all to go along with it, just for a start. As far as constitutional crises go, it would be a beautiful and terrible thing to behold…

d

LeftyE:

“yer average punter is deeply suspicious of for-profit private childcare providers, and wants to see council/ community/ public alternatives”.

and
StMargaret:

“Howard has introduced WorkChoices and these people are just incensed. What with no-more-penalty-rates clauses placed in their AWAs, they just won’t be able to buy as much as they used to and the slightly rising interest rates are a problem too”.

Gosh. It’s a photo-finish to tell which of you two came 1st or 2nd; Helen came in 3rd right behind LeftyE.

Nobody has yet mentioned crawling to a America’s failed ruler, have they?

Polling day must be between 33 and 68 days after the dissolution (or expiry) of Parliament. The current Parliament first sat on 16 November 2004 and so expires on 15 November 2007. Writs for the election must be issued within 10 days of expiry, nominations close up to 27 days after the writs and polling day can be 31 days after the close of nominations. That’s a maximum of 68 days after the expiration so polling day must be no later than the last Saturday in that 68 day period – 19 Jan 2008. But there’s no way we’ll ever see a 68 day campaign being run over Christmas.

The APEC meetings are a deal breaker because the “caretaker conventions” prevent the government from participating in things like APEC once the election is called. Then the earliest post-APEC windows cause polling day fall during the school holidays in multiple states. 20 October is really the earliest date we’re going to see an election held.

But here’s a question: will Howard go for the minimum 33 day campaign or longer. The 2004 campaign was 40 days (plus a couple of days ‘pre-announcement’), which I believe was the longest since 1984 (56? days + over two weeks pre-announcement).

What you have posted here explains a lot about what many of the Liberal trolls have been including in some of their nonsensical postings on other blog sites. ie

“As an aside many people have said it, but tonight I too realised how effeminate KRudd is becoming. He looks like a sheila on HRT. Do we want this creature as our leader? ”

This type of comment is becoming increasingly common and must lead one to suspect that they are acting on instructions from Liberal facilitators using previously “successful” American, Republican Internet blogging tactics.

I agree that the these days the safest Liberal seats are likely to be found in the outer suburbs, which is exactly my point.

Don’t agree at all… You mean NSW Camden? Well that isn’t federally a seat, but at state level it is safe labor.

Outer suburbs more safe than the likes of wealthy North Shore areas like Mosman? Nooooo way. I think the Liberal vote in Macarthur would be very soft, even though it’s a safe majority.

My own view is that the only real solution to the housing aff crisis is social wage stuff like public health, education, trsansport infrastructure, affordable childcare, etc.

eg Look, here’s a high quality local public secondary school: Save yourself $10k in fees and stick it on the mortgage. No problemo, Kruddster – here’s my vote.

Otherwise you end up with dumbass inflationary subsidies like Howard’s joke policies on everything from healthcare to housing; or pissing off people who already own a house and like its high values (by getting rid of neg gearing, say -which incidentally I support in some abstract ideological universe in which there isn’t an election to be won in 3 months).