The Malevolent Morrison Muppet Goverment

[watt price tully]

The fetish for the ex PM continues.

According to sources, Brett Rutten has been shattered to find he's out of a job. Clarkson is also having to revisit his options as news emerged that Scomo installed himself as Essendon Coach 6 months ago

They used the line on the Front Bar tonight.

[stui magpie]

Where do you think I stole it from?

[eddiesmith]

And The Front Bar stole it from social media

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

And The Front Bar stole it from social media

Of course they did.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

You miss the constitutional issue. It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem. In that case, a strong executive simply over-rode Cabinet and ignored a Minister. It's probably not good political governance - but no-one could sensibly suggest that there was some subversion of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or ministerial accountability. It's common, in fact, for PMs of all political persuasions to make "Captain's calls" - that isn't a constitutional problem. It may or may not be sensible, depending upon the circumstances, but it isn't a constitutional usurpation.

[stui magpie]

Morrison's having a bit of fun with all the memes' putting himself in Sooshi mango. https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrisonmp

They responded with this.

Sooshi Mango
·
You can appoint yourself as a member of Sooshi Mango as long as we can appoint ourselves as minister of the Australian Taxation Office!

[stui magpie]

@David, I think your point above is apt, as is the comparison you made earlier about Andrews.

Morrison at least had himself sworn in to ministries, albeit on the quiet, and with 1 exception didn't use any of the powers. Andrews during 2020-21 basically subverted all normal government process and ran the state like a fiefdom, claiming health advice (incorrectly as has been shown) as justification while all the time working the CHO like a glove puppet.

[watt price tully]

You miss the constitutional issue. It's assuming responsibility as Minister without telling anyone that's the problem. In that case, a strong executive simply over-rode Cabinet and ignored a Minister. It's probably not good political governance - but no-one could sensibly suggest that there was some subversion of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or ministerial accountability. It's common, in fact, for PMs of all political persuasions to make "Captain's calls" - that isn't a constitutional problem. It may or may not be sensible, depending upon the circumstances, but it isn't a constitutional usurpation.

Nail hit head. I’m surprised David would even think there’s some ‘relativity’ in this comparison. It’s all about the Conventions, Norms and Ministerial responsibility. The juxtaposition is simply irrelevant and basically misses the point. The closer analogy is Trump and Johnson (with differing consequences) both like Morrison have trashed normative political behaviour and trashed political convention.

[watt price tully]

Morrison's having a bit of fun with all the memes' putting himself in Sooshi mango. https://www.facebook.com/scottmorrisonmp

They responded with this.

Sooshi Mango
·
You can appoint yourself as a member of Sooshi Mango as long as we can appoint ourselves as minister of the Australian Taxation Office!

I’d hardly call it fun on Morrison’s behalf but he is a marketing man after all. However he continues to miss the point and will continue to be a distraction (and headache for the Lib Gnats. However, as the astute Michelle Grattan points out Albo & his Government need to know when to pull back from the free kicks by Scotty.

There’s also a book coming out by the astute Liberal Party supporter Nikki Savva. Can’t wait

[Pies4shaw]

@David, I think your point above is apt, as is the comparison you made earlier about Andrews.

Morrison at least had himself sworn in to ministries, albeit on the quiet, and with 1 exception didn't use any of the powers. Andrews during 2020-21 basically subverted all normal government process and ran the state like a fiefdom, claiming health advice (incorrectly as has been shown) as justification while all the time working the CHO like a glove puppet.

What do you say is the problem under Victoria’s constitutional arrangements with anything Andrews did? I’m not asking your view about what he should or shouldn’t have done - still less whether you agree with any of it - but what was constitutionally inappropriate? The Executive has extensive prerogative powers (derived ultimately from the Monarch) - exercising those is a matter for the head of the Executive. The problem with what Morrison did is the very opposite - the Parliament vests powers by statute in departments for which Ministers are responsible and our system of government depends upon those Ministers answering to Parliament for the exercise of those powers.

I accept that this is an area of some complexity - and it’s fine if you don’t or can’t get it - but simply asserting that what Morrison did wasn’t (in your opinion) as autocratic as Andrews’ modus operandi doesn’t even begin to grapple with the constitutional issues.

[stui magpie]

What constitutional issues?

The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"

All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.

I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.

If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain.

[nomadjack]

What constitutional issues?

The Governer general approved it and has said "nothing to see here"

All of the commentary says it would have been fine, but he should have told people.

I haven't seen a single piece pointing out a constitutional issue, just a breach of custom and practice.

If you believe there is a constitutional issue, please explain.

It's a constitutional issue because our constitutional framework depends entirely upon the conventions of responsible government in addition to the written constitution. You say it's just a 'breach of custom and practice' - that's the point. These customs and practices are at the absolute heart of our system of government. It's hard to think of a more central convention than the chain of accountability that holds ministers responsible to parliament. It simply can't work if parliament doesn't know who the ministers are (nevermind the problem of other ministers including those being 'second chaired' don't realise they are being 'shadowed').

[Pies4shaw]

^ Don't worry - Stui is determined to pretend that I'm not one of Australia's leading constitutional lawyers. It's kind of touching when he says to me that something isn't a constitutional issue - like he might know.