Text 13873, 41 rader
Skriven 2005-10-01 22:02:42 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 13872 av Paul Sanders (3:633/104)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
Hi Paul,

 PS> Hi Peter,

PK>Ah yes, I had forgotten about that that. It was not 
PK>so much a sacking, but
PK>the GG accepted the resignation of the incumbent PM. In late 1973 the
PK>Australian Labour party received a vote of no 
PK>confidence in the house, so
PK>the PM had no choice but to tender his resignation to the GG and a new
PK>election was held early in 1974. However at no time 
PK>did the Monarch assume

 PS> Are you sure about that, wihout going and looking it up I was under
 PS> the impression that the GG actually sacked Whitlam (and he was a
 PS> little annoyed with that!)

I am not surprised that Whitlam was annoyed, as PM he was quite surprised to
find that his Government was "torn down" from inside. I think that event placed
a few strong rifts within Aus Politics that may still exist to this day...

I think you may find the term "sacking" to be a slight exageration of the
actual event. My understanding is that "a vote of no confidence" in the
Government of a Westminster based system requires the leader of the Government
to tender their resignation to the GG, and that the acceptance of that
resignation is announced as "The GG has forceably disolved parliament", as
opposed to the voluntary disolving of parliament, where modern media report
this as "The sacking of the Government". Now if a PM does NOT tender their
resignation you actualy have in effect a coup attempt, which allows the
military to become involved and that can be severaly punished, so in that
situation a PM has a righ to be annoyed as well as being very careful. 

I can't see how the GG (or Monarch) can actually "sack" a PM or a Party,
because the GG (or Monarch) does not employ him/them, they are employed by
Parliament itself.

Cheers............pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: === Maxie BBS.  Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)