Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since the AustrlianPrime minister (Julia Gillard) has been challanged for leadership from the former Prime minister (Kevin Rudd) I thought it would be interesting what people on Dakka think should be Prime minister

Kevin Rudd was the Prime minister until Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard Requested a leadership poll to see who should be the leader of the party which she won in 2010 voted by majority of the party (not by the people )

Well now the Labour party is in turmoil and Kevin Rudd has now challange Julia Gillard for leadership which will be decieded in a leadership poll on 27 February 2012

So who do you think should be Prime minister?

Rudd?


Or

Gillard

Didn't Rudd volentarily step down?
Anyway despite being half Australian (and an Australian citizen to boot) I actually know very little about this. I remember something about the Kyoto agreement but that's as far as my knowledge of Australian politics extends.

Joey wrote:Didn't Rudd volentarily step down?
Anyway despite being half Australian (and an Australian citizen to boot) I actually know very little about this. I remember something about the Kyoto agreement but that's as far as my knowledge of Australian politics extends.

No he was voted out as leader of the party which alot of people were annoyed with as am I, we voted for Kevin Rudd not Julia Gilard for Prime minister.

One reason I kinda wish we had a president instead so they couldn't just be kick out by thier party.

Yak9UT wrote:

Joey wrote:Didn't Rudd volentarily step down?
Anyway despite being half Australian (and an Australian citizen to boot) I actually know very little about this. I remember something about the Kyoto agreement but that's as far as my knowledge of Australian politics extends.

No he was voted out as leader of the party which alot of people were annoyed with as am I, we voted for Kevin Rudd not Julia Gilard for Prime minister.

One reason I kinda wish we had a president instead so they couldn't just be kick out by thier party.

We did vote for Juilia, about a month and half after she was voted in as head of the ALP, she called an election, needed to independents to beat out Tony Abbott in the end, remember that?
Personally Kevin should get back in, he was just as an effective if not more so than John Howard.

Krellnus wrote:

Yak9UT wrote:

Joey wrote:Didn't Rudd volentarily step down?
Anyway despite being half Australian (and an Australian citizen to boot) I actually know very little about this. I remember something about the Kyoto agreement but that's as far as my knowledge of Australian politics extends.

No he was voted out as leader of the party which alot of people were annoyed with as am I, we voted for Kevin Rudd not Julia Gilard for Prime minister.

One reason I kinda wish we had a president instead so they couldn't just be kick out by thier party.

We did vote for Juilia, about a month and half after she was voted in as head of the ALP, she called an election, needed to independents to beat out Tony Abbott in the end, remember that?
Personally Kevin should get back in, he was just as an effective if not more so than John Howard.

Gilard may have been voted in in the ellection but she only won by a small percentage.

She was lucky, she only just made it, I honestly didn't like either canidate.

Julia Gilard and Tony Abbott are both terrible IMO

Thats why I would prefer Rudd as he is more popular then the opposition leader.

I rekon Julia hasn't got another chance of being allected as prime minister again against Abbott

I think the main reason there's a great deal of support for Rudd is that he's the underdog here. His leadership skills are very poor and it's well known he was abusive to his subordinates. It's little wonder the party doesn't want him in.

I don't like either of the candidates, however I didn't vote for Julia to begin with. She was our premier if I recall correctly and did little more than appeal to the public on the news constantly, as if to try and cover up for doing nothing.

The only thing Rudd has going is he isn't as bad as her or Abbott (whom my dad only wanted to vote for before as it would mean the country would be run by Abbott and Costello ). There was also that show that ran for a short while about Julia on ABC (I think) was a satire and had some good parts.

I actually trust Kevin Rudd with the country because Julia Gillard is an incompetant leader. I want an election to be called soon, so Tony Abbott can be voted in as soon as possible. Tony is a much better leader than Rudd or Gillard. His policies actually make economic sense rather than trying to be "Green" and satisfy both Conservatives and Liberal politics. I just don't want the Anarchic Fascist Greens to get anymore views.(Just my opinions on the greens don't mod for it, if it's harsh. PM me.)

rockerbikie wrote:I actually trust Kevin Rudd with the country because Julia Gillard is an incompetant leader. I want an election to be called soon, so Tony Abbott can be voted in as soon as possible. Tony is a much better leader than Rudd or Gillard. His policies actually make economic sense rather than trying to be "Green" and satisfy both Conservatives and Liberal politics. I just don't want the Anarchic Fascist Greens to get anymore views.(Just my opinions on the greens don't mod for it, if it's harsh. PM me.)

Yeah, I can see what you-wait, what?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I actually trust Kevin Rudd with the country because Julia Gillard is an incompetant leader. I want an election to be called soon, so Tony Abbott can be voted in as soon as possible. Tony is a much better leader than Rudd or Gillard. His policies actually make economic sense rather than trying to be "Green" and satisfy both Conservatives and Liberal politics. I just don't want the Anarchic Fascist Greens to get anymore views.(Just my opinions on the greens don't mod for it, if it's harsh. PM me.)

Yeah, I can see what you-wait, what?

The Greens want the censorship of Traditional views, they want to turn Australia into the next Amsterdam, their policies are dangerous. They will do anything to get their way. They don't not compromise. Policies such as legalising LSD, allowing as many refugees in as possible and other typical Liberal policies will ruin Australia. The Greens can't possibly manage a region successfully. Their Socialist yet Fascist Ideals will destroy our liberties and freedoms. If I don't like certain groups, I should be able to voice my opinion not get a metaphorical duct tape over my mouth. "Liberal" Fascism is going to far.

rockerbikie wrote:
The Greens want the censorship of Traditional views, they want to turn Australia into the next Amsterdam, their policies are dangerous. They will do anything to get their way. They don't not compromise.

So what was all that during the last election?

Policies such as legalising LSD,...

Heaven forbid!

...allowing as many refugees in as possible and other typical Liberal policies will ruin Australia. The Greens can't possibly manage a region successfully. Their Socialist yet Fascist Ideals will destroy our liberties and freedoms.

The only reason I even give them a second glance is because they support our freedoms, such as the freedom to marry whoever you bloody well want.

If I don't like certain groups, I should be able to voice my opinion not get a metaphorical duct tape over my mouth. "Liberal" Fascism is going to far.

I have no problem with you voicing your objection to the Greens and their policies, but really calling them facists is over the top.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
The Greens want the censorship of Traditional views, they want to turn Australia into the next Amsterdam, their policies are dangerous. They will do anything to get their way. They don't not compromise.

So what was all that during the last election?

Policies such as legalising LSD,...

Heaven forbid!

...allowing as many refugees in as possible and other typical Liberal policies will ruin Australia. The Greens can't possibly manage a region successfully. Their Socialist yet Fascist Ideals will destroy our liberties and freedoms.

The only reason I even give them a second glance is because they support our freedoms, such as the freedom to marry whoever you bloody well want.

If I don't like certain groups, I should be able to voice my opinion not get a metaphorical duct tape over my mouth. "Liberal" Fascism is going to far.

I have no problem with you voicing your objection to the Greens and their policies, but really calling them facists is over the top.

They blocked the Carbon Trading Scheme for no reason, then they wanted a mining tax and a Carbon Tax for a stupid reason. LSD can cause people to literally insane. I personally don't care about the LGBT community as long as they shut up with their "Pride marches" after they get the Marriage. I remember I was in Sydney and they were handing out flyers to some yearly Gay Pride events I handed it back stating I don't have the time, what do I get called? A homophob, why? Because I don't care about the March, I have better things to do. You got to also realise that we can't have too many freedoms or anarchy will pursuit. These "Conservative" Laws to ban certain drugs is for the good of the community. I disagree with Gay Marriage(don't bother trying to persuade) and I'm sick of it being forced down our throats. I've got one question for you. If Gay Marriage wasn't force down your throat would you care? Probably not. I would vote yes, if people wouldn't throw a tantrum about it.

I would vote in favour of Gay Marriage becuase I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. That is really the only thing I agree with the Greens on at all.

Also, if anyone were to legalize marijuana (as opposed to LSD) I wouldn't complain.

All this talk of Fascists and ruining Australia is making you sound like Glenn Beck.

Edit: For grammar.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I would vote in favour of Gay Marriage becuase I believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. That is really the only thing I agree with the Greens on at all.

Also, if anyone was legalize marijuana (as opposed to LSD) I wouldn't complain.

All this talk of Fascists and ruining Australia is making you sound like Glenn Beck.

To take Marijuana you should be forced to have a liscence, this will stop the small percentage of people who might get hurt from the drug from taking it. I oftenly debate that Homosexuals get more rights than Straight people these days.

rockerbikie wrote:
To take Marijuana you should be forced to have a liscence, this will stop the small percentage of people who might get hurt from the drug from taking it.

Really no problem with that, if only alcohol was so heavily supervised.

I oftenly debate that Homosexuals get more rights than Straight people these days.

I'd love to hear how this works.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
To take Marijuana you should be forced to have a liscence, this will stop the small percentage of people who might get hurt from the drug from taking it.

Really no problem with that, if only alcohol was so heavily supervised.

I oftenly debate that Homosexuals get more rights than Straight people these days.

I'd love to hear how this works.

I think the same with alcohol. I've had enough with the drunk and disorderly of Wollongong. The debate usually happens when some Homosexual calls me a homophob because I openly oppose Gay Marriage. I argue the point that it is my freedom to not support it and they are disrupting my right to not support it. That guy wanted to hit me so badly.

rockerbikie wrote:
I think the same with alcohol. I've had enough with the drunk and disorderly of Wollongong. The debate usually happens when some Homosexual calls me a homophob because I openly oppose Gay Marriage. I argue the point that it is my freedom to not support it and they are disrupting my right to not support it. That guy wanted to hit me so badly.

So meeting one idiot in a bar means homesexuals have more rights than you?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:
I think the same with alcohol. I've had enough with the drunk and disorderly of Wollongong. The debate usually happens when some Homosexual calls me a homophob because I openly oppose Gay Marriage. I argue the point that it is my freedom to not support it and they are disrupting my right to not support it. That guy wanted to hit me so badly.

So meeting one idiot in a bar means homesexuals have more rights than you?

That debate is not open for online debate. It is better suited to Real Life Debate.

rockerbikie wrote:
That debate is not open for online debate. It is better suited to Real Life Debate.

I wasn't aware there was a rule against discussing gay marriage on Dakka (and this is on topic).

Neither.

Nor Abbott.

The trio are a charisma vacuum who couldn't grow a choko vine over an outhouse, organise a piss-up in a brewery or get laid in a brothel.

I am disappointed that this isn't a poll over which politician is hotter, because in my book, totally Julia Gillard.

Ouze wrote:I am disappointed that this isn't a poll over which politician is hotter, because in my book, totally Julia Gillard.

You've obviously haven't heard her talk then

Ouze wrote:I am disappointed that this isn't a poll over which politician is hotter, because in my book, totally Julia Gillard.

Have you not heard of Kate Ellis?

rockerbikie wrote:The Greens want the censorship of Traditional views, they want to turn Australia into the next Amsterdam, their policies are dangerous. They will do anything to get their way. They don't not compromise. Policies such as legalising LSD, allowing as many refugees in as possible and other typical Liberal policies will ruin Australia. The Greens can't possibly manage a region successfully. Their Socialist yet Fascist Ideals will destroy our liberties and freedoms. If I don't like certain groups, I should be able to voice my opinion not get a metaphorical duct tape over my mouth. "Liberal" Fascism is going to far.

Bob Brown was essentially the Prime Minister of Australia for the first ~8ish months of the Gillard government because he had the the winning seat against Abbott, look at how 'facist', 'socialist' and 'liberal' we became, oh wait, that's right we didn't.

Manchu wrote:

Ouze wrote:I am disappointed that this isn't a poll over which politician is hotter, because in my book, totally Julia Gillard.

Have you not heard of Kate Ellis?

Would totally tap her.

Julia, otoh, not a chance. Even if redheads do normally work for me, the fingernails-down-the-blackboard voice and gesturing from the "body language: How not to use it" school turn me colder than a tinnie in an esky.

What does Julia Gillard use as a contraceptive? Her voice.
What does Kevin Rudd use? His personality.
What does Tony Abbott use? He's a catholic, they don't believe in it.

Kevin Rudd all the way.

If only Australia were still a dumping ground for criminals - we could get shot of all our politicians and you could get some people to compete for the job of prime minister

Granted, they would all be incompetent, thieving, self serving cowards (which goes almost without saying given they are politicians), but hey; you might find after 6 weeks cooped up on a ship together that they kill each other and everyone still wins.

Julia Gillard should be Prime Minister, because she is the candidate with the majority support of the governing party.

That's it. That's all there is to it. Rudd supporters can talk all the nonsense they want, but in Australia the Prime Minister is appointed by popular vote among the sitting members of her party.

Ultimately, it'd just be changing deck chairs on the Titanic anyway, because no matter who leads they are going to be utterly thumped in the next election.

Yak9UT wrote:No he was voted out as leader of the party which alot of people were annoyed with as am I, we voted for Kevin Rudd not Julia Gilard for Prime minister.

No, you voted for you local member of parliament. That's the Westminster System.

One reason I kinda wish we had a president instead so they couldn't just be kick out by thier party.

Thing is, if you have a president elected seperately to the members of parliament, there's exactly zero reason for them to work together. Notionally the person elected as president is the leader of the government, but he can have a reform agenda that's totally seperate to the rest of government, and the result is deadlock.

In comparison, when the Prime Minister is chosen by the elected members of the majority government, you can be sure that she's got their popular support, and will be working with her own party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krellnus wrote:Personally Kevin should get back in, he was just as an effective if not more so than John Howard.

He had an agenda of reform that was as substantial as Howard's, but when it came to getting any of it across the line he was an absolute, dismal failure.

Look at the major policies Rudd wanted to bring in - nationalisation of healthcare, carbon tax, mining tax. He brought in each with great enthusiasm and firey speaches, only for each to stagnate, and ultimately go nowhere.

I agree with the reforms Rudd was trying to bring in, but he was the exact opposite of effective.

In comparison Gillard has brought in a carbon tax and a mining tax, despite operating with a minority government. Say what you want about her awful campaigning, you can't deny she's effective in getting legislation over the line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:The debate usually happens when some Homosexual calls me a homophob because I openly oppose Gay Marriage. I argue the point that it is my freedom to not support it and they are disrupting my right to not support it. That guy wanted to hit me so badly.

That's your reason that gay people have more rights than straight people? What the hell?

Julia won, damn!

So then, who else is drawing on their next ballot to make it void?