sebster wrote: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?
