Neither Rudd nor Gillard were elected PM. They were elected as MPs by the people in their electorates, and elected to lead the ALP by members of that party. The people in Rudd's electorate still have their elected representative, as do the people in Gillard's electorate. People from outside their electorates who think they voted for either Rudd or Gillard need to read their ballot papers more carefully. People who chose their local representatives purely because of who was leading the party at that particular time could be accused of short-sightedness. Is this undemocratic? Hardly. The PM has no executive powers (a la the President of the USA) and, while she can exercise control over her party, one thing we have been reminded of over the past week is that the party can also exercise control over the PM.

Otokonoko, what you say is technically true, but only a fool would argue that the reality isn't that people vote for a Prime Minister, or that parties' campaigns aren't built around a leader.

This was particularly true of the ALP's 'Kevin07' campaign, so it makes it doubly disturbing that the faceless men have so ruthlessly assassinated the leader who dragged them out of the electoral abyss.

I disliked Kevin Rudd and his politics, but I am thoroughly disgusted at the way the ALP, its factions and its new leader have behaved.

While it is true that the PM is not elected, the presidential style of campaigning, the treatment given to leaders by the media and by their own parties and the encouragement to vote for a party leader when casting both lower house and Senate votes deliberately convey a very strong impression that the PM is voted in by the people, at least indirectly.

Although politics is tough and highly competitive it was never the dog eat dog, anything goes that has become apparent since the Whitlam dismissal and certainly during the Howard regime when ministerial accountability became a complete joke.

kw is right to remind us of Kevin Rudd's appeal and tireless work in winning the last election. Julia Gillard has strengths but along with others I doubt that she could ever have led Labor into government. Also like others I very much doubt whether she supported and advised ex-PM Rudd as a loyal deputy should have done. She appears far too ambitious for that and ambition is her Achilles heel.

As it now stands, Gillard is the best person available to lead Labor to the election, but few would be so innocent as to think that she didn't contributed to Rudd's downfall, as suggested by her refusal to answer some of Kerry O'Brien's direct questions on that subject. No-one would see Julia Gillard as a statesman, she has feet of clay - her consuming ambition ensures that.

What will harm Labor and democracy is the obvious interference and boasting of those powerful interests who were never elected but successfully conspired to unseat an elected PM. I do not rule out the long arm of the billionaire miners in that either.

A lot of electors would have lost a lot of faith in Parliament and democratic processes, but they are only 'punters' as the party machines see them, so it doesn't really matter, right?

Mirror Mirror on the wall, who do you see. Just look at yourself.

Sugar coated candy dressed in red? - impossible now- no real spin or vision.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5784&page=0

I couldn't go through this again. No amount of make-up will change the so called new face. If this kind of politics is what women of Australia stand for, then I am not a Aussie women. I am no fem-O-crate and nor do I support them.

Didn't Labour abolish Work Choices and wrongfull dismissal? Sacking people based solely on poor performance? [asks Tim] Add your comment SBS

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/yoursayarticle/1286242/Can-Julia-Gillard-take-Labor-to-election-victory#display_comments

'Rudd's leadership of the ALP was an historic point of departure from the ALP of old. For the first time, the ALP became an alternative for all voters regardless of income, or, social status, and cultural background. AWU + FACTIONS = OPPOSITION WILDERNESS (13yrs?) You have traded the new face of New Labour; Kevin Rudd with 25 yrs experience, for Gillard, the face of Old Labour ( Bill Shorten, power broker; 5 minutes experience in fed. politics!) '

But the winner is not Bob Brown , given he is partly - part of it.... and he knows it!

Where are the Australian Democrats?

We need the Democrats
.

Mirror Mirror on the wall, who do you see. Just look at yourself.

Sugar coated candy dressed in red? - impossible now- no real spin or vision.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5784&page=0

I couldn't go through this again. No amount of make-up will change the so called new face. If this kind of politics is what women of Australia stand for, then I am not a Aussie women. I am no fem-O-crate and nor do I support them.

Didn't Labour abolish Work Choices and wrongfull dismissal? Sacking people based solely on poor performance? [asks Tim] Add your comment SBS

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/yoursayarticle/1286242/Can-Julia-Gillard-take-Labor-to-election-victory#display_comments

'Rudd's leadership of the ALP was an historic point of departure from the ALP of old. For the first time, the ALP became an alternative for all voters regardless of income, or, social status, and cultural background. AWU + FACTIONS = OPPOSITION WILDERNESS (13yrs?) You have traded the new face of New Labour; Kevin Rudd with 25 yrs experience, for Gillard, the face of Old Labour ( Bill Shorten, power broker; 5 minutes experience in fed. politics!) '

But the winner is not Bob Brown , given he is partly - part of it.... and he knows it!

Where are the Australian Democrats?

We need the Democrats

http://www.miacat.com/
.
.

I agree, Clownfish, that people do vote along those lines. And I also agree that the parties generally campaign around the personality cult of their leaders. But, at the end of the day, an informed person is better off voting for a candidate who will represent his/her electorate at the federal level. I would much rather have a federal MP who will look after the seat of Herbert than one whose leader is charismatic. This is what representative government is about, and why we have electorates in the first place. In theory, the member for Herbert will advocate for our region and make decisions that are good for us when Parliament is sitting. Voting based on who will be PM takes away from that level of representation. Instead of ensuring that our voices are heard, we help someone get into government who is unlikely ever to visit our region, and even less likely to think about us when making decisions. No wonder we think our pollies are out of touch!

As for the Kevin07 campaign, I would say that Rudd himself is culpable for the feelings of hurt and betrayal that have arisen out of these events. To market himself rather than his party and its members gives the false assurance that he will be there in the long run. As Gorton, Hawke and now Rudd have discovered (and surely knew all along), that assurance is impossible to give with any certainty.