The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Democratic legitimacy in the Gillard period > Comments

Democratic legitimacy in the Gillard period : Comments

By Dilan Thampapillai, published 27/8/2010

The validity of the ALP coup that brought down Kevin Rudd is still very questionable.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Get over it, Rudd was a joke. Should not have been a leader in first place, but that is also easier to say in hindsight.

Labor would have been smashed if Rudd stayed in power. Even Michael Kroger, Liberals, states this.

Life is cruel, even for the great intellect, Mr Rude, as Bill Clinton called him.

To think, many thought Rudd (and Obama) was going to save the world. Fact is Rudd could not even run a government properly. Only got away with it for so long because of favorable public opinion. But they woke up eventually.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 27 August 2010 8:39:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes get over the Rudd being deposed syndrome.

The ruling party can change its leader every 6 months if it wants to. There is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

The very title of the book Battlelines is about the applied politics of exclusion.

Howard was the master of such politics. You know the un-Australian chardonnay swilling "elites".

The ETS was also a crock. A cumbersome unworkable mess which would not have made any real difference to anything. Just business as usual, sweeping the mess under the carpet.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 27 August 2010 8:57:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that it is time for the people to get over everything, all the rubbish they have had stacked into their heads by the parties. To start with, to join a politicial party, you have to sign a "pledge" that you promise to agree with the decisions of the majority. To sign that, you would have to be devoid of integrity, and not have much intelligence. So that is what you get in your political parties, along with those fanatical - believe anything their political party tells them. There may be democracy in the party, but I think there are those who won't allow any say against their own pet subject, and there is definitely no democracy in parliament, people have been thrown out of their party for trying it. I am inclined to believe that the most people at the election, selected the party they considered "not the worst", and if a better one was available, would have voted for it.The minor parties don't have enough policies to cover the prospect of them being a powerful and successful government.
Posted by merv09, Friday, 27 August 2010 9:37:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that you can tell by the posts, those people who are just fanatics of a particular political party, and can't accept any criticism of their chosen party. When you get fanatics obscessed with the party and they have power as well, we are in real trouble, any thing is likely to happen, even to destroying its economy and its security, is this what is happening?
Posted by merv09, Friday, 27 August 2010 9:49:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“the validity of the coup in the first instance is still very questionable.”

That,from a “Lecturer with the School of Law” - heaven help Australia’s advance in legal matters.
Posted by colinsett, Friday, 27 August 2010 11:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rudd's inadequacies in a leadership position are so glaring that one has to wonder why the UN wants him to head a climate change committee. Is it their way of ensuring that the process fails without having to acknowledge that their AGW 'science' is mere nonsense?
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 27 August 2010 12:56:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy