Rudd get dumped "not good for democracy". Why is that. Polls do not express such concern.

Was not Labor leading the Coalition when Beazely got dumped for Rudd.

Why is a PM's position any important than an Opposition leader, when both are important to democracy.

Also, you mention Rudd's intellect. Do you have the policy examples to prove it. Surely, rhetoric must be measured against what was delivered.

You will probably cite the apology, but you should also point out Rudd immediately ruled out compensation for Aboriginals at the time.

"Where's [your] democracy". you are living in it, one of the better democracies of the world.

Labor MPS, which have a right to appoint or remove a leader, fulfilled their opportunity, as part of a the system. Rudd was perceived as not good enough and the electorate will decide if they were wrong. So far they only have admiration for Gillard's intellect.

Dude? What is a dude? Do we have any of them in Australia? Perhaps they are an American invention (the USA being the only other place where I have heard dudaism mentioned). If American, how would he know anything about what has happened to your "democracy"? Most likely, your "democracy" was a sham that you never really had anyway.

I see the Labor apologists are up bright and early this morning.

Forkes, you know perfectly well that the author is referencing both the Michael Moore documentary, 'Dude, where's my country?' and the movie comedy, 'Dude, where's my car?' that Moore took his title from. It's no different to publishing a book called 'Not happy, John!'

So stop trying to be precious and if you have a comment, make one relevant to the content of the article.

Frankly, I'm with Dilan on this - this should be seen as as great a crisis as the Whitlam Dismissal in 1975. Both were done within the strict letter of the law, but most certainly not in the spirit of a democracy.

This article opens with a bit of a cricket statistic:

"This is the first time in Australia’s history that a first term Prime Minister has been removed from office in the absence of a genuine national emergency."

"This is the first time Australia has lost seven wickets in the first forty overs while chasing a Northern Hemisphere team on a sunny day at the MCG."

My question is, what difference does it make if it is the first, second, third or xth term? The end result is the same, and it is no more or less democratic. Excusing Scullin's removal because of the "unhappy" coincidence with the Great Depression suggests that it was quite an unfair dismissal - after all, old Joe couldn't do much about world events, could he? So how is that any better?

Then, suggesting that unseating a PM shortly before, rather than shortly after an election is somehow undemocratic doesn't stand to reason. Australia could justifiably feel more betrayed when Hawke was replaced by Keating shortly after an election (especially considering that, as Thampapillai suggests, the cogs were already turning before the election) than by Rudd being replaced by Gillard shortly before an election. At least they have an idea of who will be PM after they go to the polls, with the bonus of a poignant reminder that the position of PM is anything but stable.

We don't vote for the PM we vote for the party. You vote for one person who represents the party in your electorate. The party can choose its leader as it sees fit from those so elected.

I fail to see how the change in leadership of a a party reflects on democracy.

Rudd was bullied and dumped for no reasons, but for the job which madam Gillard wanted for herself. That is all explanation. Ability to communicate is supported by all the participants of proposed communications. If Gillard has isolated the man, blocked or sabataged the communications where playing candidate for replacement, that smells.
Democracy was also deprived, because that is asumption that nation has voted for the particular Prime Minister and particular Deputy. If Lavor put Gillard first in 2007, they would not win. So they effectively sowed te person for the Prime Minister role and did not deliver it entirely. That is why democracy was eroded.