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 > Ruthlessness, brutality and cowardice > Comments

Ruthlessness, brutality and cowardice : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 29/6/2010

That brilliant victory speech Julia Gillard gave wasn’t written an hour before she became Prime Minister.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
What can I say? I agree with everything you say.

Where are the outraged crowds on the steps of parliament house, as there were in 1975?
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:00:34 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
What a load of unreasoning twaddle.
“Australians endorsed Kevin Rudd as leader” no, the electorate of Griffith, QLD, elected him as their parliamentary representative. The elected Parliamentary Labor members, as per Australian Federal Parliament practice for those forming Government, elected him as leader – and under the same practice have dismissed him from that post. They were far removed from being – “unelected to orchestrate the events that led to this most undemocratic action.”
Rudd was well removed from being the most collegiate of men, “he never opened his door”, yet the author asks “did anyone ever sit down with Rudd and give him some straight talk about his style?”
“none of the men and women we’ve elected in the last 15 years have had the bottle,” she says of his colleagues, yet when they did demonstrate that capacity, the author dresses it up as “The ruthlessness, the brutality, and the cowardice we’ve seen over the last few days”.
Dr. Jennifer Wilson, this article makes you a candidate for Doctor of Spin.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:37:37 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 author does not seem to understand the basics of the Westminister system of government. It is not a presidential system, despite the media carrying on as it it is. When we vote, we vote for our local member, not the leader of the party. The parliamentary members, influenced by the party members, then elects the leader. And it can change its leader if it likes.

What happened is nothing like 1975. Then the Queen in the form of the GG, overturned several centuries of convention by taking executive action other than on the advice of her ministers. A real constitutional breach. Which is what the parliamentary members did not make. On the contrary. Clan
Posted by clan, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:44:53 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
It is the Australian LABOR Party, Jennifer; not LABOUR. The ALP could not spell properly (or they were taught spelling by an American).

“Does this mean that none of the men and women we’ve elected in the last 15 years have had the bottle, singularly or collectively, to front their respective leaders when those leaders urgently needed to be spoken to?”

It probably does mean that, yes. They didn’t have the guts to pull Rudd into line, hence the plotting and planning that went on behind his back. The plotters waited patiently until they were absolutely sure that the electorate was thoroughly sick of Rudd, then they acted en masse. In short, they waited until they knew their cowardly hides were safe – protected by the people they constantly use and abuse.

People twittering on about the joys of a female Prime Minister should realise that Gillard is a vicious, cold and underhand politician, just like Rudd, who is interested in her own career path more than she is interested in Australia or Australians.

And, yes, our system of politics is now dysfunctional, with Prime Ministers from Keating, through Howard to Rudd and now Gillard acting like cowboy presidents.

Dozens of callers to radio stations have been daily lamenting the ‘loss of democracy’ since what some of them call a ‘coup’. The political illiteracy of Australians has again come to the fore. The Prime Minister does not even get a mention in the Constitution; Australians do not elect the Prime Minister, they elect a stooge to do a political party’s bidding. It wouldn’t matter so much if our Prime Ministers had not started acting like autocrats; but they have. It is Prime Ministers like Keating, Howard and Rudd who have taken away our democracy with the help of gutless self-serving lackeys posing as Ministers. What has been done to Rudd is perfectly legal and a matter only for the ALP, not the rest of us.

We haven’t lost democracy because of Gillard and her gang: we have never had democracy.

Well said, Jennifer Wilson.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:47:29 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 conclusions is that Gillard can not be trusted in no circumstances. She has organised isolation to the Prime Minister whom she sweared to support. She has not take advise from the nation before placing herself on the job she would not be taken otherwise. etc etc. Labor will never reach the votes of 2007 with Rudd on the new elections. To satisfy own ego, Gellard dragging whole party grom the government to the opposition for a long term.
'Not Gellard!" say people
Posted by Tatiana, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:01:12 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 think that Jennifer has it all wrong here.

Fact is that we did not elect Rudd as president or dictator, so
when he seemingly decided to behave like one, the elected
representatives who people did vote for, got rid of him.

IMHO that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Yes, politics is ruthless and brutal, but it always has been.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:18:21 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
Uhh, Jennifer ... take a pill OK, things are not as bleak as you propose. Although our media barrages us with a presidential-style view of Australian politics our founding fathers (all blokes) created a constitution that leaves the leadership of the government pretty much up to the Parliamentarians. Not perfect perhaps but hey, democracy is a messy business. I too feel a bit sorry for Ruddy, first term and all, but the blood sport he has been an active participant in lo these many years is fairly well understood by all participants to be ... well, a bit bloody from time to time. Drag that carcass from the arena centurions!
Posted by bitey, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:30:48 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
colinsett and others: twaddle, yourself ...

Yes, *technically*, the people of Australia did not vote for Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, but only a fool or lawyer would claim that that was not the *reality*.

The *reality* is that, for decades at least, Federal elections have been fought by *leaders*. To claim that only recently Rudd and Howard have somehow 'Presidentialised' the political system speaks of wilfull ignorance of political history or simple dishonesty.

Yes, technically, one votes for one's local member, who is a member of a particular party, which nominates a Prime Minister if it wins.

In reality, I would lay good money that many voters could not even tell you the name of their local member.

The reality is that people vote for a Prime Minister. They vote for the leader of the Labor party or the Liberal party. People voted for Gough, they voted for Fraser, Hawke and Howard, and they most especially voted for 'Kevin 07'.

If this isn't the case, why are campaigns always fought so heavily on 'leadership'? Why did Bob Hawke hammer the message 'if you can't govern your party in opposition, how can you govern the country?' Why did Howard campaign on 'leadership'? Why did the ALP simply say 'Kevin 07'?

So, admit the unpalatable truth: the people of Australia voted for Kevin Rudd*, but the Faceless Men marched him out of office.

*well, I didn't ...
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:33:03 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
Do we or don't we elect our prime ministers?

Under the Westminster system, we don't directly elect the PM.

When we vote for our local member and when that member's party wins government, we've endorsed the party leader as PM.

When we cast or withhold a vote because of a party leader and not because of our local member, as the alp is alleging we were about to do thus losing them the next election, then we're voting as if for a president in a presidential system.

What is undemocratic in this latest situation is that those who voted for their local alp member also in that vote endorsed the party leader as PM.

Yes, the party can change leaders as often as it likes and for whatever reason suits it. But when that leader is the Prime Minister, endorsed as PM by the electorate, then the electorate should be the only body that gets to chuck him out.

Its not the same as chucking out a leader of an opposition, The electorate hasn't voted to endorse the leader of the opposition in his or her position.

Julia needs to watch her back. If the polls trash her she'll go the same way and being a woman won't help much then.
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:37:12 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
Clan is quite wrong about 1975. Between 1950 and 1970 the Labor Party in opposition made 170 attempts to do to Coalition Governments exactly what Fraser did to them in 1975. Whitlam himself led the last of these attempts when he tried to use the Senate to force the Holt Government to an early election in 1967 and the Gorton Government to an early election in 1970. Labor established 170 constitutional precedents over a period of twenty years; Fraser merely followed suit.
DIS
Posted by DIS, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:37:47 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
Yeah but clownfish, seriously, what are we talking about here? Everyone knows that politics is a brutal occupation. Rudd's decapitation is not the first we've seen - remember PJK de-throning Ol' Silver? Anywho, the Constitution is the first place anyone trying to understand recent events should look, not the bloody newspapers or the telly. Perhaps if we were all taught the basics of our Constitution at a formative age we might not have this type of mis-informed, hang wringing silliness clogging up the blogosphere.
Posted by bitey, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:39:51 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
Oh Briar Rose, puleeeese! How illogical can you get. People vote for a brand (ALP, LNP, Green etc.) sure, but you cannot sustain an argument to the effect that because the ALP got most seats in the lower house in 2007 then ipso facto Ruddy must not be removed as Leader of the ALP in the lower house until the next election. How daft is that. Read the Constitution. It ain't there, so it won't happen.
Posted by bitey, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 11:47:30 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
So its all right to accept that we now live in a country where an ALP Prime Minister can be removed from office at any time on the say so of non elected union officials and party factions, on the strength of internal polls that we never get to see, just because the non elected unionists and party factions tell us he or she has to go?

This is democratic?

Don't forget: many of those Caucus members swear they knew nothing was happening until hours before it went down.

So who orchestrated the dumping if the elected members didn't?
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:03:30 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
Yes BR, it is alright because despite the sh@tty way it went down it went down in such a way that the framework of our democracy (the constitution) was not compromised. If you don't like the way it went down don't vote for the brand next election. Also, write a letter to your local ALP candidate voicing your concerns. But please don't engage in silly non-debates about whether this was an attack on democracy because it wasn't, not according to the framework upon which our democracy is built - the constitution.
Posted by bitey, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:13:07 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
And, I forgot to add, seeing as the Constitution permits circumstances such as these, then we're overdue for Constitutional change.

But don't hold out any hope for that while the non elected unionists and the party factions run the country via their front people: the elected ALP.

Nothing could be further from their interests.
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:16:38 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
If democracy has any advantage over other systems at all -- and it does -- it is that it gives us an opportunity to correct our mistakes. The majority of the Australian electorate has decided -- rightly or wrongly -- that Rudd was a mistake, and so rather than lose the next election Labor decided to replace him with someone more popular. That's the way it works, people. If they hadn't fixed their mistake now we would have fixed it for them in a few months' time.

Maybe we got it wrong. If it turns out that way then hopefully we'll learn, and not get it wrong the same way next time. Maybe one day we will learn to vote for a party that has rational policies rather than attractive personalities. This event might speed up that process.

But to blast the elected government for doing exactly what it is supposed to do -- obey the will of the people -- is a direct attack on democracy itself.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:19:02 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
It wasn't "the will of the people", that's the whole point. It was the will of unelected unionists and party factions who made the decision to get rid of Rudd based on information they have not made available to "the people."

The last Newspoll before Rudd got chucked out showed the ALP would win the election. That poll is a sample of what "the people" think.

But the unionists and the party factions decided to disregard how "the people" said they would vote because they wanted Kevin out.If they didn't chuck him out now, they'd hardly be able to do it if he was re-elected this year, now would they?

This is nothing to do with "the people." The only interest this lot have in "the people" is keeping us just satisfied enough to keep them in power.

And has anybody wondered how much the mining industry had to do with chucking out the PM? It will be interesting to see what concessions Julia makes
Posted by briar rose, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:40:18 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
*The reality is that people vote for a Prime Minister. They vote for the leader of the Labor party or the Liberal party.*

Not so Clownfish. People vote for all sorts of reasons. I know
plenty who have voted liberal, who did not even like Howard.
A Govt is about more then one leader.

Elected members of Caucus marched Rudd out of office, for very
good reasons IMHO.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:41:46 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
No, our political system is much the same as it was. What we have now is a spineless media that puts US style spin on everything, leading to a US style popularity contest based on "sound bites" and "truthiness". Real analysis and accountability has largely gone, or is brought out for the trivial cases so that they can claim professionalism.
Like the US, we now allow the stakeholders free reign to spin as they see fit. This began under Howard when he made the ABC another media clone in the name of "balance". Science was also undermined, as was real economics. We now get our advice from "institutes" that push brands, parties and other profitable entities. Journalists are not allowed to do their job as the politicians are free to reject their difficult questions, knowing they can find a friendly journalist to air their spin without consequences.
I believe both parties need a big kick and a reminder that we do want liberalism...just not tainted by ignorant conservative rubbish, we also want some socialism...just not jobs for jobs sake and unsustainable welfare. Science matters: without it we are stuck with the confidence of fools and the spin of those with much to gain.
Optimising anything requires balance and an unbiased analysis of *both* sides. Extremism and uber-conflict will break democracy by forcing wedges through the community. Howard started the "culture wars", but they are now gathering momentum and the harm is starting to show.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 12:54:59 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
A comment by one 60 yr old non Christian I overheard recently "A GIRL....? ? ?"

Re the faith of her parents.. (Christian/Baptist) she claims she formed different ideas.

If she has no faith, then presumably she has no reference point for her values. So..her values and political decisions might end up being entirely 'pragmatism' based rather than principle based.

I just feel sorry for her, having walked away from something she clearly did not understand.. if she DID understand and still walked away..the please Julia.. don't stand near me when the next storm comes.

If she did walk away from the faith with a correct understanding of the Gospel and Christ...then she will answer to the Almighty for that, (as we all will) but one wonders how she might translate those anchorless flexible playdough ethics into national policy.

I sure hope she doesn't get advice from any psychic.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 1:35:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"the practice of democracy in this country has lost its way"

What absolute garbage, if a leader is not performing as he should and is unacceptable to a large body of the electorate as Rudd was, then the democratic thing to do is for his parliamentary colleagues, the Caucus, to replace him.

That is precisely what the politicians demand of managers in the bureaucracy perform or get out and now!

After it took a revolt by exasperated voters to depose Howard for his arrogance and disregard for large sections of the electorate, his own ministers immediately criticised him and put distance between him and 'his' decisions. If they would have lost their jobs for questioning Howard and his politics were partisan, loaded towards the big end of town and to George Bush, why didn't they do something?

Similarly British Labour struggled on for years supporting an unpopular PM out of false loyalty when he did not have the confidence of the electorate. Their media had very kind things to say about Australian Labor having the gumption and courage to replace an underperforming leader.

What the author should be on the look out for is lack of ministerial responsibility, failure to declare interests and as applies to some parliamentarians in both upper and lower houses, failure to contribute and give good value for money for the betterment of all Australians, not just the few billionaires with mining interests.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 1:46:10 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
ALGOREisRICH..."walking away" from faith is an act of rationality that leads to maturity and freedom. It allows one to be honest, (truly honest) and also allows humility and freedom from fear.
You assume that one who walks from Christianity has no ethical rudder? On the contrary! I believe, through experience, that atheists are consistently more ethical than Christians.
It is not only the worldwide abuse cover-ups, the endless wars, the witch burning, slave owning, repression of knowledge and glorification of ignorance (they replaced sex ed with abstinence training. Result, teenage pregnancies rise over 50%!)...but also personal experience. As a rule, atheists can work as a team while Christians generally sharpen their knives ready to further their own interests.
Could you really say that Bush or Howard were particularly moral, given how lying and mass destruction for profit was their main legacy? I mean who kills millions to secure an oil supply and then says "God told me to do this" with a straight face!
Australia grew into a great country through hard work and pragmatic secularism. When churches get involved someone usually gets hurt.
The trouble with only having a mental hammer is that the world appears only as a bunch of nails. Christianity has taught you to despise humans unless they join the tribe. This was OK in pre-industrial times but has no place in a modern world.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 2:07:10 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
not a very enlightened piece - others have said it well enough before me.

The only difference with this coup - and it was - and all the others since 1966 - given Menzies was the last to leave at his own timing - was the sugical precision of the move - and contrary to the authors view - the honesty of it - Gillard was loyal until the caucus told her they had lost faith in Rudd - simple
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 6:02:27 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
Seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on, failure this and failure that but what about the mitigating circumstances for those failures? No one seems interested in the whys?

For me once it had become obvious that multi lateral agreements by all nations to reduce their carbon emissions in an orchestrated binding and confirmable treaty at Copenhagen was never going to happen the impetus was lost. There was never any point or expectation that Australia would continue on its lonesome regardless, introducing and enforcing its own ETS which we all know is expensive and will be detrimental to the economy.

The atmosphere above continental Australia doesn’t exist as a static bubble, there’s only one atmosphere for the earth and it’s continuously circulating over all nations. It’s also a fact that Australia’s carbon emissions are so minute that any change plus or minus would be of no significance whatsoever. You could pack everybody in Australia up and ship the lot out, turn the lights off, shut down everything, close the doors and leave it to the kangaroos and still make no impact on the planets overall atmospheric carbon levels.

So there was no point in Rudd continuing with his ETS without the rest of the world joining in, it would have been stupid.

Another unexpected global disaster was the financial crisis which forced Rudd to redirect funds originally destined to power up his election promises, such as the education revolution amongst others, into keeping Australians in jobs and our economy afloat.
These were higher imperatives that did not exist at the time that he made those election promises and he did a bloody good job of saving Australia from the financial hardships that broke many average families in the US, UK and others. Overall I think Rudd performed well I only had two problems with him at the helm and that was his kowtowing to the USA and the continuance of Australian military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by Westralis, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 6:50:17 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
My, there's a rash of Gillard-bashing articles today, aren't there?

What they and many of the comments they've elicited tell me is that many supposedly educated Australians are woefully ignorant of the political system in which they are compulsory participants.

Under the Westminster system Prime Ministers have never been directly elected. They are the parliamentary leaders, selected by their party cohorts, of the political party that can demonstrate to the Governor-General that they can form a viable government.

The Australian electorate didn't vote for Rudd to be PM - the ALP Caucus did. And they voted him out, quite correctly, when he lost their confidence.

If you don't like the Westminster System, agitate to replace it with a democracy :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 7:56:20 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
OK,

So Gillard is a ruthless politician who seized the moment. That's what ALL successful politicians do.

And I should care because.....?

On election day you look at the merchandise on offer and make your pick. Thus is it ever.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 8:23:10 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
....and Rudd was the idiot who put his hand up as being responsible for the really dumb-ass Big Australia policy.

No sooner did he make the boast then there were cries of "Incoming...duck", but it was too late for that.

"If people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong." - Yes, Minister
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 8:53:52 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
It seems all of our elected representatives from the last 15 years get a caning for not standing up to Howard or Rudd.

There will be others but as read that I thought of publicly voiced dissent during the Howard era - most notably over the treatment of refugee's by several coalition members. Petro Georgiou is the name that comes to mind and a piece I found in Crikey (sorry Graham) http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/03/petro-georgiou-regression-has-become-the-order-of-the-day/ touches on issues of dissent. I had the impression that Howard had lost some battles within the party room on other issues but don't recall what. I heard Costello express a differing opinion over some issues to that espoused by Howard - perhaps in the context of improving his own image but still public dissent with the leaders position.

I think that some elected politicians do far better than they are given credit for in this piece and my own view is that Howard may have handled dissent better then appears to be implied in the article (but not as well as I'd like). I'd not be at all suprised if others know of cases where Labor politicians have been willing to voice their dissent from Rudd's views.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:50:42 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
I might as well throw this one in to the mix:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939797.htm

I thought it was a good article containing some notable points.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 1:22:31 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
"It’s also a case of women to the rescue again. When all else fails, wheel in the woman."

Followed by

"The ruthlessness, the brutality, and the cowardice we’ve seen over the last few days leave a very bad taste and a very bad smell"

So Julia Gillard is the innocent heroine fighting against "the ruthlessness, the brutality, and the cowardice"

PLEASE!

Spare the crap.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 5:04:12 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
This stifing of dissent on both parties is the natural product of a media who carefully scrutinise the comments of any parliamentarian for any evidence of disagreement with the party line. Then then blow this disagreement up into evidence that the party is a shambles. Why do we expect politicians to all agree with each other all of the time?
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 7:47:20 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 fall has been a long time coming, and it was mostly self-inflicted.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 7:47:40 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
Yo, BITEY

The Constitution is a legal document , it isn't Democracy.

An analogy: the Marriage Act is a legal document. The Marriage Act is not marriage.

It's possible to be a nasty spouse with breaching the Marriage Act.

It's possible to behave undemocratically without breaching the Constitution.

Nobody is saying that the Government acted illegally, or breached the Constitution.

Neither did the GG when he dismissed Whitlam.

If the ALP, or the Coalition when in government, chuck out the PM whenever they feel like it, what will that do to the country's political stability, and credibility with other governments?

And a leader in opposition is a very different animal from a leader in government. The leader in government has acquired another role as well: the role of PM. So chucking out him or her isn't quite the same .

If the Coalition had been in government this time, we'd have had three PMs chucked out by now.

The phrase banana republic comes to mind.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 30 June 2010 5:49:56 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
Cornflower,

you are dead right about the replacement of the underperforming Rudd.

He really was a disappointment right from the start and we the gullible should never have allowed our disgraceful media to gloss over the waffle and outright lies he presented to us as policy.

I agree totally with your concluding remark but think you should also add the phrase 'as well as unelected faceless factional leaders and self-interested union heavies'.

Then we'd have concensus.

As for Julia's lack of faith ... I don't give a toss and nor do the vast majority of us.
However while she professes her morality and ethics derived from such a source I think it selfish of her by her flaunting example, which suggests to youngsters and the impressionable, that her lifestyle which includes a lack of faith could possibly produce the exact same morality and ethics.

ie A faithless upbringing will not produce the civility and unusually relatively high moral standards required to produce a care for others, that is enjoyed by Australians today.

As for Kevin, I think he did care about Australians it's just his expression of that, like Lathams and Keatings, was misguided, was being forced upon us by a compliant media, and which was seen by themselves and the media as truth, was being mostly rejected by the thinking majority.

Name one Labor member in the last 15 years who crossed the floor? There were a few in Howards time. The author forgets Howard did manage to negotiate successfully with a hostile Senate... many times. I don't think Rudd ever did.

Not so briar rose. History shows us Howard was behind many times in the polls and retained the position of PM. He lost it in a peoples choice. Opposition leaders must become popular to become PM and jockeying for that position is natural and fraught with the possibility of dissmissal. Different unofficial rules apply in Government .. for the Liberals amyway.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:55:26 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
Keith do you really think that "A faithless upbringing will not produce the civility and unusually relatively high moral standards required to produce a care for others, that is enjoyed by Australians today."

I'd agree regarding the earlier part about the unlikely outcome of the exact same morality and ethics but the latter point is seriously wrong in my view. People make of faith or non-faith what they want. It eventually gets down to personal accountability and what you choose to value regardless of what a faith might teach or the lack of an external authority for those without a religious faith.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 1 July 2010 12:33:33 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
Ms. Wilson,
where have you been since you were born?
I think I know!
Academia is a good nook to hide into.
And now you get enraged by insults to Democracy.
What do you know about her? Tell me please.
I never met a Democracy before.
Posted by skeptic, Thursday, 1 July 2010 3:55:46 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
When I first started work (with David Copperfield) it was pretty much accepted that employers had a right to verbally abuse their employees. These days, that sort of activity is generally considered unacceptable. Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and good manners.
After about forty years of repeats, what was the secret to success of the series “MASH”? The general answer was, these were the sort of people we were happy to invite into our living rooms, every night.
Can we say the same of our politicians?
Is Gillard or Shorten the sort of people you would invite to your barby, or the mates you would have watching your back?
Bitey says politics is a ruthless business; get over it. Why?
The most amazing thing about Aussie politics is that Aussies have such low expectations of their representatives.
And we just accept it.
We blithely accept actions and shenanigans in our representatives that, if our children tried it, we'd probably march them out to the proverbial woodshed.
I think it's high time we dragged our representatives -kicking and screaming- into the 21st century.
And (despite being no fan of Krudd) I think Ms Wilson's article is pretty much on the money.
Posted by Grim, Friday, 2 July 2010 8:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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