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!

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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.