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 > Moving forward, trust me > Comments

Moving forward, trust me : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 22/7/2010

If the ALP wins government, Australians will have endorsed the right of non-elected interests and party factions to decide who will be PM.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The author seems to forget that we do not have a presidential election system although many seem to wish that we did.
The Prime Minister holds that position depending on the confidence of the parliamentary members. That there would be leaders of various belief factions in a party is to be expected and when enough of the party members have lost confidence in a Prime Minister then it should only be expected that there will be a change.
Each member of a party or coalition wants leaders who will provide in their collective view the best opportunity to maintain or win power so that the overall policies of that group can be put into effect.
I for one do not want it to be otherwise.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 22 July 2010 9:59:03 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
Once more I have to point out-Australians never have elected a Prime Minister,we elect a Parliament and the majority party forms the government. The Gillard coup might turn out to be a political mistake, however it's not undemocratic under our system.Too much American TV perhaps.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:04:22 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
Foyle,

yes,who wants to elect a quasi-monarch for four years who is often in conflict with the national parliament.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:20:03 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
Another hatchet job, another article cobbled together from emotion at the expense of reality.

Politics is a bloodthirsty business, played out among egotists. Fortunately for Australia, the bloodthirstiness has, so far, been only in a figurative sense (the Arthur Calwell incident aside). The author is either delusional or less than forthright in writing that it has ever been otherwise.
What would Jennifer prescribe for the future?

Suppose we have “moved forward” to a less-easily manipulated electoral system – one derived from a referendum declaring that parliaments run a fixed term, of four years, and on a fixed date (Perhaps each leap year, and the first of April?). Further, in addition to voting for the local candidate, the voter is required to cast a vote for preferred Prime Minister out of those putting themselves forward – Peter Garrett, Bob Brown, Steve Fielding, Ian Plimer, Andrew Forrest, Julia Bishop, Graham Young?

Then suppose again, subsequent to this great leap forward, that Tony Abbott gains the Prime Minister’s Lodge – what then if he gets run over by his own bicycle and has an early demise? Do we have another election – what is the democratic outcome for the unscrambled jumble of wishes for voters who have not only a preferred representative for their own electorate, but in all probability a preferred party in Government, and a preferred Prime Minister?

Jennifer, unbury the poorly-wielded hatchet, and make some sense.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:34:26 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
Once again it's necessary to point out that even according to the PM herself, Australians do "choose" the PM.

According to black letter constitutional law of course that isn't the case. But in reality, campaigns in this country are run as presidential campaigns. The major parties use their leaders to win votes. The Kevin 07 campaign proves the efficacy of this strategy.

However, when the people have "chosen" the PM in this fashion, the party still retains the right to overthrow that "choice", even when that people's choice has got them in government.

This is inconsistent and undemocratic. If they're going to use the leader to win government, they should consult the voters when they want to get rid of that leader, who is now the PM as well.

Our constitution does not reflect our current reality. It is unrealistic to argue that we don't elect our PM, when clearly that is exactly what we do, and exactly what we are encouraged to do by the major parties.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:39:09 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
Gillard and her gang have done nothing illegal or undemocratic in ousting Rudd; no more than has the Opposition when it rid itself of Nelson and Turnbull – who, like Rudd, had become liabilities to their respective parties.

But it’s no help for the Gillardians to sit back with a smug little smile on their faces, content that nothing ‘wrong’ has taken place because we - the dumb voters – have no say in who our Prime Minister is.

We clearly do not have a presidential system, but – and it’s a big but – ever since Hawk, Keating and Howard, we have had PM’s ACTING like presidents, with cabinet ministers being allowed, occasionally, to say in public what our presidential style PM’s have said they could say. It seems that cabinet, no matter which party is in power, has become redundant in favour of increasingly dictatorial Prime Ministers.

And let’s face it. When people say they would or would not vote for ‘that bastard’, they are talking about a party leader they do not actually vote for. Many people don’t even know the name of their local representative, who generally doesn’t take much notice of them either, until election time.

It seems clear, that the ALP Government would have fallen if Rudd remained Prime Minister. The leader of the country IS the Prime Minister. So how can we kid ourselves that what Gillard did is not serious?

The fact that Gillard refuses to tell us, the voters of Australia, anything about her swift disposal of Rudd because she ‘gave her word’ simply doesn’t wash. When the leader of our country is prepared to deny us the truth of her deeds – and doesn’t have to answer to us for it - she just has to keep in good with her cronies - it is a bloody disgrace.

Remember, Gillard was Rudd’s deputy; she regularly defended everything the man did, and as Minister for Education, she made the biggest and costliest errors of any Minister, ever, with the BER farce.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:45:40 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
I will not be voting for anyone in the ALP for many years to come.

Not because of their recent change in leader, but because they have not fully explained to the public why there was a change in leader.

If a political party wants to keep me in the dark, I don’t vote for them.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:13:19 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 the way it's been done for decades. If you don't like it suck it up.

The majority party can choose a different PM every week if it so desires.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:18:00 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
No, Shadow Minister, we don't actually have to "suck it up" if we don't like it.

We can do exactly what we're doing, which is letting the ALP know we don't like being treated like children, and we can deny them our vote.

And we can do exactly the same if the opposition win government and start chucking out PMs every day if they feel like it and without any explanation.

It seems like the ALP is acting out your "suck it up" prescription. "We chucked out the PM, you lot suck it up, we don't have to tell you what went down."

Not exactly a vote winner, treating the punters like pond scum.
Posted by briar rose, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:29:05 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
Interesting variations in the comments, but why does Leigh ignore the history of hatchet jobs on sitting prime ministers carried out by the Liberal party in the period after Gorton took over following the disappearance of Harold Holt? I get the feeling that Leigh must be at least my vintage - do you remember the Petty cartoon in which McMahon scoops up the prize whilst everyone else is in furious warfare?

Under a Westminster system it is always the party members who decide who will lead them, whether in opposition or government. I guess it just shows how much the politicians "respect" us poor punters who voted them in. (Sigh)
Posted by jimoctec, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:39:06 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
All this rubbish about whether Gillard should tell us about the internal workings of the Labor Party drives me mad.

The real issue is: do we want the Mad Monk to be the Prime Minister? Do we want Work Choices to be reinstated? Do we want to have the Party which mainly looks after the interests of the rich to gain power again? Do we want kids behind razor wire again?

No, no, no!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 22 July 2010 11:41:43 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
I share the views on Julia Gillard's mindless slogan. However, it is simply both wrong and misguided to complain about what happened to Kevin Rudd.

It's wrong for reasons that others have mentioned: we don't elect a president - the governing party elects its leader.

It's misguided because Kevin Rudd had clearly failed. He is very intelligent and good with policy, but he simply can't/won't consult and he's hopeless at relating to people. The result is that he would make a very good bureaucrat (and was a good media campaigner in the last election), but when it came to leading a government he couldn't do it.

He lost just about every major debate he entered, not because he wasn't smart, but because he couldn't gather support from the public, which is the most important test of a politician. Finally he lost the support of his colleagues. If I was an MP facing the polls that he was getting, and given his refusal to listen to anything I had to say, I'd change horses as well.

The suggestion that Kevin Rudd was done over by some faceless back room union hacks doesn't square with the report from the party room that he couldn't muster more than 20% of his parliamentary colleagues to support him.

Whatever Gillard's future is, it shouldn't be weighed down by any fantasies that Rudd deserved to stay.
Posted by Godo, Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:14:15 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's interesting to see that some people will not vote for Labor after Gillard's tactics. I cannot say that, as I wouldn't vote for Labor in a fit, anyway. I will vote Liberal, only because I consider it to be the lesser of two evils.

I am not, JIMOTEC, rusted on to the Liberal Party or the Coalition, as you seem to be suggesting; I hold no torch for them, and I would prefer to have a real Conservative party to vote for. And, I think that Tony Abbott will blow it al la John Hewson. Labor deserves to be kicked out - even Labor supporters are very uneasy about Gillard and her coup, no matter that they, too, new that Rudd was a total dud.

Vintage-wise, I found out what politics is really like when Bob Menzies was PM. My concern is not about Labor or Liberal (the Greens are simply maniacs) but about my fellow Australians being so apathetic and smug that the dirty tricks we are not allowed to know about are OK just because the Holy Westminster system allows them.

I've never been a fan of republicanism, but we have to find some way to make Australian politicians accountable to us, the people who employ them. We shouldn't have to merely copy some other country, either.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 22 July 2010 1:00:43 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 the ALP wins government, Australians will have endorsed the right of non-elected interests and party factions to decide who will be PM. >>

Oh phoowey, Jennifer!

The Australian people will not have endorsed ANYTHING! Not any policies nor actions nor philosophies nor ways of doing things. NOTHING. NIL. Sweet Fanny Adams!

Very few people will be voting for either large party because they fully support them and endorse all that they stand for.

Few people will even really endorse ANY key policy of the party that they vote for.

Most people will vote on the basis of whichever party they feel is the slightly less undesirable government of two highly undesirable options.

Most of us feel as though we are compelled to vote for someone even if there is no one, or on one with a chance of winning, that deserves their vote. They don’t realise that we don’t have to vote for anyone.

And…. lots of people will specifically be voting against both major parties, but their vote will end up counting for whichever one they put higher on their ballot paper, as they are compelled to mark every square and their vote will very likely filter down and count where they specifically don’t want it to….such is the disgusting and totally antidemocratic nature of our compulsory preferential system! Few people understand the voting system or the way in which your vote can get STOLEN and made to count where you don't want it to!

So all of this means that for whichever party wins, a very large portion, in fact the overwhelming majority, of votes that put them there are basically undeserved votes, and votes that certainly do NOT indicated an endorsement for anything, other than possibly an endorsement of them being ever so slightly less irksome than the major party that loses!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 July 2010 1:30:36 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
Jennifer is going to vote for the Libs, There I said for Jennifer, can I have the 5 minutes of my life back that I spent reading your article?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 22 July 2010 1:31:00 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
So Briar Rose,

What are you going to do? Vote Liberal?

If you vote Green, the preference bounces straight back to Labor. The Labor party is effectively giving you the one finger salute.

The Greens survive on moping up the protest vote for Labor, and in return are given cushy 6yr senate seats.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 22 July 2010 1:38:41 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
This article provides a convincing case for all students to have an education in civics so they can understand how government works and properly engage with it.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 22 July 2010 2:05:00 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
Having read your piece indicates your ability to creatively write, Dr Wilson.Perhaps Kevin Rudd himself bound those at the meeting to secrecy and why wouldn't he?
All his good and bad points have been picked over and the fact remains he had lost the support of the mass of people(the polls) for what ever reason(inability to communicate,failed ETS etc)and remember we are talking about politics, where the game is winning and holding power-whatever it takes.
So all of you stop whingeing and start stirring the politicians to be positive, non-obstructive and consider the good of the people of Australia, remembering that they are all servants of we the people.
To call Rudd's dumping un-Australian is nonsense and I'll bet any money Abbott and his mob of carping obstructionists would now give anything to have dumped Howard when they should have and he just would not go.At least Rudd behaved in the interests of us all.
Posted by gazzaboy, Thursday, 22 July 2010 2:50:54 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
This issue is not going away. It highlights several aspects of Australian life/politics. First, at election time there's a national delusion, an almost hallucinatory trip - we think we vote for a specific person to lead the nation. We do not. I repeat - we have never, and are not about to, vote for any one person, neither Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott, to lead this nation. The point is, however, we should be doing so. It aint rocket science people - we now desperately need legislation following referendum, to enable the people to directly elect the PM. Yes, just like others elect their president. The system was irrevocably broken and cheapened, and diminished, and demeaned, and prostituted, by Julia Gillard et. al. We better fix it before it is no longer a democracy.
Posted by artsgrad, Thursday, 22 July 2010 3:14:13 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
Dear Kenny
I cannot let your assumption pass unaddressed. I have never in my life voted Liberal and I won't be starting now.

I had little time for Kevin Rudd, as I've previously stated at some length in this journal.

But I have even less respect for the robotic person who replaced him, and the method by which she achieved the top job.

I am not alleging that the government acted illegally in replacing the PM. Of course they didn't. They acted in compliance with the Westminster system. Which has shown itself to be a flawed system on more than one occasion.

If political parties are going to use their leaders to persaude us to vote for them (and they do, and it works and it's presidential) then we need to have some means of preventing the party that wins government from chucking out the leader/PM without consulting the voters who put them in office.

This is not rocket science. It's standing up to the major parties and refusing to allow them to manipulate us and our votes.It's addressing a flaw in the system that the major parties exploit.

Thank you for reading my article, and giving it five minutes of your life. Unfortunately there's a no-returns policy on your time.
Jennifer Wilson
Posted by Seaspray, Thursday, 22 July 2010 4:13:46 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
So Artsgrad and Jennifer,

Are you proposing a tricameral parliament - a House of Reps for whom we vote electorate by electorate, a Senate for whom we vote by state, and a house of one, a Prime Minister ?

Would she/he be in the lower house, the upper house or floating free of both ?

Would she/he have to be elected to one or the other other house first, or could he/she be elected independently of both ?

What would her/his powers be, i.e. what powers of the other houses would have to be ceded to her/him ?

Would he/she speak as PM in the lower or upper house, or would she/he make decisions free of both, ex cathedra ? Would he/she be bound by decisions made by the majority of the lower house ?

Could he/she dissolve parliament at will, or in consultation with the other houses, i.e. with members in her/his own party (and then what happens if he/she represents a different party from whichever has the majority in either the lower or upper house) ? Suppose Bob Brown was elected as PM, with his five or six fellow-Greens having the balance of power in the Senate (i.e. no majority in either house) - could he (and they) dictate to the country on that basis ? Even as a Green, I would have some qualms about this definition of democracy.

But once we iron out these wrinkles, it should be pretty simple really ;) Who says arm-chair pontificating is futile ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 22 July 2010 5:38:06 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
Jenny,
I am reminded of the Monty Python Skit about "bring out your dead" with this article. Encouraging the people to air their limited understanding of politics and the fact that both sides indulge in this internecine blood sport.

Starting with an heading designed to generate cynicism. Followed by an outrageously myopic assertion. All this is followed by visceral 'reasoning?' and factually light verbiage topped with an equally unhelpful lack of understanding of the Westminster system.

Sorry ma'am time to move forward or, get party authorization.
Without a doubt this is the weakest of your offerings. You and Greg alike.

PS the 'Australian' (sic) might be calling you soon
Graham, really mate.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 22 July 2010 5:40:38 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
There are many countries in which such unilateral action would have caused riots in the streets and bloodshed."

Not here, Jennifer. The last activity that could be considered an uprising of opinion was the Vietnam Moratorium. Before that it was probably the Eureka Stockade. Takes a lot to get Australians motivated about anything other than a football score, any game will do.
Sadly, Jennifer, your well written article is just flying in the face of apathy. This is Australia. Many of us tonight sit comfortably in front of the ABC News 24 release while we have dairy farmers in Tasmania almost forced to look for the sale of their properties overseas, anywhere, because the amount they receive for their milk from the monolithic foreign-owned middle men of the industry, the processors who then on-sell it to the big retailers who then make ten times more in profit than the farmer who produced the product. Standard activity in this country where nobody gives a damn. Sell off our assets. Who cares?

As Jennifer said, Australians should have been outraged by the disgraceful action last month, by a person with blind ambition, a leftwing zealot accepting rightwing support for services yet to be rewarded, but you can count on that. For example, if the so-called Senator Arbib (claim to fame: Labor money-raiser) rises further up the pecking order as a result of Gillard's assassination of an elected PM, then you will know I am right. He does have right wing skills, whatever they are, none of which should be discussed in polite company, but he should never be allowed to talk to anyone about anything important. He and his ilk brought on this coup, fanned by a compromised and compliant Gillard and her Melbourne Zionist backers.

Rightwing Arbib and the leftwing Melbourne Zionists. Now these are strange bedfellows but anything is OK for a comfortable life of power and influence.

There are many matters requiring urgent attention in our country, Murray Darling, Health, and on.

Australia has a choice of Gillard or Abbott to fix these problems. We have hit rock bottom.
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 22 July 2010 8:46:53 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
Jennifer,
It's not often I agree with you. I share the general disquiet about the removal of Rudd.

I'm a liberal voter.

So have no real desire to praise Kevin and his efforts nor indeed offer him my sympathies. I'd liked to have had the opportunity to have hit him with my metapherical baseball bat.

However of greater concern is that Gillard is trying to hide her involvement, with Kevin, in the doubling of our annual immigration intake ... without telling us.

I wish both had been up front and told us they intended to do that as an action intended to alleviate some of the effects of the World Economic Crisis. Gillard with her pretend immigration 'statements' isn't telling us whether she wants to continue with that strategy or reduce immigration to our historical levels of 140,000 p.a.

Oh and by the way I wouldn't mind if all 140,000 were all asylum seekers ... from refugee camps!

Hi and regards Keith
Posted by keith, Thursday, 22 July 2010 9:22:26 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
Moving forward requires conviction!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0_avwKo4S0
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 July 2010 9:58:34 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 media has spent the last 12 months tearing Rudd down personally and proclaiming that he was a liability to his party.

When his party reacted and did the only smart political thing, the media then made that the new issue.

At least one of the same media owners has been doing the same thing to Obama.

I don't recall the same degree of confected outrage among the Libs when they were canvassing the idea of Howard simply handing over the Prime Ministership to Costello "when the time was right" or even when McMahon toppled Gorton.

(Maybe if Costello took over they would still have been in power).

Bt the way, the Prime Minister can also be removed from office by a simple majority vote of Parliament.

Where does that leave the voting public then?

We live in a plutocracy. Get used to it.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 23 July 2010 1:40:50 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
Just a comment or two, 'wobbles'

If Costello had been the leader of the Liberals, we would still be putting up with his show-0ff sense of ridiculous, childish humour as the parliamentary clown.
Like Abbott, just one step worse than Costello, he was a feckless person and recent events have shown that to be true. He has no respect, which I would have thought was a quality of some value particularly in your own party. Not quite the joke that Abbott is, but almost.

As a Liberal voter you have one hope for credibility, good management, respect, professionalism and international acceptance and that is Turnbull. He is the only candidate worth a penny in that motley collection of Pyne's, Hockey's et al, the Catholic mafia in a secuklar country.

There you are. Both parties have hit the bottom for talent, honesty, integrity and as we all know in times like these, it will take a decade for the quality to improve on both sides of the fence.

So when in the near future you see Gillard, (yes, it will be Gillard as no sane person would vote for Abbott)) strutting the international stage with her weird collection of unfashionable attires from the 1930's and you are forced to cringe as she commences one of her 'moving forward' waffles, you will at least know that you didn't waste your vote on her or her pathetic, corrupt party.

At least you will be able to sleep at night.
Posted by rexw, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:43:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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