Mr Patel's assessment of what Gillard should and shouldn't do are based on a personal political viewpoint rather than constitutional sense. The depiction of Rudd's demise as a midnight execution or whatever suggests that Gillard was the sole participant in the demise. The Party made the decision, Rudd had the opportunity to take it to the vote. He declined. Democratically elected political parties can and do change leaders at any given time. The call for Gillard to resign from Cabinet because she disagreed on a policy is a nonsense in terms Cabinet government procedures. The convention is that while a member may disagree, once the decision is made, Cabinet solidarity is a principle that all members are presumed to abide. This is the primary reason that the cabinet leaks after the event are such a talking point as it is deemed by all parties that cabinet solidarity remains just that for the term of that government's life in Cabinet

Why would Rudd want a role in cabinet?

Impossible to know the answer unless he tells us.

However, being chucked out of the PM's position doesn't necessarily mean he wants to leave parliament, and why should it? He's still an MP, it's still his job,he still has the right to campaign, and if re-elected as the people's choice in that electorate, he's still entitled to lobby for a ministerial position.

Rudd didn't do some ghastly shameful or criminal thing to cause the loss of leadership. He doesn't have to slink off into oblivion and hide, however much it might suit the ALP for him to do that.

As for cabinet solidarity - Gillard was the first one to blow that when she took office and informed us that the government had lost it's way. If that's not breaching cabinet solidarity, I don't know what is.

All the leaks are doing is filling us in in just how that way was lost.

To answer the authors' last sentence..

Rudd wants to be PM again.

Beggars belief , I know , but what other reason can there be ?

The situation is different if members of government are considered to be part of the public service, who are paid wages by the public.

Julia Gillard appeared in a 32 page inset in Woman’s Weekly magazine, but then she does not want to tell the public how she became Prime Minister. Meanwhile, the public pay the wages of politicians such as Julia Gillard.

The public is being used as puppets.

The situation is not, in any way, a good example for others in the public service.

Acton, you were not paying attention. Mr Patel's article accurately describes both the constitutional position and the traditions derived from the Westminister system. There is no element of personal opinion in the article, just fact.

"The Party" did not make the decision to dump Rudd. There was no vote. Rudd resigned rather than respond to the Gillard challenge. It was her decision to take it to caucus, not his. As usual, Labor machine men had quietly undermined Rudd's position to the point where he resigned rather than lose face.

As the deputy prime minister, Julia Gillard should have resigned if she felt unable to agree with cabinet decisions. She did not resign. Therefore she accepted joint responsibility for them. The convention is that no minister may publicly disagree with a cabinet decision once it is made. That particularly applies where a minister's own submission has been rejected or amended in cabinet. The other option is resignation if the minister feels strongly that cabinet has made the wrong decision and he/she cannot accept or abide by it. She did not resign, therefore...

Gillard was deputy prime minister in the disastrous Rudd Government - including her own disastrous policies and administration relating to the BER and IR. She is now prime minister of the disastrous Gillard government. Same lot minus Rudd.

Yesterday's revelation by Robert Gottliebsen that Gillard's own IR policies were undermined by Combet and Rudd indicates that she went to water on that policy, too, and accepted decisions contrary to the policy she had developed. She thus wears responsibility. See here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/How-Rudd-turned-on-Gillard-pd20100729-7STND?OpenDocument&src=kgb

So we now have a prime minister who could have resigned on a matter of principle, but did not and who thus cannot disown the policies for which she, as deputy prime minister and second most senior minister in the cabinet, accepted joint responsibility.

So she either lacks principles or was a dud minister. Or both.

If the Rudd government "lost its way", as she claims, so too did she. That's why she keeps parroting "moving forward", because if anyone looks back, they'll see only the train wreck.

"What remains puzzling is why a prime minister, deposed from the pinnacle of public offices, would seek re-election and would accept or even seek to secure a lesser role in a cabinet in the meantime, led by a person who carried out a “midnight execution”.

Such is the sickness of the power-hungry.

An interesting point Leigh.

And indeed, it could be asked “Why does Gillard want to be Prime Minister so much, (doing all that she has done to become Prime Minister).”

I have some answers to that, but I’m going to be very secretive about it and not tell anyone.

Why would Rudd want a role in cabinet?
Briar rose,
I can't believe my eyes reading this ! The man was so incompetent that even his own party had to get him off the job albeit in a cruel manner. However, just as cruel is the impact on this nation by their fumbling dictations to the bureaucrats who unquestioningly abide.
It should not be what an individual in public office "wants", it's what their responsibility is to the electorate. Have we gone that far down the tube that the wants of one incompetent individual can take priority over an electorate ? How much more do we let these people cost us ?

The one thing in favour of Kevin Rudd, is that he DID think of those people who have been disavantaged by the decline in the "global economy" debacle which has really been coming into the system for the last 40 years, he organised the "payout" to the low paid, the ceiling insulation debacle, which was put into destruction by poor planing, and corrupt "cowboys", but which was ment to create jobs, something which nobody else was doing, has been declining. All the parties since 1970, with their reduction of the top personal tax have been responsible for this economical debacle, It had been proven that there had to be a top tax of 66.6% back the 1930's,40's,50's, but they did not recognise that there also had to be a "no tax" up to about $30,000 or $40,000. There only has to be a total tax of about 30% of GDP

Merv,

Rudd's 'favour to the disadvanged' still has to be paid for. And it won't take many guesses to guess who is going to do the paying - starting with a bloke called Merv.

Greeks bearing gifts are not the only people you have to beware.

The thing which has been corrupting our Government since conception, has been the Westminister system, it is sort of saying that you cannot build a house or other building by using whole secure stumps or solid secure blocks, you have to have split stumps or fractured - not secure and not cemented blocks, everything has to be unreliable. You might think that the members of the parties are reasonably reliable, but they have proved that they are not. Take a look at the representation of our community in parliament, how many workers are there, how many lawyers and other professions, there is an over representation of these professions, and a gross under representation of workers, tradesmen, clerks, etc, they have been forgotten by all except Kevin Rudd.

Leigh, I was born in 1930, and lived in those days of the depression, I worked at age 14, picking cotton,and worked in Ipswich Railway workshops till 1950, from then, I worked as a fitter with Vacuum oil Co. then with Irrigation Water Supply on Moogerah Dam, with all this, I think that if you ask the people who was in the work force during the period between 1950 and 1970, they were the best era of economy. The period since 1970, has been chronic, particularly over the last 20 years, the treasurers over these last 40 years haven't a clue. Just ask somebody who is 70 or over, People under 50 or 60 haven't got a clue, they haven't been in an era of a good economic climate yet, wait and see, that is if they ever recover, remember we are just teetering on the edge of the recession, we might get off!

Come on, Merv. I'm almost 70, and to me, the 'best' years you refer to were only so because we knew no better. We didn't buy on credit as much; there weren't as many luxury goods to waste money on, and the only money most of us owed was on mortgages. On which, by the way, the interest rates in 1968 were higher than the ones they are moaning about now.

I worked in the '60s and '70s and my wife stayed home with 2 kids. It was a struggle. For me, the best the economy has ever been for the battler - and everyone else - was during the Howard tenure. As soon as your Mr. Rudd got in, bang went the surplus, and they are now borrowing $100 million a day, thanks in no small part to their largesse to people who didn't need it, the BER fiasco, and general Keynesian spending-out-of-a recession which never occurred in Austalia as it did in other countries. We are, even with Rudd's gross economic mis-management, not "teetering on the edge of the recession.."

You seem to have forgotten your experiences in the Great Depression if you believe that we are in a recession now. Your confusion is further compounded by the claim Rudd did "something that noone else was doing" when you should know that what Rudd did was exactly what America did post-WW11, and that didn't work either; and Japan did the same thing recently, and that did no good either. The UK tried it, and they are now broke. All under left of centre government.

With due respect, Merv, your opinons of Rudd seem to based on idealogy rather than on facts.

PS Merv,

The article was about the constituonality of the Rudd/Gillard shuffle of leadership, not who is good and who is bad.

You were well off the subject, as was I for responding to you.

Yes... but right now we have an immediate choice to bare.

This discussion will be one immediately after 21st August.

Else we slay our own policies... nearest to those we need.

In the end it is about immediate election polices.

Frankly it is as a child between a family clinging so not to be apart.

We must decide now what is to be done.... One step at a time.

Submit this article again, we need it and its content needs to be further discussed.

For me it is overload just now Nilay Patel and, life is like that eh?

Unfortunately.

When I look at Mr Abbott, I know I sure don't want his team as my PM, that is all I know. I find I have to start from there else, I have lost it too!

http://www.miacat.com/

Irrespective of what I have said, I only want good government, something that has been missing for a very long time. Like anyone else, I can pick out faults with all of the parties that have been in power, and that is of little use. The form you have to sign to join any party "To Promise to agree with the decision of the majority", implies that the person signing, would be admitting that he hasn't got any integrity and not the required amount of intelligence we need for government, and yet that is what we get, irrespective of the fanatical obsession some people have for a particular party, we do not get good government. Obviously some people are held up as almost gods, but they have very clay feet haven't they. It would be good to know the true mix between Kevin and Julia, what both really want, and is it any good for the country and the people? Tony too for that matter.

don't want his team as my PM.
miacat,
This election has gone beyond Liberal, Labor or Greens. It has become a matter of logic vs stupidity vs idealism. It's up to the electorate to show the whole world how much vision or rather the lack of it Australians have. We rave on about successful multiculturalism etc etc yet we are just a malfunctioning family with mum & dad heading for divorce & the kids heading for the streets.

Top Points "individual". The only part of comfort is that many of us have aired our thoughts, disappointment and avid complaints.

However;

We as a nation have also taught ourselves a lesson one hopes. We have spoilt brats on all sides including among the non-franchised.

As Australian's we need to be among those who can push and stand for change.

We have a voice and a vote.

We have numbers and thankfully some within the fabric some brave who burn-alive those who fail with honest expression, frankness. Some real people in this country with worth and solid candor.

Each, above this battle, we have responsibility.

At least their is opportunity to still try given that apathy has it's own pathos, as bad as any other sloth, listless mindless bequeather of indifference.

May we make our own choice... a choice luckier then most others throughout this world. For Real.

http://www.miacat.com/
.