I don't think - I am sure that there is not one person in political parties who is competent in intelligence nor in integrity, to be trusted in the process of choosing direction of the decisions for Australia to run and to again get back into the economy we had 40 years ago. There are rare persons who are "alright" if they were not held back by more ruthless persons in the parties who sway the rest of the party in to "obedience to obey the party promise of agree to the majority". There are too many people there who are willing to prostitute their position in parliament to be not seen as a party rat, and there are as many who are prepared to be a rat to destroy the economy and fair treatment of the Australian worker and small business, and they hold high places in their party. They are only in it for the obscene salary, but the evidence of their ability and integrity shows that if the salary was reduced by even 80%, they would not be underpaid.

Kevin Rudd was not politically assassinated. Australia has a Westminster system. If the oligarchy which controls the parliamentary party is dissatisfied with the prime minister for any reason they have the right to organise a vote to depose him. It is a vote of no confidence within the party rather than a vote of no confidence in the entire parliament. The Westminster system worked as it was supposed to work.

I would prefer separation of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government where the head of government is elected separately and is not part of parliament.

However, the system we have worked as it is supposed to work.

"...my political forensic skills are nil," says Don Allan.

Amen to that!

david f: "Kevin Rudd was not politically assassinated. Australia has a Westminster system"

"Political assassination" is used as a metaphor in these circumstances to describe the shocking, unheralded and psychically violent termination of a prime ministership.

Nobody has ever claimed the actions of the ALP were illegal or unconstitutional, because they weren't. As you point out, we have a Westminster system.

But there was a political assassination. Metaphorically speaking.

Dear briar rose,

I'm aware that political assassination is a metaphor but to my mind an inappropriate one. If one cannot accept being turned out by party action don't become prime minister under a Westminster system. It's that simple.

It was not shocking to me. It was unheralded, but party machinations are by their nature not done in public. Psychically violent? If one doesn't have a tough hide one shouldn't be a politician.

I don't believe any politician climbs the greasy pole to the top without some lack of concern for those who have been stepped on during his or her rise. From what I have heard Kevin Rudd was a demanding and domineering boss when he headed a bureaucracy.

I was very impressed when I read the articles on Dietrich Bonhoeffer that Rudd wrote for The Monthly. He wrote of Bonhoeffer’s compassion, courage and dedication. They were moving essays. I was elated when he became prime minister. I think almost all of us were moved when he made his ‘sorry’ speech to the Aborigines.

It was downhill from there. He was no Bonhoeffer. He referred to climate change as ''the greatest moral challenge of our time'' only to waffle on it and shove it aside. He kept Howard’s paternalistic policies toward Aborigines in the Northern Territory. He kept Howard’s National School Chaplaincy Program which unleashed fundamentalist beasts of pray on school children. He took hordes of advisors with him to a meaningless climate change conference in Copenhagen. He spoke of a great increase in Australia’s population. He seemed to lack awareness that we live on a finite planet. He did not inspire the nation or express a coherent vision for Australia’s future.

He exemplified Parkinson’s law. He had risen above his level of competence. If he had not been deposed I would have wondered about the competence of his parliamentary colleagues.

I think he can write great essays and hope he writes more of them. I appreciate your posts. They seem well thought out.

I am not a ALP voter but I must confess how shocked I was at Rudds sacking , I am still trying to come to terms with the midnight event.
Rudd was a breath of fresh air , a new dynamic replacing a competent but medieval leader, Howard . Rudd I correctly accessed was a Salesman , a man from the street who's mantra was "BS Baffles Brains" the Big question is would the ALP have won Gov't without Rudd ? Everyone knows that answer.

Garum Masala

It is amusing how we can disagree so much on events.

I see Howard as much more caring for battlers than you do, and cannot believe Labor could elect someone like Rudd.

Kevin Rudd was not politically assassinated.
david f,
It looked more like an unavoidable accident looking for a moment to happen.

Regardless of what one calls the demise of Kevin Rudd, it was a coup d'etat in the true sense of that phrase.

The one thing we will all never know, being fed the Labor "story" was what would have been the result if he hadn't capitulated. However, I have collected enough information in seats that were lost to Labor to realise that they would have remained as Labor members had Rudd remained, with little or no loss of support

What this gave the Australian people was a choice between two feckless candidates. This election was not based on the value of the local candidates but the 'presidential' style circus, which we now embrace. But even with the drama that June 23 produced, the public were still not able to give their support to Abbott, seen as totally unworthy for the role, a religious fanatic, a conservative in a progressive environment, not a person to be proud of in any way and hard to admire.

On the other hand we had Gillard, selling her future support for Arbib, Shorten and the like for rightwing votes, delivered to a lifetime and passionate leftwing candidate who at that time and as time will show into the future, would have done and will continue to do anything for the power she considered she deserved. We are already seeing the beginnings of the disaster that the 2010 Parliament will provide for as long as it lasts.

As for Rudd, he seems to have been able to turn the other cheek to the coup members and is now doing what he likes to do, walk the international stage, not too fussed with the day to day operations of a 'hung' (in more ways than one) parliament.

The newly fashioned Gillard saying following "moving forward", calling Abbott a "wrecker" is correct. His coming actions will suit that name, having little choice. But the wrecking she was party to in June will be with her and her associates forever, eventually being the cause of her demise, and rightly so.

The day may not be long in coming.

What happened in 1971 if it was not an "assassination" or what happened in 1991 as well.

I've got a copy of Dennis Pryor's
comical, critical, cynical, sceptical,
ironical, satirical dictionary of Australian
politics, titled, "Political Pryorities:
How to Get on Top of Australian Politics."

In it Pryor has this to say about the
Westminster system:

"Westminster system - The illusion that the
Australian government works, or should work,
on the same principles as the British government.
The similarities between the two systems are
largely those of decor, like the use of the mace.
The major difference between the two systems is that
Australia is a federation, a concept totally
incomprehensible to the British. An appeal to the
"Westminster system" is a slogan used by Opposition
parties in an attempt to trick their opponents into
foolish resignations."

we selling good worldwide ccs with dob smtp leads banklogins dumps vpn so plz contact us selling_fresh_stuff@yahoo.com website www.myccshop.net

RexW ; I think Abbott takes his Religion very seriously and I in no way consider him to be a Fanatic . I am a product of an Orange and a Green and from a very early age decided Religion was too toxic for me ;however if I ever label people who see themselves as Abbott does ie; a true and dedicated believer as a Fanatic , I would seek psychiatric help.