Paul,
stop talking such counterproductive nonsense. Rudd/Gillard have to go as did Whitlam. This has nothing to do with Liberal/Labor. It's to do with the running of the country.
Labor can not manage. How many more times do you want thousands of people to work only to pay for taxes & fees for nothing in return.
It's ok if you're an academic or a bureaucrat but if you're a working person or a business operator than it's nothing short of disastrous under Labor.

Loudmouth my last 2 posts about 'Democratic Man' and 'The Peoples Committee' were flippant and meant as joke posts a bit of humor, something this site lacks at times. Like the typical Australians named are all billionaires, hardly typical Australians, and reference to Allan Jones as an impartial bloke, he is a well known ultra conservative. It would be obvious you could not have a democracy under those conditions, 3 people voting every 30 years,absurd, have to be at least 5 people every 20 years, don't take it serious another joke. In a true democracy we ALL have to vote. What ever the outcome the people have spoken through the ballet box.
Individual seems to think its acceptable that if the perception is the 'government is on the nose' as in the case of the Whitlam government in 75 and now the present government it quite all right to have it removed undemocratically, weather that is done by the Governor General or at the point of a gun, such action is not democratic and never will be, even if you try to stage a democratic election there after, that does not negate the previous undemocratic action. Conservatism has this 'born to rule' mentality about itself, non conservative governments are inherently bad and nothing but a mistake by the people and must be replaced forthwith. Once conservatism enjoyed total authority within our society, slowly over time, begrudgingly, it was forced to give that total authority up, the mass action of people demanding a say in how their lives were governed. I don't think conservatism has ever completely accepted universal suffrage. Its been more a case of "we'll give them their democracy as long as they agree with us." In the main non conservative governments, Labor governments in our case, have toed the line.

Paul, you're such a tease - you know that floating that idea of a three-man ruling group, with new choices every 30 years, would have many conclaves of Maoists and Trotskyites and assorted Indigenous Government cliques, all around the country, arguing hotly well into the night about:

* who those three should be, in the event of a Revolution, (undoubtedly each person arguing would see themselves as one of the three, perhaps the dominant one) and

* whether any 30-year change is even necessary, given the rightness of the original choice.

I've heard a report that one four-person clique of Trotskyites in Mt Isa actually came to blows, after a ten-hour meeting, and has formally split into a 4th International (Punctuated Disequilibrium) group and a 4.5th International (Permanent Revolutionary Footing) group, with one person undecided.

And at one Aboriginal Tent Embassy, (I think it was at Andamooka) members of two families are refusing to speak to each other after each claimed to be the original owners and therefore to have the permanent right to choose the three co-rulers forever. So now, as I understand it, there are two Tent Embassies at Andamooka (or wherever; no, it could have been Meekatharra).

See what you started, Paul !

I don't think we have enough democracy in our Westminster system of government. At the parliamentary level I would like to see MP's be given a more independent voice on issues and not have to toe the party line. Something akin to the American system where often Republicans will support a bill from a Democrat president and democrats oppose the same bill, without the party backlash that such action draws in Australia. We concentrate far too much on the cult of leader personality and not enough on the input of members and the issues there in.
At the electorate level, our system favors the two major parties far too much, giving each a too larger representation at the expense of independents and minor parties , who through the ballet box are entitled to a voice. I think 3 member electorates with preferential voting is far more democratic than the present system. In that way ordinary voters can lobby not one but 3 members on local and broader issues. At the moment if you are in say a cabinet ministers electorate its hardly worthwhile trying to lobby your local member on any issue. The minister is too busy to bother much with local issues and on broader issues will just maintain cabinet solidarity as they are bound to.

Well, it's all academic now. Julia's still the leader through a Caucus vote even though the majority of Polls show that the people wanted Rudd. Apparently no one wants Abbott.

My bet. Rudd will chuck a hissy fit & resign from Parliment & go into diplomacy.

Regardless of what we think here. All Political Partys are run by the Faceless unelected people behind the Partys. They tell the elected members of Parliment how & what is to be done. The PM & such like are only figureheads placed in front of us lowly minions.

The labour party is so closely associated (controlled by) the unions
that they are unable to operate without the approval of the unions.
Perhaps they should change their name to the Union party then they can
honestly abandon the claim that are legislating for all Australians.

The pretense that the left/right union factions do not control certain
members of parliament has been shown to be a lie in the Rudd kerfuffle.
I think it means that anyone who gets into parliament without the
approval of the unions and thus does not belong any faction cannot
ever attain a majority vote in caucus.

I might have some of this factually wrong but that is how it looks to me.