The problem is not with Rudd, Gillard or Abbott. The problem is in the Westminster system itself. A few people can determine who the prime minister is. A few people can determine who the leader of a party is. Gillard became prime minister by persuading a few people to bounce Rudd. Abbott became leader of the party by persuading a few people to bounce Turnbull. The system is rotten, and both Gillard and Abbott played by the rules of a rotten system. The people of Australia cannot determine who their prime minister is, and the members of the Liberal and Labor Party cannot determine who the leaders of their parties will be.

Assume a parliament of 100 members - 51 government, 49 opposition. Party discipline demands each party vote as a bloc. In the party room the most influential members decide what the vote on the floor will be. Ten or fewer members may determine that the party will vote for a certain piece of legislation. That legislation will pass even if the entire opposition and most parliamentarians are against it.

Party discipline and the method of selecting leaders ensure that Australia is not a democracy.

I wonder what will happen when Abbott is let out of the wardrobe and allowed once again to comment on things of substance.

Although it is fascinating that keeping him from opening his mouth too often has been a great tactic (the only thing he seems to comment on is that Brough is a wonderful fellow who deserves to be endorsed).

However, we all know of his penchant to put his foot in his mouth - should be endearingly entertaining once he gets to do it on the world stage.

'I wonder what will happen when Abbott is let out of the wardrobe and allowed once again to comment on things of substance. '

like the 48000 or so illegal immigrants invited here by the Greens/Labour Poirot. Not of any substance to the latte sippers. It is to those families who drowned and also to pensioners waiting in Centrelink queues for hours.

like the idiotic carbon tax that Abbott has promised to rescind. This lie of Gillards might not be of substance to the true believer's Poirot however the fraud is no longer believed by many.

like the total mismanagement of the economony Poirot. The constant promises of surplus. Again it has never been a matter of 'substance 'to Labour voters.

I don't think the Labour/Greens/Independants want these issues of substance discussed. They prefer to bang on about empty promises and dogmas such as Gonski which can't be funded thanks to Labours incompetence. What other issues of 'substance' r you referring to Poirot?

I think Labour would be better off not talking about matters of substance. Their primary vote is likely to drop as we are reminded of incompetent and economic vandalism.

How is this for a scenario, especially for david f.

The PM is voted for by the population.
They vote in Rudd for two three year terms.

The government is in utter chaos because Rudd fights with all the
cabinet members and makes wild decisions without a business plan such
as the NBN etc etc.

Some ministers resign from cabinet because they cannot work with him
or because he blames them for his own stuffups.

Sound familiar ?
So what can be done about it ?

Absolutely nothing, he is there for another five years.

Do you really think that is a better way to run a government ?

runner,

I'm referring to "any" issue of substance.

Can't wait for Tony to wax lyrical - I mean to say, they've kept him nicely gagged for ages - knowing what he's like and all that.

He's a mediocre pollie who seems to have landed in fortuitous circumstances.......

And all he had to do was keep his trap shut.

I agree with Poirot.

The 'no means no' episode was the funniest. The ironing comment, the comment about Julia's father, I still believe all these episodes were genuine slips of the tongue. If not he's a good actor. I think it would be more scary if he wasn't just being devious, and treading that fine line of plausible deniability, but I think he's in the realm of Eddie McGuire and his King Kong remark; He's just one of those people who puts his foot in it.

On topic I remember how happy I was that Costello didn't take the Rodent out before I could. I did hate captain smirk too, but I would have been disappointed.

It's even funnier because Captain smirk never had the balls really, and the smirk will be forever ridiculed for it. Took his bat and ball and went home too after the event when he could have been leader, proving he was a sooky little wimp all along.

It's funny how Juliar is castigated for having the balls, but I suppose she really wouldn't fess up like Keating and stick the knife in the front, and she denies any hand in it, which is probably the difference more than gender.

That and the press being pissed off that they were left out of the loop. I reckon so many journos are so pissed mostly about that, and they cant forgive her for making fools of them. They play like they're 'insiders', but they had no idea. So now they're constantly banging on about leadership changes just in case. It's so funny watching them.