Gillard vs Abbott - Who will you vote for? POLL

[ninwa]

True, but I have much better feeling about Gillard than Rudd. For one, if she is going to "crowd-source" ideas and contributions from her party as she claims, hopefully we won't have any sudden changes in policy, such as waking up to "good morning LOL JK I'm Rudd and I'm putting on a 58% non-negotiable tax".

[Secondly, I place humour over ability to speak Chinese. That got old REAL fast, I don't remember hearing anything about it in the last years.]

Just curiously, what exactly have you got against the mining tax? It's supported by a lot of top economists and even the IMF

Totally agree with 2nd point.

[laynie]

Donkey vote for me.

[Russ]

Have nothing against Gillard other than the way the labour party reshuffled to get her into power. Probably won't vote labour (or liberal, abbott is a nice person but i sure don't want him as a PM). Ultimately it doesn't matter, my electorate is the safest in the country apparently.

[/0]

He didn't deserve the knife in the back, he was a decent prime minister and at least deserved to see out his term. I hate how the f***cking corporates have been able to kick someone who we voted for out of office overnight. If this is a precedent for things to come then our democracy is screwed.

[sonnypls]

I liked his stimulus packages. I'll vote for whoever offers another one

[ninwa]

I AGREE fuck sake rudd may be a dudd but at least he had glasses and was ready to use them (makes no sense whatsoever but perhaps it does ?? mystery ??) and seriously who wants that racoon looking ferral thing governing our country if i was a leader of another country and met gillard i'd literally puke and swallow for the entire conversation. shes probly going to start a world war 3 with her looks.

Nice, base your entire argument on her looks. Hilarious.

He didn't deserve the knife in the back, he was a decent prime minister and at least deserved to see out his term. I hate how the f***cking corporates have been able to kick someone who we voted for out of office overnight. If this is a precedent for things to come then our democracy is screwed.

We never voted for the Prime Minister, we voted for the party. The leader of the party with the majority is merely offered the position of PM by the Governor General.
(The office of Prime Minister isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.)

[/0]

We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.

[Albeno69]

i dont know how to  trust labour if they can stab one of their own in the back, crucify him and then have the guys to stab him on a back bench seat. absolutely disgraceful. i know rudd wasn't the best made some dumb  decisions but did not deserve this. liberal for me.

[ninwa]

We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.

We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?

(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)

[Glockmeister]

We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.

Since 1901, Australians have never voted for a Prime Minister, rather you've voted for your MP in your constituency. It's the vote of all the Members of the House of Representatives that decides who the Prime Minister (and the entire cabinet for that matter) will be.

Remember, the last time this happened in Government was rather recent. Paul Keating did exactly the same thing back in 1991.

[lolbox]

i dont know how to  trust labour if they can stab one of their own in the back, crucify him and then have the guys to stab him on a back bench seat. absolutely disgraceful. i know rudd wasn't the best made some dumb  decisions but did not deserve this. liberal for me.

I was a little suprised when they initially turned there back on him. I didn't expect him to be taken out. The same thing had between Costello/Howard for years. Labor was a little ruthless in taking him out.
Though admittedly he did seem to lose sight of his original objectives and lose his convictions.

[lolbox]

We may not have voted for Prime Minister but we voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd. I think that's close enough.

We voted for a party lead by Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard, who would have succeeded him had anything happened to him. Would you have the same issue with this if Rudd had, say, passed away instead or for whatever reason stepped down of his own free will?

(unless there's some law governing what happens in this case, in which case ignore me)

Thats true but the prime minister is the face of the party. It is he/she who influences the majority of voters (I think its far to say) more so then the actual party.

[lolbox]

Anyway on the whole RUDD VS GILLARD issue, I think it's hard to distinguish between Rudd and Gillard when it comes to the record of Labor; Gillard has been almost as responsible for its failures, especially in relation to policies such as the Building the Education Revolution (of which she is personally liable for the wastage of billions of dollars).
They conducted most decisions together.

The primary difference is that as I mentioned before is that Rudd was the face of the party and he was losing many voters, Labor needed a change in leadership to try and maintain power. On stupid decisions, they both share similar amounts of responsibility. Lets see if it worked.

[darlok]

I think I will vote Danby first even though he is a little too pro Israel. Probably Greens second and Liberal last, the guy in my electorate looks like a bit of tool.

[ninwa]

Thats true but the prime minister is the face of the party. It is he/she who influences the majority of voters (I think its far to say) more so then the actual party.

So would you have a problem if Rudd had stepped down of his own free will, and Gillard had stepped up out of necessity? You still wouldn't have voted for her in that case (assuming you would vote on who the head of the party is rather then on the party itself).

As for influencing the majority of voters, I don't think that's fair to say. I know this is only one source, but many, maybe even the majority, of comments on this ABC article seem to suggest that they don't see it as a betrayal of democracy / voters' intentions / however you want to put it.