Is Julia Gillard still Prime Minister of Australia?

[Alpha]

She played the sexism card far too often (it was NEVER justified), and it was a pretty low thing to do when you are in such a position that demands respect. What I mean by that, is trying to turn women against abott by saying he is a misognyst.

She did play it often, but in my opinion it was mostly justified. However the big rant during the Peter Slipper affair was weird... if she wanted to show her credentials as a woman PM for women, she would've sacked Slipper in addition to the rant.

I cannot see labour winning this election, even with Rudd back.

Neither, but I don't see why. Abott is a terrible choice, and Australia is doing remarkably well. There is a reason Kiwis are flocking there in droves. I'd be loathe to change tack when the last few years have gone so well. Julia hasn't changed that trajectory in my opinion, people just seem to dislike her personality. To that I say, remember she is a Prime Minister, not a President. She isn't the head of state. Her personality isn't really relevant.

FYI, gillard was NOT elected by the Australian people, but rather took the support of the greens to get into power (as well as lying about the carbon tax). Its utter nonsense. 2nd and 3rd place should not be able to combine their votes to become 1st place. That is exactly what happened.

I'm sorry, Rowan, but I really really really hate when people pull this stunt. If you hold an election, and Party A and B both get 40% each, with a party C sitting on 20%, who governs? Maybe if it was A: 41% and B:39%, then you could say A, but that would be a very tenuous, marginal government that still does not have the mandate of the majority of the electorate. Indeed, most people have just voted against it. You could hold another election, trusting that people will migrate from C to A or B in order to get an outright majority. But that is expensive and time consuming, and probably wouldn't do anything. You could run the election again, eliminating C. This works somewhat when choosing among individuals, but not for party politics. I'd say it'd be illegal.

The simplest and most defensible response is to allow parties to bargain. A and C discuss to see where they can give and take. B and C do the same. A and B can also do this to form a super-majority of 80%, but this is less likely as it would require remarkable consensus about polarising issues, assuming A and B are either ends of the political spectrum. If A and C are more similar than B and C, then A and C can form a coalition. Their combined support will be 60%, giving them a democratic mandate. Even in the case of 39 + 20, 59% > 41%. Arguing that the Liberals won the last election because they had the largest single share is plain wrong. If parliament worked on your reasoning, no one would vote for minor parties, as it would be a wasted vote. That's the pathetic situation the States is mired in. I'd hate to be there. There need to be more than two choices, and your system would enshrine only the two most likely each election. That is very hard to break out of.

For what it's worth I liked Gillard. Rudd is OK too. I'm frankly really surprised that Rowan is going to vote for a religious conservative in the next federal election.

However I do like his views on Aboriginal affairs, particularly for Constitutional recognition. I'm again surprised that Rowan is OK with this.