Is Julia Gillard still Prime Minister of Australia?

[Alpha]

For latest updates on this developing situation: Is Julia Gillard Still Prime Minister?

[Dawezy]

Kevin Rudd is back in the Captain's seat.

So to speak.

Found it kinda funny when I heard it - Is this some form of justice being served I wonder.

[Yoko]

Interesting development. Of course I immediately think of you guys down under when I read these articles. It seems Australia doesn't have a PM at the moment. He would have to be voted in, wouldn't he?

[RamesesII]

It was pretty much what Julia did to Kevin, Labor went to vote to see who the would prefer to lead.

He will lead Labor and then be sworn in as PM but he reckons he wants to retire after September elections wtf why put your hand up if your just gonna p*ss off.

One politician is just as bad as the other I say.

[Rowan]

This dissapoints me greatly. I wanted Julia to face off Abott in the election and see sweet, delicious tears running down her face when the polls reveal that she is the least wanted PM in the history of the country. People generally like Rudd because he saw us through the financial crisis with little to no loss. At this point though, my qualms are not with the PM, but with the labour party in general. They are the ones that make the horrible decisions, the PM just represents them. Although everything Julia represented is everything I hate about her. 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. Regardless,

I cannot see labour winning this election, even with Rudd back. I feel happy for him though, he never should have been kicked out. Glad he got his revenge while he still could.

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.

[Unknown Entity]

You can have David Cameron and Nick Clegg? In fact, you don't even have to ask for them - I'm sure we'll cope.

Mai gift to you guys. <3

[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.

[Rowan]

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.

In your own words, a persons personal beliefs and personality have nothing to do with it. Its the policies that count. Doesnt matter what he believes.

[Alpha]

In your own words, a persons personal beliefs and personality have nothing to do with it. Its the policies that count. Doesnt matter what he believes.

You're the one who said "everything I hate about her". You didn't say "her policies". Besides, his beliefs inform his policies, and given you don't share his beliefs, I just find it surprising that you support his policies. No judgement, and I know that Abott isn't all that far removed from your opinions. For one, he is pro-choice, as in his own words he wants abortions to be "legal, safe and rare".

[Rowan]

You're the one who said "everything I hate about her". You didn't say "her policies". Besides, his beliefs inform his policies, and given you don't share his beliefs, I just find it surprising that you support his policies. No judgement, and I know that Abott isn't all that far removed from your opinions. For one, he is pro-choice, as in his own words he wants abortions to be "legal, safe and rare".

I hate her policies too.

[RamesesII]

For goodness sake Alpha just move over here and make love to Rowan. But just make sure your are in a state that acknowledges gay relationships haha.

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.



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.



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.

From memory Labor had more seats than liberal but lack enough to be considered 'Majority' as you said Alpha it would have been tenuous there wasn't enough of a margin, so they agreed to voice the greens opinions if they got their seats as backing and then they coaxed (may be the wrong word) two of the independent seats to boost them to a decent enough majority.

Yeah Krudd got us through the gap in between a rock and a hard place, but taking one of his 'policies' so to speak when he was handing out family payouts and student payouts, that money wasn't pulled out of his own pocket. Which is why now Campbell Newman is now at the end of everyones pitchfork because is is trying to at least cut back on costs in Queensland to reverse some defecate that has been built up.