PM ousted

[squ1d]

Three years since the knifing of Kevin Rudd, he has returned to the promised land with a surprise leadership challenge today. With elections only a couple of months away, he has much to do to raise Labor's dismal polling figures. It is also unclear if several independents will back Rudd to continue to form government (the last election resulted in a hung parliament).

[SciFi Chick]

I just hope they get the bloody election over with, so industry can get moving again.

[geonuc]

Gillard was certainly controversial, but was she a bad PM, as PM's go?

[SciFi Chick]

Gillard was certainly controversial, but was she a bad PM, as PM's go?

Well, if you consider the way politicians behave as a general rule, bad, then yes. She lied. She betrayed. She was inept. Very disappointing for being the first atheist in such a high office.

[FZR1KG]

She gave atheists a bad name.

And she talked like a cow chewing cud.
No idea how she got in considering that voice.
It's about the little things in politics because we sure as fuck can't do a damned thing about anything important that matters.

[geonuc]

Hmmm. I don't know. Given the state of things in the world what with seemingly more and more people trusting in their vision of a god rather than science, I might just want an atheist in office no matter her other flaws. But I don't know enough about Australian politics to weigh in with any authority.

When I first had an inkling that Gillard has been ousted, I went on to a few news sites - including the New York Times - to see what the scoop was. Had to search way too much to even find the story. Ended up on the BBC. I know Australia is a relatively unimportant country to Americans, except in the popular media. But really? The Prime Minister of one of our most like-minded allies, their first female PM, gets the boot and we Americans don't give a notice?

Bah. What do I expect from a media that serves a populace that can't even name the prime minister of Canada.

[geonuc]

I do remember this speech by the former PM, where she tears apart the leader of the opposition for suggesting she 'make an honest woman of herself' and calling her a bitch:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2 ... nist-video

[Thumper]

Bah. What do I expect from a media that serves a populace that can't even name the prime minister of Canada.

Canada has a Prime Minister???

[SciFi Chick]

Hmmm. I don't know. Given the state of things in the world what with seemingly more and more people trusting in their vision of a god rather than science, I might just want an atheist in office no matter her other flaws. But I don't know enough about Australian politics to weigh in with any authority.

An atheist who is against gay marriage because it's not natural.

[FZR1KG]

Hmmm. I don't know. Given the state of things in the world what with seemingly more and more people trusting in their vision of a god rather than science, I might just want an atheist in office no matter her other flaws. But I don't know enough about Australian politics to weigh in with any authority.

An atheist who is against gay marriage because it's not natural.

Yeah, that's the major issue I had with her.
So she doesn't believe in God, but, she has the same prejudiced opinions as many who do.

A token atheist, no more.

[geonuc]

Hmmm. I don't know. Given the state of things in the world what with seemingly more and more people trusting in their vision of a god rather than science, I might just want an atheist in office no matter her other flaws. But I don't know enough about Australian politics to weigh in with any authority.

An atheist who is against gay marriage because it's not natural.

I didn't know that about her. Isn't the Labor party supposed to be somewhat liberal?

[FZR1KG]

The two parties are more about trying to get certain classes votes, working man party vs middle class/business party.
They should just be honest and call the Liberal party, "the big business party".
The other is pretty deceitful too, its called the labour party. It should be called the "we bend over to corrupt unions so they can screw workers party".

[geonuc]

The two parties are more about trying to get certain classes votes, working man party vs middle class/business party.
They should just be honest and call the Liberal party, "the big business party".
The other is pretty deceitful too, its called the labour party. It should be called the "we bend over to corrupt unions so they can screw workers party".

I checked out Labor's platform (wikipedia). You're right - it's all about democratic socialism. Nothing about other traditional (in the US anyway) liberal values, such as civil rights and respect for other people's lifestyles and choices.

[FZR1KG]

One of the reasons is that Australians have a free society and really don't have a fear of losing it.
The fear of losing freedoms is a minority and they aren't even taken seriously enough to be vocal.
So a party that pushes individual freedoms would not get very far.
I can just imagine the response of the public if a party started pushing the freedom line during elections like here in the USA.
The overwhelming response would be, "We're not free? Really? So communist Australia allows you to run for elections then does it? Bunch of bloody wankers".
End of the party.

In Australia you can watch TV, free to air TV, and see nudity, hear swearing like, shit, fuck, cunt. Abortion is legal. etc.
The irony is that in the USA the party that claims its about freedoms for individuals would be the first in line to stop all that.
As an Australian living here in the USA watching the two great oafs battle it out confuses the hell out of me.
But, what would I know. Australia is only free because the USA blessed us with that many years ago.
Just ask the locals. They will confirm my words.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Well, the brits seem to find you aussies perplexing.....

One thing you have to remember is that (particularly in the last 50 years) the US has had a hate/love/hate relationship with their Federal government. And the party that claims to support individual freedoms caters to that weird relationship. I think that the US is unique with respect other large countries (Canada, Brazil, Russia, China, even India) in that the Central (Federal) Goverment is weaker, a lot more unpopular and even less trusted than the central goverment on those other large countries.

This weird "trust/distrust" thing seems to go back to the US Civil war.

I also think the all the talk the "orthodoxy" of both parties in the US make about freedom is usually a comparison with Europe.

For example, "traditionally" the US left always looks to Northern Europe for examples on how to do things regarding "social policy", and the US right dennounces them.

What's really weird is that right now, particularly regarding the Economy, Europe is doing EXACTLY what the US Right demands to be done, and after seeing the results I must say that:

A) I certainly will never go live in the Eurozone, (apparently I can go live in Spain without a visa, but with 30% average unemployment and being a furriner I'd rather stay here in Airstrip One if the Eurozone was my only choice to migrate).

And

B) For all their warts the "damned gringo imperialist infidels" (TM) could be much much worse.

[FZR1KG]

Well, the brits seem to find you aussies perplexing.....

Interesting article written by an obvious wanker.

[squ1d]

JG deserves recognition for being the first female PM and putting up with a fair bit of bullshit. However, overall the last 3/4 years have been shit, Craig Thompson affair, Peter Slipper affair, constant inter-factional disputes and leadership challenges. A lot of the ongoing grief is because of the way she deposed Kevin Rudd. In our parliamentary system, you vote for a party, not a president. So if that party wants to change its leader, they can do it via a vote in the caucus room.

Anyhow, Labor have finally realized that the reason they were able to overthrow John Howard was because people liked Kevin Rudd, even if the Labor powerbrokers didn't, so now we have returned to that formula. Primary polling for ALP/JG was about 28%, they were looking at unprecedented defeat in the upcoming September election, now with Rudd they might have a faint hope..

At the end of the day though, whichever chump was at the helm of the Labor party, that is who I would vote for, because I would rather eat my own intestines than vote for LNP/Tony Abbott.

[squ1d]

One of the reasons is that Australians have a free society and really don't have a fear of losing it.
The fear of losing freedoms is a minority and they aren't even taken seriously enough to be vocal.
So a party that pushes individual freedoms would not get very far.
I can just imagine the response of the public if a party started pushing the freedom line during elections like here in the USA.
The overwhelming response would be, "We're not free? Really? So communist Australia allows you to run for elections then does it? Bunch of bloody wankers".
End of the party.

Australians believe in giving everyone a 'fair go' and they aren't worried that doing so will somehow magically diminish their own personal liberties. They find America's focus on small government and rugged individualism perplexing.

[FZR1KG]

At the end of the day though, whichever chump was at the helm of the Labor party, that is who I would vote for, because I would rather eat my own intestines than vote for LNP/Tony Abbott.

You and me both.
Hopefully Abbott loses the election for the Liberal party just like Beasley did for the Labour party.

[SciFi Chick]

At the end of the day though, whichever chump was at the helm of the Labor party, that is who I would vote for, because I would rather eat my own intestines than vote for LNP/Tony Abbott.

You and me both.
Hopefully Abbott loses the election for the Liberal party just like Beasley did for the Labour party.

One of the MANY reasons, I love Australia.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Australians believe in giving everyone a 'fair go' and they aren't worried that doing so will somehow magically diminish their own personal liberties. They find America's focus on small government and rugged individualism perplexing.

And they ain't the only ones who find it perplexing. While I think I understand why the US is the way it is, I don't find it the least bit logical either.

[Rommie]

Well for those complaining, it hit the NY Times editorial page- link
Thoughts from the Aussies?

[FZR1KG]

I'll just quote a readers response as it sums things up pretty well.

As an Australian, I disagree with a lot of what is written here. Gillard's downfall was not due to misogyny, nor does misogyny run deep in Australia. When Gillard was first appointed prime minister she was celebrated across Australia as our first female prime minister. Her polls were very high. Her popularity did not fall because of her gender; it fell because of broken promises.

Each of the examples of sexism set out in the article did occur but each was loudly and universally condemned by the Australian community. Surely, the test of sexism in a community is not whether isolated sexist comments are made, but how the community responds to them. Approaching it this way, Australia is far from a sexist place.

Yes, Gillard was subject to serious criticism and abuse, but so is every prime minister of Australia. Like the US, politics is a tough game for all involved. The previous conservative prime minister was called a 'lying rodent'. . . by members of his own party! Isolated examples of sexist abuse levelled at a prime minister were simply that - it is a mistake to read more into it.

[geonuc]

I'm not an aussie, but as a former resident, I'd say that commenter missed the mark. Ms. Baird's point was not that misogyny had brought down Gillard, but that the amount of misogyny leveled at her was shameful and hardly isolated. And calling someone a 'lying rodent' doesn't compare.

I have very little tolerance for people who suggest a woman's failings in politics are due to inherent inadequacies of her gender. Sarah Palin, for example, was not a horrible governor and a disastrous choice for vice-presidential running mate because of her gender, but rather because she's a moron. Perhaps Gillard was a terrible PM and perhaps she was driving her party to electoral ruin, but neither should even remotely be attributed to her gender.

[SciFi Chick]

I agree with you geonuc, but at the same time, there's something about the culture in Oz that allows them to have a vicious sense of humor without the intent that would be found behind the same words here in the U.S. No one over there gives a shit that she's a woman (except for wankers like Tony Abbott). They just pick whatever's handy and go for it. It's hard to explain, but if it was anything like this back when you lived there, you might understand. In general, Australia is more egalitarian than the U.S. by far.