I was 9 years old when I first took an interest in politics. Up until that point, I knew that my parents voted for the Liberal Party [for those not in Australia, the name liberal is a bit of a joke because they are on the 'right' of politics] and that Bob Hawke, who was Labour [the 'lefties' and unionists] had been our Prime Minister forever.
Then Paul Keating ousted the Bob in an in-party ballot. Somehow I just felt this was wrong. Whether or not I was supposed to like him [my parents couldn't be mistaken in how they voted] I felt this was a very low, improper, back-stabbing action. I did try to talk about it with another girl my age but she didn't even know who Bob Hawke was so it made it a bit hard.
I still feel the same way today. We have a system where we are supposed to be able to elect our leader based on the voice of the people, but it appears that maybe thats just a little game they play to keep us happy and it is really controlled by factional leaders within the party. Whilst I don't think that America have a fantastic governmental model, I do like the fact that they have two rounds of voting, the Primaries that actually let anyone who cares chose who will represent their party. America has still had unelected Presidents but its usually because the elected one has died or is a convicted criminal, in which case its ok. Here we apparently just chuck the people we don't like.
I'm cranky ok? I don't think that Julia should have contested the leadership, much less won. I don't want my choices to be a back-stabby, leadership grabby woman or a man like Tony Abbot who is a bit of a male version of Sarah Palin. As a modern woman, I know I should be stoaked about having a woman as PM, but not this woman, not this way. I didn't have a problem with her before, but I just feel like a coup is the wrong way to achieve power, and not the way a leader should handle themselves. You know?
My sentiments exactly. Not this way. Division within a party that happens to be in government - is unsettling to say the least.
ReplyDeleteOh sweets, were you in my sitting room last night? Did we share this convo?! I agree entirely! I was chuntering the exact same thing to my husband last night.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's the thing: I grew up in Britain, where the political system is very similar. For me, this whole business is like an echo of what happened when Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign as PM in 1990.
Tacky. Just classless.
And do not even get me started on Tony Abbott......
Oh my, I've just caught up on the news. I read your blog earlier but didn't quite follow until I heard that we actually have a new prime minister. They can actually do that??? It seems wrong that they can just change the leader whenever they want. I haven't heard/read a whole lot about it yet but 'tacky' does seem a good word to describe it.
ReplyDeleteGood I'm glad we are all agreeing that this has a general yuckyness to it and not getting carried away by the fact that she a woman.
ReplyDelete"We have a system where we are supposed to be able to elect our leader based on the voice of the people, but it appears that maybe thats just a little game they play to keep us happy and it is really controlled by factional leaders within the party."
ReplyDeleteWell, no, that's incorrect. We don't strictly elect Prime Ministers. We elect the party we want to represent the people, and that party becomes our government. It's just that while that party is in government, they tend to keep the same leader. This gives the general public the impression that they voted for the PM. That's what people often forget, or fail to realise in the first place: we didn't elect Kevin Rudd, we elected the Labor party.
"Division within a party" isn't necessary bad. In this case, it's better. I'd prefer if the party leading our country wasn't dissatisfied with their leader and did something to fix the issue.
The division within the party actually came about because Kevin Rudd chose to stop consulting with members of his party (the government) on governmental decisions and issues. He can't do that. He's not the supreme ruler of Oz. As a result, individuals within the party became unhappy with his conduct and his position as leader. Half the party supported him and half didn't. They didn't believe he could lead them to win the next federal election. That's the ultimate goal for a political party, by the way. That's division within a party - division that Kevin orchestrated himself. Julia Gillard had nothing to do with it.
Julia could see an opportunity to volunteer as leader of the Labor party. Wouldn't you? To spend years working hard in politics, reach Deputy PM, and then when your party is fed up with the behaviour of their leader, NOT put your had up? I sure would. That is not back-stabbing behaviour. Whether Julia put her hand up or not, Kevin would have been out. His party would have kicked him out one way or another.
Thanks for the contribution Megan. I do 'get' the Westminster System, and that this is a legal action, but all the same, I don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have done what Julia did. Australia wasn't being subject to human rights abuses or anything that warranted the swift action that was taken. A leader is more than a figurehead t be replaced at a whim. Sure there were issues in the party [from what we hear], and Kevin Rudd wasn't perfect, but humiliation like this is distasteful, to say the least.
We elect representatives of a party, but that party sells us a package which includes policy, promises and it's representatives. We feel like we can hold them to account for the promises they sold us in order to be elected, why can't we do the same with the leader they advertised?
I think there is a strong public feeling that this is pretty unaustralian.
Thanks for the contribution Megan. I do 'get' the Westminster System, and that this is a legal action, but all the same, I don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have done what Julia did. Australia wasn't being subject to human rights abuses or anything that warranted the swift action that was taken. A leader is more than a figurehead t be replaced at a whim. Sure there were issues in the party [from what we hear], and Kevin Rudd wasn't perfect, but humiliation like this is distasteful, to say the least.
We elect representatives of a party, but that party sells us a package which includes policy, promises and it's representatives. We feel like we can hold them to account for the promises they sold us in order to be elected, why can't we do the same with the leader they advertised?
I think there is a strong public feeling that this is pretty unaustralian.