A Mad Election:The Australian Federal Election Today , Rudd Versus Gillard June July August 2013 ! Then ALP Winner Versus Abbott Sept 14 2013!! 25 Wiggs Road Riverwood 2210 Sydney Australia June 17 2013 Dear Editor, Its Rudd Versus Gillard June and July 2013 ! The ALP Labor Winner Versus Abbott August and September 2013 ! The ALP Labor Winner will lead Labor to an extremely easy election victory ! Why ? The media is full of Rudd and Gillard but not Abbott ! Everyone knows how is Rudd ,who is Gillard and what they stand for ! ! But nobody knows Abbott and what Abbott stands for ! Who is Tony Abbott? What does he stand for? Is Tony Abbott fit to be Australian Prime Minister ? Thanks Jane Wallace ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The View from Billinudgel The Mad Election ByMungo MacCallum Monday, 17th June 2013 Can it get any crazier? As the Australian political scene descends into a wallow of pettiness centred around who is and who is not wearing a blue tie, the long-suffering electorate is preparing to install a Prime Minister less than one fifth of the voters actually want in the job. Yes, that is what the latest Morgan poll reveals: that while Tony Abbott is now an unbackable favourite to move into the Lodge after September 14, he is actually our fourth choice. We would overwhelmingly prefer Malcolm Turnbull as our head of government, and if we can’t have him we’d settle for a return to Kevin Rudd. And then, believe it or not, we’d plump for Joe Hockey as a distant third choice, just ahead of Abbott. Just 18 percent of us would Abbott in front of Turnbull or even Hockey as leader of the Liberal Party, and therefore Prime Minister. Just about the only thing Abbott has going for him is that he is not Julia Gillard. If he was running against almost anyone else, he’d lose. In fact, as Malcolm McGregor unkindly said about John Howard after the 1996 election, if he was running unopposed, he would lose. Only the fact that Paul Keating was more hated saved him. This situation is not just bizarre; in a democracy, it is pretty much unacceptable. And the only way to fix it is to give voters a more direct say in electing their Prime Minister. At present, of course, it is a choice of the respective party rooms: they elect their leaders and the leader of whichever party or grouping ends up with a majority of the floor of the House of Representatives becomes Prime Minister. The Americans have a different system: election of the President and the parliament are two different tickets. And importantly, while the president represents a major party, he or she is nominated not be a select group meeting behind closed doors, but in an open convention whose voting is determined by an exhaustive series of primaries in the various states. It’s unwieldy, and probably unsuited to our Westminster system of government. But an Australian adaptation, whereby the party leaders are elected by the broad party membership – the rank and file – is quite workable and easily achieved by a simple change to the parties’ own rule books. And if we had this we would now be facing the choice a very large majority actually want – Turnbull versus Rudd. When the parties are ready to start picking up the pieces after the current shemozzle, it would be well worth a thought. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:59:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015