Tony Abbott for PM

[Macquack]

I tried to post in that thread but there's 20 million people before me, quite a long wait

Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.

 

[MrBurns]

Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.

Loosen up Mcquack, Giilard is a dud and you know it.

Are you going to get horribly drunk election night ?
I suggest you do if you haven't faced up to the truth by then.

 

[Macquack]

Loosen up Mcquack, Giilard is a dud and you know it.

Are you going to get horribly drunk election night ?
I suggest you do if you haven't faced up to the truth by then.

I will make a concession, you guys fought the tide, then front rode the tide and are now basking in the tidal flow.

However, your comments do not need to be so vicious against the Prime Minister of Australia.

 

[MrBurns]

However, your comments do not need to be so vicious against the Prime Minister of Australia.

However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.

 

[Knobby22]

However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.

Oh pull your head in Burnsie. Even you don't believe that unless you are completely ignorant of our Constitution, which I am sure you are not.

 

[MrBurns]

Oh pull your head in Burnsie. Even you don't believe that unless you are completely ignorant of our Constitution, which I am sure you are not.

Grow up, she's a cheat liar and once she backstabbed her way in she stuffed everything up are you completely clueless of the truth ?

 

[Julia]

Well that makes sense, you are a son of a bitch.

However, your comments do not need to be so vicious against the Prime Minister of Australia.

Perhaps consider, Macquack, that your own comments do not need to be so vicious against a fellow ASF member.
That's a pretty unpleasant expression.

 

[Knobby22]

Grow up, she's a cheat liar and once she backstabbed her way in she stuffed everything up are you completely clueless of the truth ?

You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.

 

[MrBurns]

You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.

I stand by everything I said, dont twist things about to suit yourself, every decent Australian knows she got there by backstabbing and making deals she wouldn't keep ie:lying through her teeth. So just give it a rest.

 

[Some Dude]

You said she was not PM legally. She is. And your bad manners will not change that.

Did he state or imply that what she did wasn't legal? Or that in his moral value judgement, she did not morally deserve it?

 

[noco]

I tried to post in that thread but there's 20 million people before me, quite a long wait

+1 Mr Burns.

Make that 20,000,001 Mr Burns. You left me out.

 

[Logique]

At the risk of being clobbered by both sides - calm down all of you.

 

[moXJO]

I havnt seen this much election fever since 2007

 

[sails]

However you must understand that Gillard is not a bone fide PM, she got there by backstabbing a sitting elected PM and by doing deals with the devil which she later reneged on.
She is not legitimate and deserves no respect.

My take on it. Gillard is only legally the PM due to our somewhat crazy electoral system which allowed someone who did not get the majority of primary votes and who didn't win the most seats to take power. Gillard was not actually elected as PM by the majority. She runs a minority government which means she didn't win the election.

And MrBurns is right in that Gillard back-stabbed an PM who WAS elected by the people. She was not elected then and, imo, it was highly undemocratic to remove a popular PM who had been voted in by a healthy majority.

Then she didn't win the election and so she pork barrelled (aka bribed???) the independents who it is said represent conservative electorates to prop her up. That seems to defy the intent of democracy.

Definition of democracy from Dictionary.com::

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.​

Surely there should be the facility for electorates to demand a bi-election when their elected representatives fail to represent the majority? And MPs should not be allowed to change their allegiances without a bi-election (at the member's expense or by the party who is trying to poach them). That would prevent much of the shenanigans that have gone on in this last term.

Here is the percentage of primary votes from the last election (remembering that primary votes indicate the first choice of the people) AND the Coalition won in the seats race too:

Party.... % Vote.... Seats
Labor.... 38.0.... 72
Coalition.... 43.7.... 73​

So, technically Gillard is a PM not elected by the majority but by the choice of 2 people who are apparently not representing their electorates. Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably perceive her as being illegitimate in that role. And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.

 

[Some Dude]

Here is the percentage of primary votes from the last election (remembering that primary votes indicate the first choice of the people) AND the Coalition won in the seats race too:

Party.... % Vote.... Seats
Labor.... 38.0.... 72
Coalition.... 43.7.... 73​

So, technically Gillard is a PM not elected by the majority but by the choice of 2 people who are apparently not representing their electorates. Doesn't sound like democracy to me.

While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably perceive her as being illegitimate in that role. And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.

Doesn't that cut both ways on both points? If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy, and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g. Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.

 

[MrBurns]

While she is legally the PM, I think many voters struggle with the way she got there and many probably perceive her as being illegitimate in that role. And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.

Precisely

 

[Some Dude]

And she certainly thumbed her nose at the people when passing carbon tax legislation. That's not democracy, imo.

Precisely

Ahh yes, thank you MrBurns. I forgot this point.

I assume everyone here felt the same about Howard and the passage of Workchoices?

In July 2007, a new biography of John Howard has said that he pushed the Work Choices legislation through in 2006 so that it wouldn't be announced in an election year, and that several cabinet ministers had concerns that the legislation would disadvantage too many workers, which they expressed several times.

 

[sails]

Doesn't that cut both ways on both points? If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy, and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g. Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.

Not so much because the two independents apparently come from strongly conservative seats. AT least they couldn't be accused of turning their back on their electorates. And the majority of votes and seats still favoured the libs.

Because the libs and nats go to the election as a coalition, I think you should add their two votes. Again, that puts them marginally ahead of labor. If the greens and labor had become a coalition BEFORE the election it would be fair to add their votes too, but voters were treating them as separate parties when they voted.

And also Howard won the GST election comfortably by seats but I think he actually lost on the primary vote. Again, our somewhat crazy electoral system allows for some strange things. Obviously the majority did not want GST but because our system is based on the number of seats and Howard got a comfortable majority. Very different to Gillard losing on the primary vote AND not winning in the seats race either without poaching a couple of independents from conservative electorates.

Do you see my point?

Ahh yes, thank you MrBurns. I forgot this point.

I assume everyone here felt the same about Howard and the passage of Workchoices?

Absolutely and he paid the ultimate price of, not only losing the election for many of his MPs, but also his own seat. Gillard and her MPs deserves the same treatment, imo.

 

[Calliope]

Doesn't that cut both ways on both points? If they had supported Abbott, your premise would remain the same with regard to legitimacy, and results in other electorates do not look good in context of your second point e.g. Richmond primaries at the last election were ALP 39.2, NAT 21.2, LIB 19.1.

I know you like conservative posters to explain things carefully to you to save your precious time checking. If by "they" you mean Windsor and Oakeshott, well they both represent non-Labor electorates. For them to have supported the Coalition would have given us a legitimate government.

In effect, the only reason we have an illegitimate government lead by a shady lady, is because these two worthies have a grudge against their former party...the Country Party. It is pay-back and Australia is the loser.

 

[white_goodman]

interesting that there isnt a "why Julia Gillard is a good PM" thread... it seems the baristas and professional students who frequent ASF are ashamed of their red headed queen..