On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
PM doesn't typically make government bills, the PM is a front for the government and it's departments. Their main role is policy advocacy.. you do realise that the concept of a prime minister is based on convention? We don't even have the MENTION of a PM in our constitution.
And as for drafting bills, again the PM isn't really involved..they have parliamentary lawyers that do that.
I work for the biggest media intelligence company in Australia, Media Monitors... My Friday is going to be hell tomorrow So is Monday.
I do like the change though, hopefully she'll dump Conroy and we'll get rid of the idiotic net-filtering idea.
Edit: Scara mate do you really think they will fully scrap the RSPT? A lot of content that went across my desk today was that they might cut it up a little, but they won't totally destroy it. I dunno.
If your constitution is at all like ours then the PM has immense power. As leader of the party she can force her MPs, which are in the majority, to follow party lines and pass her policy. She can appoint her cabinet and she can decide policy. A British PM is a dictator restrained only by tradition and the desire to look good.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
Whats wrong with that? People vote based on promises most of which come from the leader of the party, i would put down the win of kevin rudd in 07 due to him saying that he'd scrap work choices. Some one is more likely going to vote for a party due to those major promises that can seriously detract from or lift up someones way of life rather than local policies like "oh we'll make the parks bigger and add more car parks" which is all that can really be promised at local governement level.
On June 24 2010 17:41 Bael wrote:
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
PM doesn't typically make government bills, the PM is a front for the government and it's departments. Their main role is policy advocacy.. you do realise that the concept of a prime minister is based on convention? We don't even have the MENTION of a PM in our constitution.
And as for drafting bills, again the PM isn't really involved..they have parliamentary lawyers that do that.
The pm is key when making polices which laws are then drafted on, i understand its the lawyers that draft the bills but the ideas from which they are formed are made by cabinet which is lead by the pm, in the end he has the final say on policy
On June 24 2010 19:00 KwarK wrote: If your constitution is at all like ours then the PM has immense power. As leader of the party she can force her MPs, which are in the majority, to follow party lines and pass her policy. She can appoint her cabinet and she can decide policy. A British PM is a dictator restrained only by tradition and the desire to look good.
THIS. This is why people are saying its annoying that she didn't get voted in
Voting greens, then as many parties as possible before liberal then labour last. If Rudd stayed in I would have voted for labour, I didn't vote for Gillard, and labour would still have had a pretty good chance to make the next election and then get the mining tax through and the new hospital system and the ETS through (if they gain more control of the senate). Also I would much rather Rudd handle international relations than Gillard.
The "cash splash", the new hospital system, the ETS were all decisions made (and created) by Rudd which would not have happened under Beazly.
Yeah I hate Abbot more than anything but I'm pissed off at labour. Only problem is if labour loses they will blame it on Rudd rather than figure out how many people are going to be pissed at this change.
On June 24 2010 15:34 dethrawr wrote: A vote for the greens is basically eventually a vote for labor.
Not sure exactly what you mean by that.
It's only if I vote above the line on the Senate ballot paper that my Green vote could possibly trickle down to Labor in the end, and last I heard the Greens still hadn't decided Senate preferences for the coming election anyway.
In every other way, people can decide where their Green votes goes in the end. If I vote 1. Green 2. Liberal 3. Labor and the Green candidate doesn't win, then the Liberal candidate will get my vote. Simple as that. I choose where my vote goes.
Attention everyone in Australia: Please don't vote Liberal, PLEASE. They want to scrap the NBN (National Broadband Network) project. I wants better internets, it's the way of the future.
Julia is most definitely married. It's just that the guys a hairdresser who isn't a public figure like Therese Rein was so nobody really knows about him.
On June 24 2010 16:52 Subwoofermate wrote: Julia Gillard on Question Time today had serious balls of steel. Paul Keating levels of destruction on Julie Bishop...just amazing. Honestly, she's a hell more manly and interesting than Abbott or Rudd right now...Rudd has never really been definite in anything and Abbott is basically running with "lol Rudd sux" for a long time.
She seems a million times more ideologically stable than Rudd ever was, which is a huge plus for people in general and the labour party since she'll won't be thrown under the bus by her own party before finishing a single term. Whether she'll be good, who knows but she'll probably achieve more than Rudd will ever achieve.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
She's not married.
She's married. Just no kids. Not that it honestly means anything.
She is not married, you can google it or check out her personal life in wiki. They've also been saying it on the news.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Yeah I'm really, really hoping Kate Lundy replaces Stephen Conroy, she's pretty on top of what the industry wants/needs and importantly wants opt-in for all the filtering, monitoring and censorship stuff Conroy has been trying to introduce.
On June 24 2010 16:13 Hyde wrote: Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
Gough Whitlam?
Good point, maybe the first PM to be dumped before his first term ended by his own team then?
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
I never questioned that the reason they dropped Kevin Rudd was to assuage public opinion about the Labor party. What I'm trying to point out is that public opinion is flawed, in the sense that you can't really blame the Prime Minister for the performance of the Government. In terms of actual law-making the Prime Minister barely does anything; sure, they're appointed head of the cabinet, but inter-party politics and factions basically determine party policy long before cabinet is even convened. In the case of the ALP, a National Conference is held every 3 years to determine party policy from the states-on-up. You can't argue with the party, and remain a member for very long.
Within the cabinet room the Prime Minister has very little say in what is decided. You mentioned the mining tax; it's not as though one day Rudd walked into the cabinet room and announced 'tomorrow, we're going to have a big mining tax!' These kinds of policy decisions stem from a whole host of different places, but I can't think of a single instance where they'd come from the mouth of the PM themselves. 'Head' of the cabinet is a bit of a misnomer, because if the PM decided to set off on a policy agenda that wasn't in line with that of the party, he wouldn't be PM for long. Indeed, if the PM ever began to underperform, or not do the job that the party sets him, at the risk of the party losing office, they'd be replaced in an instant by someone who can. Just ask Kevin Rudd.
It's not the role of the Prime Minister to be a visionary, to generate policy, and have a solid plan for the future of the nation. Like I said earlier, their responsibilities boil down to being a mouthpiece, a way for your average Aussie to identify and personalize what the government is doing; a figurehead more than a position of power. The office of the PM isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and most of their 'power' comes from being able to request the Governor-General to do things; which, unless the party tells them to, they won't do.
Because if they do something the party doesn't like, they won't be PM for long. Do you see the pattern here?
Uh no clearly its not, you want to know why she's PM right now? Labour was doubted by most of those in labour power to rewin an election based on the way they are traveling at the moment, especially under kevin rudd. They took him out because he wasnt doing the job they needed, they put julia in because she can now scrap shit like the mining tax and other decisions that make labour unpopular. Have you done any study on the law making process? The only bills that are going to get pass house of reps and become law are goverment bills because of MPs voting on party lines, government bills are drafted by cabinet and follow along polices that the cabinet have made, and *gasp* who's the leader of the cabinet? Thats right, the PM. They are fucking important to the law making process. Their main responsobility is policy making and thier main role is policy making and drafting bills. If not that what are they responsible for?
Seriously do people know how government works?
I never questioned that the reason they dropped Kevin Rudd was to assuage public opinion about the Labor party. What I'm trying to point out is that public opinion is flawed, in the sense that you can't really blame the Prime Minister for the performance of the Government. In terms of actual law-making the Prime Minister barely does anything; sure, they're appointed head of the cabinet, but inter-party politics and factions basically determine party policy long before cabinet is even convened. In the case of the ALP, a National Conference is held every 3 years to determine party policy from the states-on-up. You can't argue with the party, and remain a member for very long.
Within the cabinet room the Prime Minister has very little say in what is decided. You mentioned the mining tax; it's not as though one day Rudd walked into the cabinet room and announced 'tomorrow, we're going to have a big mining tax!' These kinds of policy decisions stem from a whole host of different places, but I can't think of a single instance where they'd come from the mouth of the PM themselves. 'Head' of the cabinet is a bit of a misnomer, because if the PM decided to set off on a policy agenda that wasn't in line with that of the party, he wouldn't be PM for long. Indeed, if the PM ever began to underperform, or not do the job that the party sets him, at the risk of the party losing office, they'd be replaced in an instant by someone who can. Just ask Kevin Rudd.
It's not the role of the Prime Minister to be a visionary, to generate policy, and have a solid plan for the future of the nation. Like I said earlier, their responsibilities boil down to being a mouthpiece, a way for your average Aussie to identify and personalize what the government is doing; a figurehead more than a position of power. The office of the PM isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and most of their 'power' comes from being able to request the Governor-General to do things; which, unless the party tells them to, they won't do.
Because if they do something the party doesn't like, they won't be PM for long. Do you see the pattern here?
-_- The pm isnt just a figgure head, policy isnt decided way before cabinet is formed. You do know the pm picks their own cabinet, and they do give the final say before a bill is intoduced into parliment? or have you not studied this? Im not saying that it was rudd that walked in and was like "ive got this awesome idea for a mining tax" and thats how all bills are drafted, but i am saying that the pm has a major influence on what bills end up in parliment and isnt just a "mouthpiece" as you say
On June 24 2010 20:16 Dozle wrote: Why are people so sensitive to the sexist jokes. They are jokes and this is the internet after all.
You know, TeamLiquid has standards. I don't want to read a thread full of rehashed lame sexist jokes. If you're going to make a joke, at least be creative about it.
EPT
So is Monday.
![[image loading]](http://img526.imageshack.us/i/65181424.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/7/79/Jenny_shipley.jpg)
