Will Australia Have its First Female PM Tomorrow

[evanrick]

i dont know a single thing about australian politics and im just now learning that she wasnt elected by the people of australia, she just said so in her press conference. why am i not surprised? im not dissing on australia or their political system, but joe biden was on the ballot and was elected by popular vote, as was obama. also, why is rudd crying? what went wrong?

 

[star-warrior]

Yay! for Australia.

 

[Telstra]

i dont know a single thing about australian politics and im just now learning that she wasnt elected by the people of australia, she just said so in her press conference. why am i not surprised? im not dissing on australia or their political system, but joe biden was on the ballot and was elected by popular vote, as was obama. also, why is rudd crying? what went wrong?

Because he got sacked by his team.
And he was proud of his achievement.

 

[Telstra]

She's not as emersed in religious doctrine as Chariman Rudd was Lugus. She's a lot more down to earth and a lot less "I am God do as I say" then Rudd was.

I find it remarkable that Rudd pushed the issue based on media reports. The media is today reporting that despite continued reassurance from Gillard she wouldn't make a run at the top job, Rudd is the one who called for the Leadership Spill, and on realising that he had almost no support left, decided this morning to resign his position and step down, rather than face the party room and have the position stripped away.

She is a reluctant PM, but she is PM none the less, and she's a hell of a lot more pragmatic than Rudd. She never asked for it, but she'll do the best she can. It's going to be interesting to see her go up against the Mad Monk. He's had a free run with Rudd, who basically saw him as irrelevant. Gillard will eat Abbott alive.

Great day for Australia, great, great day

I am looking forward for the clash between a former priest Abbott and a female Prime Minister .... fun to watch.

 

[Telstra]

^ abbott won't match her with debates.
Since abbott became the opposition leader, he did nothing but oppose, attack and oppose. I hope the public see that.

Gillard's speach/talk is slow, very clear and sharp which is excellent in my book.
She remains you of Thatcher ?

 

[Telstra]

She does a little bit Telly, Bronwyn Bishop the Liberal Minister reminds me of Thatcher more. If they really want an interesting election instead of a wash-out they need to replace Abbott with Browyn Bishop. That would be interesting.

That would be gold.
That old chook is sitting at the back feeling bored.
I think Bronwyn do not have enough knowledge to be a leader.

 

[Telstra]

Bronwyn was being earmarked as a potential leader before Howard regained control of the party and ended up PM for 11 long years.

I think she'd do well as opposition leader, I'm not sure I could stomach her as PM, but as opposition leader she'd be able to match Gilliard point for point.

That Julie Bishop though, the one who is Deputy Opposition leader is bloody useless. If they replaced Abbott with her, the liberals may as well pack up and go home.

well, she worried too much about her fitness and power dress up ...

Gillard is the best performer in the labour party.
If in the future the team decide to sack her, i can't see anyone is as good as her.

on the liberal side, Hocky just eat too much junk food ...

 

[Telstra]

Hockey is too young and not experience enough.
When he is experience enough he would be the same weight as Beasley which is a turn off.

 

[bankside]

i dont know a single thing about australian politics and im just now learning that she wasnt elected by the people of australia, she just said so in her press conference. why am i not surprised? im not dissing on australia or their political system, but joe biden was on the ballot and was elected by popular vote, as was obama. also, why is rudd crying? what went wrong?

Mkay, a few points about government in the commonwealth (by which I mean the Commonwealth, as in the former British Empire, for any of you who may be reading who call it the "Commonwealth of Australia")

We are governed by a Parliament. We vote for it. The Prime Minister is not the leader of the country, the Queen is. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party, and or the party caucus in Parliament. She was elected by the people in her own riding, and then all of the members of parliament have chosen her as Prime Minister. For centuries the Prime Minister has been known as "first among equals." It is a mark of respect, and it gives her practical control of the government, but it is an honour which can be withdrawn by the people's representatives at any time. Her job is only secure as long as the other members of parliament agree to it.

In American terms, Obama is the Queen. He waves a lot and speaks at charity dinners and cuts ribbons at airports, but never answers policy questions and generally just shakes hands with foreign leaders when you need a photo op.

Nancy Pelosi is the Prime Minister because she is the leader of the biggest party in Congress. She "advises" Obama on who to pick for Cabinet, and he appoints them without question to the Privy Council. The Cabinet reports directly to Pelosi, however, and is made up pretty much entirely of other Members of Congress. However, if her party doesn't want her any more, she could still keep her seat, but someone else could be selected as party leader of the Democrats, and would thus automatically become Prime Minister.

Also, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would probably have made it into Congress with at least a few seats, because the rest of the world knows there is more to life than Black and White, Left and Right, Right and Wrong, Donkey and Elephant. So, with more parties filling up Congress and splitting the vote, you might have no party that can rule the House on its own. So Pelosi could still be Prime Minister as leader of the largest party, but since the other parties could all combine to outweigh her, she would need to cut deals, counting on cross-partisan support to remain in power.

If she was no good at that, they wouldn't wait until the next Congressional election with a useless lame duck government in place, Pelosi would be forced to visit Queen Obama right away and ask him to allow new elections, which would happen a few weeks later.

Harry Reid would be the Leader of the Government in the House of Lords ( in the UK), or Leader of the Government in the Senate (as in Canada), and wouldn't be nearly as significant a figure as Prime Minister Pelosi.

So the reason we don't elect the Prime Minister is because he or she isn't the leader of the country, they're only the leader of the largest parliamentary caucus. And the reason we don't elect the leader of the country is because Queen Obama isn't actually supposed to do anything; it's all been ceremonial for centuries. We do elect our own Members of Parliament. They're supposed to think for themselves (though they usually toe the party line) and it is they who are accountable directly to the electorate.

Simple?

 

[Telstra]

Oh god Telly we don't elect our PM's are a turn on or not. If we did we wouldn't have any politicians in Australia.

yeah but if he can't control his weight, how can he control the country ?

 

[unloadonme]

We had one of those before!

You had the born in England version with a distinct right wing accent.

The new Aussie PM is a born in Wales version with a distinct left wing accent.

Yours looks like some sort of stoney-faced lesbian. I bet she won't be a patch on Maggie.

 

[TomahawkEagle]

So the reason we don't elect the Prime Minister is because he or she isn't the leader of the country, they're only the leader of the largest parliamentary caucus. And the reason we don't elect the leader of the country is because Queen Obama isn't actually supposed to do anything; it's all been ceremonial for centuries. We do elect our own Members of Parliament. They're supposed to think for themselves (though they usually toe the party line) and it is they who are accountable directly to the electorate.
Simple?

Unfortunately a lot of Aussies don't know that we don't directly elect the PM or state premiers.

 

[Callum]

you elect pms the same way the uk does and we know that was a clusterfuck. you always get an insider when using parlimentary elections. put it another way, obama would never have been elected "PM" of america if it were up to OUR elected officials.

I'm 99.9% sure Australia does not use the same system as the UK in voting. The UK, Canada and most of the US use FPTP. What Australia just did is not FPTP.

 

[Likestoplease]

Good luck with her, Canada had a woman PM in 1993 and she lasted a brief 6 months.

 

[Telstra]

great performer:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qihAbtd9yAo[/ame]

 

[josher]

Mkay, a few points about government in the commonwealth (by which I mean the Commonwealth, as in the former British Empire, for any of you who may be reading who call it the "Commonwealth of Australia")

We are governed by a Parliament. We vote for it. The Prime Minister is not the leader of the country, the Queen is. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party, and or the party caucus in Parliament. She was elected by the people in her own riding, and then all of the members of parliament have chosen her as Prime Minister. For centuries the Prime Minister has been known as "first among equals." It is a mark of respect, and it gives her practical control of the government, but it is an honour which can be withdrawn by the people's representatives at any time. Her job is only secure as long as the other members of parliament agree to it.

In American terms, Obama is the Queen. He waves a lot and speaks at charity dinners and cuts ribbons at airports, but never answers policy questions and generally just shakes hands with foreign leaders when you need a photo op.

Nancy Pelosi is the Prime Minister because she is the leader of the biggest party in Congress. She "advises" Obama on who to pick for Cabinet, and he appoints them without question to the Privy Council. The Cabinet reports directly to Pelosi, however, and is made up pretty much entirely of other Members of Congress. However, if her party doesn't want her any more, she could still keep her seat, but someone else could be selected as party leader of the Democrats, and would thus automatically become Prime Minister.

Also, Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would probably have made it into Congress with at least a few seats, because the rest of the world knows there is more to life than Black and White, Left and Right, Right and Wrong, Donkey and Elephant. So, with more parties filling up Congress and splitting the vote, you might have no party that can rule the House on its own. So Pelosi could still be Prime Minister as leader of the largest party, but since the other parties could all combine to outweigh her, she would need to cut deals, counting on cross-partisan support to remain in power.

If she was no good at that, they wouldn't wait until the next Congressional election with a useless lame duck government in place, Pelosi would be forced to visit Queen Obama right away and ask him to allow new elections, which would happen a few weeks later.

Harry Reid would be the Leader of the Government in the House of Lords ( in the UK), or Leader of the Government in the Senate (as in Canada), and wouldn't be nearly as significant a figure as Prime Minister Pelosi.

So the reason we don't elect the Prime Minister is because he or she isn't the leader of the country, they're only the leader of the largest parliamentary caucus. And the reason we don't elect the leader of the country is because Queen Obama isn't actually supposed to do anything; it's all been ceremonial for centuries. We do elect our own Members of Parliament. They're supposed to think for themselves (though they usually toe the party line) and it is they who are accountable directly to the electorate.

Simple?

Sorry, Bankside, but your analogy about the American system of government to the British is way off the mark.

The three branches of our government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) are separate and equal. The president is not a figurehead like the Queen.

He has the power to approve or veto all legislation. Through his party in Congress he proposes legislation. He plays a key role is lobbying the Congress and country for his policy initiatives. He can issue executive orders which affect how the government does certain things. He appoints the judges of the federal judiciary (including the justices of the Supreme Court) with the advice and consent of the Senate. He can pardon people convicted of crimes. He has a number of other enumerated executive powers.

He is both the head of government and the head of state.

Nancy Pelosi is nothing like the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country. She and the Majority Leader of the Senate are co-equal leaders of their respective Houses of Congress. (Indeed the Senate leader is often a much more powerful figure than the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And unlike the House of Lords in England, the Senate can permanently derail legislation proposed in the House of Representatives. After following a certain procedure, the House of Commons can pass legislation without the House of Lords approval.)

She does not choose the members of the president's cabinet. The president does, usually after consulting with a wide array of political leaders in his party. (Although sometimes he has already decided on certain cabinet appointments even before the election takes place, e.g. Emmanuel as Chief of Staff.)

Technically, she doesn't even introduce her party's legislation in the House. The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives (who is of course always of the same party as the Speaker) does that. (Of course nothing is introduced by the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives without her approval, or indeed often, without her telling him to.)

The situation becomes more complicated, when one or both Houses of Congress are controlled by a party different that the President's. Then they can ignore his iniatives, and he can veto their decisions, which they can only over-ride with a 2/3's majority.

Raven, sorry to derail your thread a bit, but I was concerned that JUBers outside the US might get an innacurate picture of how our government works.

 

[pixie77]

Wow, New Zealand had one of those as Prime Minister about 11 years ago.

Is Australia behind or what?

Yes and Jenny Shiply was a one term PM who stabbed the Previous PM in the back like this one has.
Rudd was elected by the people and THEY should have chucked him out.

 

[Likestoplease]

Maybe Australia's new lady PM will legislate this song to be your new national anthem. I have read that this is a popular idea and I have to admit, I really like this song....beautiful and moving!

 

[Telstra]

^ horrible song.
Listen once and never want to hear it again.

 

[bankside]

Sorry, Bankside, but your analogy about the American system of government to the British is way off the mark.

The three branches of our government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) are separate and equal. The president is not a figurehead like the Queen.

He has the power to approve or veto all legislation. Through his party in Congress he proposes legislation. He plays a key role is lobbying the Congress and country for his policy initiatives. He can issue executive orders which affect how the government does certain things. He appoints the judges of the federal judiciary (including the justices of the Supreme Court) with the advice and consent of the Senate. He can pardon people convicted of crimes. He has a number of other enumerated executive powers.

He is both the head of government and the head of state.

Nancy Pelosi is nothing like the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country. She and the Majority Leader of the Senate are co-equal leaders of their respective Houses of Congress. (Indeed the Senate leader is often a much more powerful figure than the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And unlike the House of Lords in England, the Senate can permanently derail legislation proposed in the House of Representatives. After following a certain procedure, the House of Commons can pass legislation without the House of Lords approval.)

She does not choose the members of the president's cabinet. The president does, usually after consulting with a wide array of political leaders in his party. (Although sometimes he has already decided on certain cabinet appointments even before the election takes place, e.g. Emmanuel as Chief of Staff.)

Technically, she doesn't even introduce her party's legislation in the House. The Majority Leader of the House of Representatives (who is of course always of the same party as the Speaker) does that. (Of course nothing is introduced by the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives without her approval, or indeed often, without her telling him to.)

The situation becomes more complicated, when one or both Houses of Congress are controlled by a party different that the President's. Then they can ignore his iniatives, and he can veto their decisions, which they can only over-ride with a 2/3's majority.

Raven, sorry to derail your thread a bit, but I was concerned that JUBers outside the US might get an innacurate picture of how our government works.

Hi Josher. I was actually working the other way around. As in: what would happen to American government if we fixed it to work like a Parliamentary system?

Some of the earlier posters seemed confused about the roles in a parliamentary system, and they seemed to be using the American system as the basis for comparison. So I kind of up-ended things, and showed people how the American system would work (and not how it does work) if the various players in the States were recast in a Parliamentary mould.

Anyway, cheers!