So Australia might just have its first female prime minister tomorrow

Albedo · Jun 23, 2010

In breaking outlandish news, Australia's Deputy PM, Julia Gillard (L), has challenged PM Kevin Rudd (R) for the leadership, and the Labor party will go to a vote tomorrow.

Et tu, Gillardus?

Rudd's leadership hangs by a thread

Sydney Morning Herald said:
Kevin Rudd's leadership is hanging by a thread after his support base vanished following a push to oust him led by Right factional operators in Victoria and South Australia.

He announced late tonight he would put his leadership to the vote in caucus tomorrow at 9am. He said the vote came after a request from his deputy, Julia Gillard.

Ms Gillard has growing support among the caucus of 115 MPs and senators and an increasing number of factions.

This is just so insane my poor brain can't process it right now. I'll take questions on Oz politics and the Westminster system tomorrow. Until then, just know that it's very likely that Australia will see its first woman Prime Minister in the next day or two. And then the Interesting Times start.

Shadow Dragon · Jun 23, 2010

There is one part I don't get:

He announced late tonight he would put his leadership to the vote in caucus tomorrow at 9am.

Doesn't Australia have general elections every so often? Like, here in the US, we have a presidential election every four years. And the president never puts it to a vote in congress. And from what I've heard of the UK, they have a prime minister election when the current PM decides to have one (though I think there is a limit to how long they can go without an election).

Though, from what I've heard about the Australian government (particularly the amount of censorship it uses), I'll be happy to see them get a new PM.

Ruv Draba · Jun 23, 2010

Australia's current government is facing the end of its first term of office. They need to go to the polls within the next 6 months to try and get re-elected, and after a long honeymoon period, the country is tired of the current leader's attitude and numerous broken promises.

It's rare for a leader to be ousted while in office, but not unheard of. The governing party thinks that it probably won't win the next election under the current leader and they're probably right. Their only real alternative is the Deputy leader. She has a lot of good-will from the electorate but she's also been involved in several big political stinks which will come under stronger media scrutiny if she takes the leadership.

She may not want the leadership for this reason, but she may need to take it anyway. And if she doesn't and the governing party loses, she'll probably inherit it afterwards regardless. So she may be stuck between two headaches. Being the first female Prime Minister may be more asset than liability -- for a few months at least. We'll have to see.

Ruv Draba · Jun 23, 2010

Shadow Dragon said:
Doesn't Australia have general elections every so often?

The Prime Minister isn't the head of state. He's just the leader of the governing party. If the party gets kicked out of government, he loses his position along with all the other ministers. If the governing party doesn't like him, they can replace him even while he's holding power.

veinglory · Jun 23, 2010

Shadow Dragon said:
Doesn't Australia have general elections every so often? Like, here in the US, we have a presidential election every four years. And the president never puts it to a vote in congress.he amount of censorship it uses), I'll be happy to see them get a new PM.

This is a prime minister, not a president. His party won the election, whoever is leading the party is prime minister. Presidents are not meant to be party political at all, thats why they are elected directly. That is why the US system is pretty far off how the post is meant to function--equivalent to the Australian Governer General.

Romantic Heretic · Jun 23, 2010

British Parliamentary system, a quick lesson.

Here in Canada we have much the same system. The difference is the Queen is represented by the Governor General and The House of Lords is replaced with The Senate. The Senate is staffed by people appointed by the Governor General on recommendation by The Prime Minister.

I imagine Australia works much the same way.

I don't care much for The Senate. It's a way for Prime Ministers to reward party loyalists. There's a movement afoot to make seats in The Senate an elected post, but I'm not sure that's going to help.

SPMiller · Jun 23, 2010

The US originally worked that way, RH, and we later created Senatorial elections.

veinglory · Jun 23, 2010

The first female prime minister of New Zealand got her post the same way, by the way. The second one was elected in whilst already the leader of the party.

Albedo · Jun 23, 2010

Ruv Draba said:
Australia's current government is facing the end of its first term of office. They need to go to the polls within the next 6 months to try and get re-elected, and after a long honeymoon period, the country is tired of the current leader's attitude and numerous broken promises.

It's rare for a leader to be ousted while in office, but not unheard of. The governing party thinks that it probably won't win the next election under the current leader and they're probably right. Their only real alternative is the Deputy leader. She has a lot of good-will from the electorate but she's also been involved in several big political stinks which will come under stronger media scrutiny if she takes the leadership.

She may not want the leadership for this reason, but she may need to take it anyway. And if she doesn't and the governing party loses, she'll probably inherit it afterwards regardless. So she may be stuck between two headaches. Being the first female Prime Minister may be more asset than liability -- for a few months at least. We'll have to see.

I like Gillard much more than I like Rudd, but I can't see how this move will do anything except destabilise the government only months out from the election and make Tony Abbott look comparatively good. They were still ahead of the Libs in polls.

This is the work of the same faceless 'powerbrokers' who have been shuffling party leaders in NSW like deckchairs on a certain well-known ocean liner. They've got no regard for electoral success, only shoring up their own positions in the little bubble universe they inhabit. Unfortunately, when the crap builds up their universe leaks into ours.

Vincent · Jun 23, 2010

We conduct our coup d'états civilised-like around here, like our brothers in New Zealand.

In '97 factions in their ruling party made their move against the PM while he was safely out of the country. That's the way to do it.

Albedo · Jun 23, 2010

beezle said:
We conduct our coup d'états civilised-like around here, like our brothers in New Zealand.

In '97 factions in their ruling party made their move against the PM while he was safely out of the country. That's the way to do it.

Arranging this for when everyone would be too elated after our last-minute World Cup success to really take notice was a masterstroke.

You guys did remember to bribe the refs, right?

Albedo · Jun 23, 2010

Rudd's backers concede defeat

ABC News said:
Julia Gillard is inching closer to becoming Prime Minister, as number crunchers on both sides agree she will win this morning's leadership ballot against Kevin Rudd.

As the numbers are being frantically counted ahead of the ballot at 9:00am AEST, the ABC understands Ms Gillard has secured more than 70 votes, while Mr Rudd has just 30.

Supporters for Mr Rudd dispute the size of the margin, but have acknowledged that Ms Gillard will take over as Prime Minister.

ElsaM · Jun 23, 2010

My feeling is that as long as she abandons the proposed mining tax changes, she has a good chance of winning the next election. She currently has the support of both the left and right Labor party factions and her popularity rating is higher than Rudd's.

Personally I was in favour of the mining tax changes, but think it was a mistake of Rudd's to try and introduce them so close to the election.

Paul · Jun 23, 2010

On a slightly broader issue

I think the current 'economic crisis' either hasn't actually hit in full impact yet (which may be the case) or the political landscape has become completely homogenised, cos if this 'crisis' does exist and has hit, then the political response from the masses so far, in first world countries certainly, is 'more of the same please'. 'course it could be out of fear but i think the middle ground (mixed economy* thingy, which has even arrived in America)has pretty much won the political battle, since the 1960's or thereabouts. Which makes a change of leadership or political parties (in FW countries) irrelevant across the board.

* mixed economy = a collage of left and right political philosophy, melting into a homogenised blob in the centre. - not sayin that's bad, just interesting, the day of extremes have faded - even withstood so called 'economic meltdown' - for the moment.

the bunny hugger · Jun 23, 2010

If it is anything like in NZ the leadership change is *because* of the upcoming election--i.e. they don't think they can win with him in the leadership seat.

ElsaM · Jun 23, 2010

And it's official:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-becomes-australias-first-female-pm-20100624-z02g.html

Vincent · Jun 23, 2010

ElsaM said:
My feeling is that as long as she abandons the proposed mining tax changes, she has a good chance of winning the next election.

My feeling is that as long as she's not Tony Abbott she has a good chance of winning.

William Haskins · Jun 23, 2010

welsh, huh?

MacAllister · Jun 23, 2010

Gawd, I love politics threads from countries I don't live in. It convinces me that everyone else is as screwed up as the US, where I am.

jennontheisland · Jun 23, 2010

Canada's only female PM was elected in much the same way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell

poetinahat · Jun 23, 2010

Shadow Dragon said:
Though, from what I've heard about the Australian government (particularly the amount of censorship it uses), I'll be happy to see them get a new PM.

What?

If you're referring to ISPs being responsible for blocking sites, that was proposed ten years ago - when the *other* party was in power.

What other censorship are you alleging or referring to?

And what else have you heard about the Australian government? What's forming the basis of your opinion?

Shadow Dragon · Jun 23, 2010

poetinahat said:
What?

If you're referring to ISPs being responsible for blocking sites, that was proposed ten years ago - when the *other* party was in power.

What other censorship are you alleging or referring to?

And what else have you heard about the Australian government? What's forming the basis of your opinion?

As for other examples of censorship, they have banned video games and books. And as recently as this year, customs can search and confiscate many types of pornography at ports and airports. For other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

I could be wrong about this, but in general the Australian government seems to be very conservative. At least in comparison to other Western nations.

Atlantis · Jun 23, 2010

Poor Kevin Rudd!! I just saw him on the news and he was crying!! He didn't deserve this. He made some mistakes but he kept Australia afloat during the recession and he is a million times better than Abbott. Tony Abbot terrifies me. Every time he comes on the news he says something or does something to drive me crazy. When he said he wanted to force people to work in the mines, cut centerlink for unemployed people under 30 and freeze public sector jobs, I went nuts.

As much as I didn't like Rudd's internet filter idea, I'll rather have my internet filtered then be forced to move into the middle of the out back to work in the mines because Abbott has made it impossible for me to find work elsewhere or get unemployment benefits.

poetinahat · Jun 23, 2010

Shadow Dragon said:
As for other examples of censorship, they have banned video games and books. And as recently as this year, customs can search and confiscate many types of pornography at ports and airports. For other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

I could be wrong about this, but in general the Australian government seems to be very conservative. At least in comparison to other Western nations.

No, wait - we still have video games *and* books. I just bought a book yesterday!

Wait a minute- why am I arguing with you? This censorship stuff is crap -was ten years ago, still is. It was ten years ago, and it still is. Oh, yeah, that's right - nobody gets to criticise our government except us.

And, yeah, as Atlantis says above, the alternative leadership is REALLY creepy.

It hasn't affected most people's daily lives at all, but that's where it starts.

mccardey · Jun 23, 2010

I'm really, really sorry to see Rudd go. I had a lot of time for him and was always proud to have voted for him.

So Australia might just have its first female prime minister tomorrow

Alex

volitare nequeo

uncoerced

Prodigiously Hanged

volitare nequeo

Alex

Cheers

Alex

Alex

lurker extraordinaire

practical experience, FTW

lurker extraordinaire

Cheers

poet

'Twas but a dream of thee

the world is at my command

say it loud

say it loud