New Prime Minister!
So i've been reading so much vitriol about the Rudd-Gillard changeover; so much so that I felt the need to write something.
People are calling it undemocratic, people are calling Gillard a Communist and a backstabber.. where is all of this naivety coming from??
I'm fairly sure both Rudd and Gillard were elected or they wouldn't be in Parliament at all; the issue is that the public does not choose the head of the party - and indeed this isn't our Constitutional right.
I honestly don't fathom how people fail to comprehend that.. A major lynchpoint of the Howard-Rudd election was that no-one wanted Costello as the PM if/when Howard retired. It's a completely legitimate aspect of politics, and it's something that sometimes sways an election poll. The same can be said for the US election with respect to Sarah Palin - the prospect of her becoming President should John McCain have died is what swayed many voters over.
It's surprising that people have forgotten that.
It may actually be another point for scrutiny in the upcoming election with Wayne Swan (given that he has been at the head of fights to topple Beazley, Crean, Latham and now Rudd - he's the ultimate backstabber, and in my opinion the real person behind Gillard's challenge), but i'm thinking that Tony Abbott himself will be the person the media attacks; especially since he is, you know, insane.
Sufficed to say, it's completely naive to even suggest the changeover is either undemocratic or unconstitutional. You may not like that it is within the rules to permit it (and it's your individual right to opine that), but it's simply (the real) fact that it's legitimate. If it wasn't, then leaders would never be allowed to change, die, or retire unless they were not in Government.
If people actually took their political candidates more seriously instead of only looking at the figurehead, we wouldn't be having these completely redundant debates based on illigitimate facts.
With respect to the backstabber comments, my understanding is that her beef is not specifically with the issues Rudd was raising but rather with how he was implementing them (and indeed he made many blunders with implementation). He was not consulting the Cabinet for a few decisions, and he was taking a "daddy knows best" approach where her intention is to sit down and consult with the stakeholders. When the voices of the Cabinet and the public are not being heard, something is fundamentally wrong.
Granted, it could have been done differently, and I do think it's an easy way to market "backpeddling" as "rejuvenation"; but Rudd was pretty unequivocal on his stance, and we don't know what went on administerially (which is apparently where most of the concerns arose).. but ultimately I don't see how it can be construed as 'backstabbing' - given that Rudd announced an assembly of the Caucus immediately upon challenge; and also given the fact that Gillard's intentions seem to be well informed.
It depresses me that the voting public are largely naive, and so easily swayed by illigitimate arguments. Is this unfounded of me??