*resigned sigh*

[katydidinoz]

To be honest, I didn't really jump on the Gillard band wagon. Female prime ministers are all well and good, but Canada had the exact same situation (first female prime minister taking over from deposed leader) about 10 years ago and it was a freakin' disaster, so I'm learning to judge PMs based on what they do rather than what they represent.

That

Comments

[thewhitelily]

... wow. And I was still being impressed with her for saying she doesn't believe in God and won't pretend to for the sake of the voters. So why, Gillard, in God's bloody name, why?

[katydidinoz]

I know! If you're not religious, what possible reason do you have for this kind of attitude???

[katydidinoz]

The Canadian system is not dissimilar, except in one important way: there are (and have historically been) up to 5 different parties that have the numbers to take power. This means that voters actually have a choice, that politicians can take stronger stances on controversial topics, and that negotiating with other parties is not only advisable but necessary.

Now that's not to say that there aren't still problems (there are, oh God, there are) and most parties still occupy a kind of centrist position to attract the most voters, but the choice and the negotiation has kind of minimised some of the partisan politics.

And Gillard didn't run as leader of the party. Yes the people in her electorate voted for her, but everyone who voted Labor didn't vote for her - they voted for Rudd, knowing that when they cast their Labor vote, they were choosing him for Prime Minister. Semantics? Yeah, probably. But also the way I see it.

[ebelie]

Yes, I really wish our first female prime minister had gained office through a federal election, mostly because I want to believe Australians are just as happy to vote for a woman as a man.

As for today's opinion statement from Gillard: not happy Jan. Or Julia.

[ebelie]

er, yes? I was taking that as a given. However, which party people choose to vote for (or which local party member, if you want to be completely accurate) is often affected by the leader the party is putting forward as potential prime minister. For instance, I am more horrified at the thought of the Liberals winning the next election with Abbott as potential prime minister than I was when Turnbull had that role. And if the Greens had a different leader it's quite possible that I wouldn't vote for them.

[katydidinoz]

Agreed.

[laenij]

This is the one issue I knew she wouldn't share my view on. But, right now I don't think it's the most important issue for a government to be focused on, because we do have the wider problems of completely recovering from the GFC and climate change to battle first. There's no point in getting through a marriage equality law if there's no future world to have it in, is there? And our more pressing human rights concern of actually having what we view on the internet dicated to us - that's a denial of everyone's rights, not just what actually is a minority.

Of course I also believe it's such a non issue I don't know why we're even having the debate on whether a minority can marry in 21st century. Like...how is it even a PROBLEM? gah.

[katydidinoz]

see that's my problem with it - it's such a non-issue, most Australians want it, and it would be a really good step to show she's in faith with what the country wants. There's no religious issues, church and state are meant to be separate. So why can't she just *do* it?

[laenij]

because the people aganist it are the most vocal ones. to the general public, the sheep, it WOULD seem like she's going against what australia wants.

[aphephobia]

I so didn't think she'd do this: I thought she'd just not say anything, and I'm really saddened that she's towing the "it's what everyone wants" line especially since a poll said that 65% were in favour of it.