Firstly my opinion: We the people elect our members of parliament, both in New Zealand and in Australia. We the people choose those who should run the country. But we the people do not elect our Prime Minister, nor should we the people elect the party leaders, this should be done from the caucus. John Key and Tony Abbott were chosen by their caucus, as they should be. Now we have the two main opposition parties of the two most important democracies in Pacific without a leader while these labor/labour teams try to implement new and floored leadership decider processes. All we see is the incredibly huge tails (the all powerful and all corrupt unions) wagging the dog. These are failed systems trying in vain to improve the appearance of democracy but in truth are being used for two dying parties to try and drum up media time and in-turn membership and support. Meanwhile the two parties in power carry on without any real opposition, absolutely nuts.
I am not the only one who thinks this, even the past-past-leader of the labor party is not happy, according to an abc.net.au article
Former prime minister Julia Gillard has hit out at a new rule about how the Labor Party can remove a leader, describing it as “a clumsy attempt” for bad leaders to hold onto power.
Under reforms introduced by Kevin Rudd, the only way to remove the leader is for 60 per cent of Caucus members to sign a petition requesting a new election.
The new rules also govern how the leader is selected, with a ballot of both the parliamentary Labor Party and rank-and-file members taking place.
The first contest governed by these rules is underway, with Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese beginning a month-long campaign to win the job of opposition leader.
The ABC understands Ms Gillard supports the decision to give party members a say, but does not agree with the rules surrounding the removal of a leader.
Ms Gillard has used an essay in The Guardian to say that represents “exactly the wrong approach”, protecting poorly performing incumbents instead of the best candidate.
“These rules literally mean that a person could hang on as Labor leader and as prime minister even if every member of cabinet, the body that should be the most powerful and collegiate in the country, has decided that person was no longer capable of functioning as prime minister,” she writes.
“A person could hang on even if well over half of their parliamentary colleagues thought the same.
“Ironically, I argue against these rules, even though under them I would have unseated Kevin Rudd in 2010, given colleagues would have signed up in sufficient numbers to have him gone, but he could never have defeated me in 2013.”
Ms Gillard says Labor should move on from determining its leader “on the basis of opinion polls, or the number of positive media profiles, or the amount of time spent schmoozing media owners and editors, or the frippery of selfies and content-less social media.”
She also says the party needs to “think deeply” on cultural factors that allow leaking and destabilising to be “so richly rewarded”.
Despite her criticism of the rules, Ms Gillard describes Mr Shorten and Mr Albanese as “two worthy candidates”.
“I hope whoever is the victor in the current leadership contest serves as Labor leader for a long time, and the next time Labor needs to choose a new leader is after the next period of Labor government,” she said
Party members will have their ballot first, followed by the Caucus. Both ballots will have an equal weighting.
Newly-elected Labor senator Sam Dastyari says Mr Albanese would be a fantastic leader but he thinks Mr Shorten is the better candidate.
“He’ll be able to articulate a strong case for the future of the Labor Party and I think he’s a greater break from the past than Anthony is,” Mr Dastyari said.
“But look, this has got really exciting. It’s really exciting that tens of thousands of Labor Party members across the country are going to have a say in a ballot process.”
I laugh at Senator Dastyari’s words of ignorance (or lies, not sure which), Bill Shorten has been the faceless man that has brought down two Prime Ministers, hardly a break from the bloody past!
Without reading fully into the rules, at least the process for the labor team is more representative than for the labour leader. In the Labour party the unions get a vote! How can an entity vote in an election, as many have commented in the past, imagine if the Business Council or big companies or warner brothers got a vote for the National Party Leader, there would be a huge outcry!
So good on you labor and labour for trying to improve the transparency of your parties. But Labour, involving the unions is disgusting and opens you up for incredible concessions to the hacks who care only about funding their vested interests, and labor everyone knows this was thrown together in a hurry by the mad hatter (Mr K Rudd), so perhaps you should go back to the drawing board?