Skip to main content

Tony Abbott leadership challenge

I'm not a political geek/junky/history buff so I won't pretend to be well versed on the subject but I can't imagine anybody from the Nationals ever being allowed to lead the co-alition if something were to happen to incumbent PM. The Liberals are the ones that power the co-alition and set the bulk of the agenda; the Nationals are just there to help them win over the voters in country areas.
 
Last edited:
bleachy_dude said:
I'll admit to being a liberal voter, in the most recent election. However have always thought Malcolm would make a great PM. I said so on the front page of this thread. However not in this way and not now. I don't know how to feel. I HATED the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle. A real dark spot in our political history. I can't be hypocritical and pretend like this isnt dark and ugly. Ugh!
Click to expand...
I somewhat agree, not even three years and it feels like the prime ministers are playing musical chairs. Stability is very much needed. But in saying that abbott was a terrible prime minster. This was an act of desperation. And very much needed.
 
Sweetgeek said:
I somewhat agree, not even three years and it feels like the prime ministers are playing musical chairs. Stability is very much needed. But in saying that abbott was a terrible prime minster. This was an act of desperation. And very much needed.
Click to expand...

I think in the developed world we have one of the shortest terms for leaders anyway. 3 years is not really long enough to properly establish your self and style. 2 years is far too short to really see if he was successful or not. The cogs of change turn slowly. Well ...change slowly except for the role of PM in this crazy country.
 
The real joke is that Turnbull isn't going to bring any substantial change under his leadership, or so he says.

I can't see how this is a good stance for him to take.
 
bleachy_dude said:
I think in the developed world we have one of the shortest terms for leaders anyway. 3 years is not really long enough to properly establish your self and style. 2 years is far too short to really see if he was successful or not. The cogs of change turn slowly. Well ...change slowly except for the role of PM in this crazy country.
Click to expand...

The problem also with short terms is that the party in power often only thinks forward as far as that, when the decisions made have long-reaching effects that are palmed off to someone else.
 
Inigo Montoya said:
Love Julie Bishop
Click to expand...

She genuinely scares me more than tones ever did. :nailbiting:

https://twitter.com/x/status/643395072399011840


Bye bye Budgy Smugglers.
11990648_886053598144858_4564525502435468998_n.jpg
 
And.. at least with a change in leadership they can focus on running the country instead of spending the day face-palming and holding their collective breaths every time Tones opens his mouth.
 
bleachy_dude said:
I think in the developed world we have one of the shortest terms for leaders anyway. 3 years is not really long enough to properly establish your self and style. 2 years is far too short to really see if he was successful or not. The cogs of change turn slowly. Well ...change slowly except for the role of PM in this crazy country.
Click to expand...
I don't know how much change can be made either, and in all honesty, changing the policies of the party is not really as achievable as his speech suggests, but I welcome the change and can only hope he restores some respectability to our government.
 
bleachy_dude said:
Are you guys talking about Julie Bishop? She isn't deputy PM. She is deputy leader of the liberal party. Warren Truss (leader of the nationals party) is the deputy PM
Click to expand...
Would Warren Truss be entrusted with the leadership of the co-alition if say the PM were to pass away suddenly? Correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed that the title of deputy PM that is bestowed on the Nationals leader was just a token gesture to give the appearance of an equal partnership.
 
Connoisseur said:
Would Warren Truss be entrusted with the leadership of the co-alition if say the PM were to pass away suddenly? Correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed that the title of deputy PM that is bestowed on the Nationals leader was just a token gesture to give the appearance of an equal partnership.
Click to expand...

The liberal party would probably be quick to appoint a new leader and therefore replacement PM. Its never happened so can't really speak hypothetically. However, strictly speaking that's the role of the deputy since the portfolio was created and the guidelines say that in the event of a death of PM, the GG appoints the deputy as interim.
 
Connoisseur said:
Would Warren Truss be entrusted with the leadership of the co-alition if say the PM were to pass away suddenly? Correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed that the title of deputy PM that is bestowed on the Nationals leader was just a token gesture to give the appearance of an equal partnership.
Click to expand...

bleachy_dude said:
The liberal party would probably be quick to appoint a new leader and therefore replacement PM. Its never happened so can't really speak hypothetically. However, strictly speaking that's the role of the deputy since the portfolio was created and the guidelines say that in the event of a death of PM, the GG appoints the deputy as interim.
Click to expand...

It actually has happened a few times, three in fact if IIRC. There always has to be a PM and convention is that if the PM dies the Governor-General will swear in the the deputy PM as soon as humanly possible with the condition that there be a party room vote to confirm the newly sworn in PM's support. An example is our shortest serving PM Frank Forde who served for eight days after the death of John Curtin. Forde lost the leadership ballot and become deputy PM again. So in an Abbott/Turnbull death Truss would technically be PM until the liberals could vote for their new leader, even if for a few days!
 
Consuela said:
It actually has happened a few times, three in fact if IIRC. There always has to be a PM and convention is that if the PM dies the Governor-General will swear in the the deputy PM as soon as humanly possible with the condition that there be a party room vote to confirm the newly sworn in PM's support. An example is our shortest serving PM Frank Forde who served for eight days after the death of John Curtin. Forde lost the leadership ballot and become deputy PM again. So in an Abbott/Turnbull death Truss would technically be PM until the liberals could vote for their new leader, even if for a few days!
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. So I do think the Nationals leader could be PM albeit a short time.

Frank Forde wasn't official deputy PM tho. The 'portfolio' of Deputy PM was only created in the late 60's
 
"For the third time since 2010, voters will wake up tomorrow to find the person they had gone to bed thinking was their Prime Minister replaced without them having a say at an election."
 
bleachy_dude said:
Are you guys talking about Julie Bishop? She isn't deputy PM. She is deputy leader of the liberal party. Warren Truss (leader of the nationals party) is the deputy PM
Click to expand...

No one ever remembers about the Nationals. :p

bleachy_dude said:
I think in the developed world we have one of the shortest terms for leaders anyway. 3 years is not really long enough to properly establish your self and style. 2 years is far too short to really see if he was successful or not. The cogs of change turn slowly. Well ...change slowly except for the role of PM in this crazy country.
Click to expand...

While I agree three years isn't really long enough for policy to establish itself it is long enough to get an idea of the leader. We have three year terms here in QLD and I really don't mind them. Extending the term hasn't really been an issue until now because until recently australians were really reluctant to change parties after one term. Plus it'd involve a referendum to change the term length so no guarantee any changes would get through.

bleachy_dude said:
Yeah exactly. So I do think the Nationals leader could be PM albeit a short time.

Frank Forde wasn't official deputy PM tho. The 'portfolio' of Deputy PM was only created in the late 60's
Click to expand...

True but he was deputy leader which back then was just as good.
 
bleachy_dude said:
"For the third time since 2010, voters will wake up tomorrow to find the person they had gone to bed thinking was their Prime Minister replaced without them having a say at an election."
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why people no longer seem to be able to understand that they don't elect the PM, never have.
 
oddjob said:
What I don't understand is why people no longer seem to be able to understand that they don't elect the PM, never have.
Click to expand...
Technically we don't, but in a very real sense, I think we do.

The party puts forward their policy and their leader and that takes a major media focus in the election. I think that the majority don't really look into what their local member stands for.
 
...I had to laugh... this morning on the 'Today' show they interviewed Turnbull as he left his home and during his interview he stated that... "nobody is more surprised about all of this than me!"... he hasn't even been sworn in as Prime Minister yet and he has already told his first lie!... the shape of things to come perhaps?... lol!... cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top