I posted this as a comment on another blog, and M-R suggested I should post it here. I’m trying to keep away from having too much political stuff on my blog – which is supposed to be my ‘author’s platform’, but has become much more than that to me! But sometimes … well … why not. This is what I think about changing Prime Minister’s mid-term.
I don’t think there is a problem with changing PM’s mid term – as long as the party in power still delivers the platform put forward at election time – doing the things that put them there in the first place. Abbott has gone off on a tangent and unless he brings himself back on course, he is gone. And good riddance!
I didn’t vote for Abbot and the only people who voted for him are in his electorate.
Thinking Liberals would have felt uneasy as they cast their vote back at the election but what else could they do, they need to vote Liberal. Others voted to stop the boats, to rid themselves of the carbon tax and to return the budget to surplus. They weren’t voting for a PM.
A PM is put in that position by his party and they have the right to take it away. Just like any person can be sacked from their job if they failed to deliver what is expected from them.
I’m afraid all these years I have been very naïve – I assumed that all parties took note of what the back benchers had to say about the feedback from their electorates – but apparently not. It was only when the Rudd fiasco began that I saw how everything is actually controlled by the PM and his immediate circle.
The polls do not represent all voters, so we cannot be held responsible if parties put their own perceived re-election prospects ahead of the good of the country.
I’m now kind of pleased with Rudd changing the system for Labor, with the head honcho now being voted on by all Labor Party members. How can you get fairer than that! If we want a say, we sign up. Though they will have to pull their socks up a bit before I’m tempted.