Unfortunately they don't have a representative in my area, but they have won my vote as of now.
it seems like it, especially in the zimmerman and trayvon martin thread
Rudd will still probably lose although has a better chance of saving members seats than Gillard does.
The ability to hold power should not be the reason to support a leader.
Do we need one? What would be his/her role? We have mandatory elections to keep our leaders in check. Other than that I don't see the point.
I'd say the same thing of you and iron, though I heard he actually had some class and wit about him, so perhaps not.
See now I would term that bitchy.
That would be because you don't understand misogyny or feminism.
I hate to derail the thread but...how the fuck is that in any way misogynistic?
Addressing a male for his (allegedly) poor behavior using a feminine slur?
I'll be honest, I'm kind of lost.
The way a move to a republic would work best is with as little cost and effort involved as possible. What, in essence, should happen is we basically just switch the title of "Governor General" to "President" and don't afford the position with any new power. The issue with this is how that President is put into their position. I suppose it could be a similar situation to the role of Speaker of the House or President of the Senate. The key issue is that we maintain an extremely limited position above that of the Legislative.
I was talking to some mates about the republican movement the other day and we decided Australia had gone the wrong way about it with PR campaigns and referenda etc. Instead of trying to become a republic from within, we declare war on England and get ourselves kicked out of the Commonwealth. With the monarch having disowned us we'd have no choice but to either appoint our own or become a republic.
