Rank sexism behind the persecution of Gillard

Tom says:

08:03am | 29/07/10

Well said Eric, Don’t forget Labor has also been playing the “vote for me, I am a woman” card since Gillard got in. Now they are squealing like stuck pigs. Their confected outrage beggars belief.

KH says:

08:14am | 29/07/10

Its double standards, plain and simple.  On the one hand they say women should stay behind because they take a break to have children.  Those who take no break are then accused of not being normal, so they shouldn’t get ahead either.  WTF?
Seems to me to be excuses.  Pathetic excuses used by narrow minded, misogynistic twats like you who are threatened by a woman.

I want a PM who questions 50 billion dollars of expenditure.  Not some idiot who just signs up to whatever is put in front of them.

Joan says:

08:23am | 29/07/10

Absolutely right, lets look at possible reverse - if a male wanted become PM and had Gillards family, life credentials he would get equal scrutiny, especially if he was unmarried and never likely to marry and said his blonde hairdresser partner yes will be living in the lodge with him. And hasn’t Abbott been put through the wringer about his past and every day about an ordinary pair of swimming trunks? And since Gillard brought it up in the Womens Weekly - maybe she should explain if she was the `other woman ` during her relationship with Emmerson after all she keeps telling women she understands about family etc etc etc. and no she didn’t knife Rudd it was the Westminster system that made her do it, and yes she did pose for cutesy pics for Womens Weekly - just for the womens vote.  Airbrushed pics and airbrushed story.

Steve says:

08:30am | 29/07/10

Mark, you are going overboard with your dfence of Julia, lets see she overthrew Rudd, when she was questioned on it, she would not deny deal was done, sign of guilt, when questioned over the parental leave, and pension increase she immediately had no answer, again sign of guilt.

Its not sexism here, what it is she decided to play the game with the factions who put her in, she refuses to answer questions unless they has time to get a script to respond.

You then have the labor party telling interviewers how they should ask question to the PM, why because she has no substance.

Jane says:

09:10am | 29/07/10

Totally agree Eric.

It’s double standards alright.
She’s ( *and her feminazi supporters and sychophants ) happy to take the ‘good’ ...or all the benefits of the ‘woman’ angle….but not prepared to cop the ‘bad’.
She’s* happy to ramp it up and capitalise on ‘femaleness’ in girlie fashion shoots…but not so happy to cop any negative.

She has largely been given a free kick and treated with kid gloves by the media over many issues relevant to her dereliction of duty that any male counterpart ( like Garrett ) would be dragged over the coals for.

She made the statement “Game on”.....pre campaign…..did she really mean ‘bring it partly on ‘cause I’m a woman’?

People and the media have been ruthlessly and shamelessly insulting of Abbott….his personal life…sex life…his ears…his physique…his speech…everything. I’d like to see how an equitable degree of insult would be perceived if directed at Gillard.

SHE chose to play with the boys….or rather..she got a ‘leg up based of the very fact she WAS female…to play with them.
The ‘helped because of gender’ angle far outweighs any ‘hindrance because of female’ 20:1.

On the ‘leaker’ or ‘rat’ issue. It’s not Rudd - it’s Swan…I believe.

Labor ( including Swan) are so cock sure and arrogant that they will win this election despite all that’s happening..because of a perceived ‘Abbott” issue…that Swan feels he can both de-stabilise Gillard’s leadership for his move after they win , albeit with a reduced majority…....and reverse the huge sympathy angle for Rudd and the negative sentiment towards himself for being part of the coup, in Queensland.

They are so confident of winning anyway ...aided by the ‘first female’ aspect…that they can withstand sabotage from within.

Swan was ‘behind’ Rudd with the knife at the ready….he passed said knife to Gillard who did the deed…and now he’s ‘behind’ Gillard ...minding said knife.

Swan is a narcissistic, opportunistic ‘nothing’ who should never be where he is. See how arrogantly he takes personal credit for surviving the GFC and all the ‘policy’ accolade so far…..like some puffed up cockerel.

I think he was miffed that Hulia was taking credit for policy and costings that he feels were ‘his’....and that she had originally argued against.

The ‘rot’ will set in for Gillard over this campaign…they will win regardless and she will achieve ‘first female’ PM status….and after the initial euphoria…..will be torn down and replaced by Swan…who now happens to be in direct line.

It’s what Labor do….run a ‘popular’ leader campaign…only to overthrow the leader and install their ‘real’ choice afterwards….ala Vic, NSW, Qld..and Federal.

Watch what unfolds with this consideration in mind.

SkepDad says:

09:32am | 29/07/10

There’s something very ass-backward this morning - I actually agree with Eric for once.

To quote Liz Lemon: “Women are allowed to get angrier than men about double standards!”

PaulB says:

09:40am | 29/07/10

I want one who questions ALL the expenditure, not just that particular tranche.  Labor’s Whitlamesque fiancial performance this time around suggests no-one has been questioning much of anything.

Helen says:

09:46am | 29/07/10

Here we go. Every time a topic touches on women, who’s the very first commenter on the thread. Eric.
Not only is this completely obsessive, but Eric must hover 24/7 over his PC or netbook or iPhone obsessively screening for gender-related topics so he can jump in and comment first. How sad is that? Please, Eric, get some kind of life!

Gary says:

09:54am | 29/07/10

KH, I totally agree with you about questioning the 50 Billion spend.
By the way, did you notice the outrage from the Lib partyroom when Tony first announced his uncosted vote grabbing paid parental leave scheme? I wonder if those malcontents will be scrutenised to the same degree?

Rich says:

10:55am | 29/07/10

“old people don’t vote for labor”

I’ll tear down anyone who makes policy decisions on this basis.

Steely Dan says:

10:58am | 29/07/10

@ Tom
“Well said Eric, Don’t forget Labor has also been playing the “vote for me, I am a woman” card since Gillard got in.”
Come on, Tom.  The ALP haven’t been playing that card - they haven’t had to.  Tony Abbott has done a fine job of marginalising female voters as it is.

PMM says:

11:00am | 29/07/10

You state:  If it emerged that Wayne Swan or Lindsay Tanner had questioned the huge numbers involved in either of these two programs (which surely thay must have done), both men would be regarded with admiration because that is what tough economic ministers do.” Absolute twattle. You are the one playing the sexist card. I am a woman and would expect anyone, no matter what they have between their legs or what they don’t, to act the same way, especially with regards to the country’s finances. If there is anyone out there who will vote because of gender, and I have heard some say that they will, they need to have their voting rights stripped. They have no right to affect the livelyhood and well being of the rest of the citizens of this country based on their silly sexism. Not to mention that it nullifies the hard work that had to be done years ago, by women, for women, to be given the right to vote in the fist place.

Rae says:

11:16am | 29/07/10

Mark what a great load of rubbish I cannot believe that the Left Winged Media can actually print such garbage! 
Julia Gillard stabbed a Prime Minister in the back not just an Opposition opponent BUT the PRIME MINISTER,  you are calling this leaking a Feminist attack?
Please, no sympathy from me.  I am an older Australian, I am offended,  working in the Financial Industry for more than 15 years, FEMALES held very high positions in this industry form 1989 onwards!!!!!

Get over yourself!

Regards

M

Bobby says:

11:43am | 29/07/10

I dont think people are ‘suspicious’ of Gillard because she is childless. I think people are just questioning her ability to relate to your average aussie family’s needs….for example parental leave!

William C says:

12:03pm | 29/07/10

Its ironic that it is a male who plays the sexism card, I think it would have more credibility if it came from a woman.

Regardless. The author argues that because the leader questioned Paid Parental Leave and Pensioners Pay Increase has provided ammunition for the right, saying that as a woman she should always support womens issues (sisterhood anyone?). HE convienently forgets two points, 1. She questioned these issues on whether it would win or lose votes and 2. She listed these two acheivements in the debate as the biggest succcess of Labor’s first term.

Politics is a ruthless and tough game, it isn’t fair. The image of Tony Abbott in Speedos was front page news, it was not mentioned he was in the skimpy apparel as part of the uniform for his local life-saving club. It swings both ways, women may be subjected to scrutiny for different aspects of their lives than men in the political sphere, yet politics is not a ‘fair’ game.

Julia’s challenge is to rise above petty comments about her marriage outlook, dress (not helped by Womens Weekly photoshoots) and her earlobes as issues in the campaign. She could release some meaningful policy to do this?? Or am I being to idealisitc?

Bruce says:

12:12pm | 29/07/10

Eric: Agree. I do not care what sex a politician is. They are POLITICIANS and are going to have to “COP IT”  sweet like all other politicians. I am only interested what the capabilities of the person is.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

12:24pm | 29/07/10

Those that swallow the “questioned $50bilion in spending” (over 10 years mind you, gotta have a nice big number to quote) crapola are as gullable as the author of this article.

Look up the term “confirmation bias”... it describes you (KH, Gary et al)

HT says:

01:17pm | 29/07/10

I absolutely agree with you Eric. Julia Gillard wants us to vote her into the highest job in the country and some people are telling us that we can’t put her under scrutiny because she is a woman?

Don’t Australians want to know the true character of their potential prime ministers, regardless of their gender?

Either we advocate for equality or we don’t. If equality is what we want in our society Julia Gillard should not be treated differently from any other politician who has sought, is seeking or will seek to get the top job in the country, be is man or woman.

Super D says:

02:20pm | 29/07/10

But I thought Julia was supposed to be the people’s princess?

Tom says:

02:20pm | 29/07/10

@Steely Dan -
WW is not a “vote for me I am a woman stunt?

Sonny Carrington says:

02:35pm | 29/07/10

I am a female and I agree with your comment 100%. Sexism against men is also rampant in the medical field. I don’t have the figures at hand, but the difference in amounts spent on breast cancer and prostate cancer is stomach churning.
When Gillard became deputy leader of the opposition, I was pleased because I thought she was the best PERSON for the job - Not a sideshow act I had recently witnessed with Sarah Palin in U.S. politics.
I wont be voting Labour. I never voted Labour when Rudd was elected. But, enough people did. I believe only those people should have the right to re-elect him or vote him out. Gillards comments replayed after this undemocratic farce, shows she is a lying back-stabber. I will fear for Australia’s future should she win. I am already sickened by the ethics of people who support her. I am hoping they are the vocal minority.

Jamie says:

03:40pm | 29/07/10

I don’t like Julia all that much but those who believe she is being treated the same as other pollies are deluding themselves. While I slowly learned about the family life of the other politicians, from the get go, we have the media blasting on and on about Julia being a single woman in a defacto relationship.

If Julia was male, they wouldn’t be trotting out lines of her backstabbing Rudd and then in the same sentence, call her a puppet being led by the men in Labor. It’s like they’re trying to play both cards at a time: she’s a traitorous backstabbing conniving woman but she’s also a weak spineless woman who needs to be led by other men.

Look, if you guys really don’t believe there’s any double standards at all, then just read some of the comments below and some of the articles in the media with an open mind. People are openly questioning if she is suitable to be a leader because she is a childless, single woman. Some have said she’s a bad influence on young women. How many single male polticians with a girlfriend have the same thing said about them?

Reg says:

06:48pm | 29/07/10

Never mind the sexism, the broader insinuation is that anyone who does not conform to the median gray as assessed by the Liberal followers here, should be shown the door. Nice one fellas. Your pants are around your ankles and you haven’t even noticed.

Eric says:

05:59am | 30/07/10

Jamie, there are plenty of double standards at play. Just look at the sexist attacks on Tony Abbott from the same people who are decrying the attacks on Gillard. Abbott is condemned for his fashion choices, his attitude to sex, and the shape of his ears - all forbidden topics when it comes to Gillard.

Let Julia play with the big boys on the field under the same rules. I’m sure she can cope, or she wouldn’t be in the game.

Jamie says:

09:56am | 30/07/10

Eric - Well, isn’t that what she’s doing? Who so far has banned the articles, the opinion pieces and the comments that she’s not fit to lead and is a bad example for women because she’s single, childless and in a defacto relationship? Even her atheism is questioned. How is this not a level playing field? Just because people don’t agree with every piece ran on her, doesn’t mean she’s not playing under the same rules.

Do you really believe that if Gillard was running around in a bikini, every single newspaper and journalist would not be covering it with as much or more fervour than they did Abbott’s? The most I’ve heard about Abbott’s fashion choices is his posing in his speedoes or his skintight runner’s clothes. If Gillard posed in a swimsuit or a skintight suit, News would go down from the traffic overload. And it would probably be mostly negative and about how she’s using her female physique to gain votes.

I agree that there are double standards everywhere. But the idea that it’s only Abbott affected negatively while Gillard gets off scott free is ridiculous. Just look at the comments here. Even if you look at just one aspect: Abbott backstabs Turnbull but no one calls him a heartless backstabber and in the same breath says that he’s just a puppet led by the other men in Liberal. But that’s the contradictory image that Gillard gets painted of her. You still don’t see the double standards?

Petra says:

09:01pm | 01/08/10

You are totally correct. Let move “forward” away from this sexist crap

Sherekahn says:

09:04am | 02/08/10

31/07/10. BBC NEWS.
·  One in five UK women will not have children, many by choice
·  Among female graduates, this rises to one in three according to some studies
·  Teenage single mums are becoming biggest social group giving birth in the UK
·  Infertility affects 2-3% of women globally, says the UN
US Census Bureau says 36% of American women have no children

James1 says:

10:31am | 29/07/10

I hope you don’t always go around judging people for not being married, or not having children.  If you did, it would say more about you than it does those you judge.

Choose a candidate on the basis of their policies, not whether they are married or whether they wear budgie smugglers.

Smack says:

10:45am | 29/07/10

James1,
I knew there had to be someone around here who was rational and even minded.

Turns out it was you.

Sodapoppy says:

12:49pm | 29/07/10

While the Slogan Bogan was chasing a gaggle of blokes, single and married, Tony Abbott was doing his job as a life-saver and volunteer fire-fighter. Big difference there!

Hamish says:

01:22pm | 29/07/10

Slogan Bogan. Love it.

Neutral on this says:

05:29pm | 29/07/10

James1,

Although what you have said sounds quite reasonable the fact is that i believe Julia herself has subtly tried to capitalize on her unmarried and childless status as a positive move and a strength in her political career.
Didn’t she try to imply that being unmarried and childless was (rightfully her choice to make) a strength given that she was then able to be more effective in her job as a politician because she could fully commit to it without having to split her time with other ‘distractions’ like raising a family?

She did that by saying publicly that she had wondered whether she could have rising so far in her political career had she made a choice to get married and be a mum.

Haven’t we been subtly led to believe by some that because of her choices in life she could be a more effective PM because she could devote fully to the job, a plus, given the ‘full on’ nature of the job?

So as you can see, rightly or wrongly and whether you like it or not, the status of her life choices,  has been exploited both ways. She thinks her choices have enabled her to reach such heights in politics and others will judge it according to their own views.
It’s only natural that some people will be interested in that side of her and take it in consideration when they vote.

Let each and everyone decide on the importance or lack of importance of her life choices when considering her for the position. In the very least it will show what kind of society we really are.

James1 says:

10:00am | 30/07/10

Indeed she has, Neutral.  So has Abbott.  See for instance his opener in the leaders debate.  My point is, if you vote on the basis of whether someone has children or is married, you are missing the point of the political process, not to mention being suckered by cynical politicians.

iansand says:

08:04am | 29/07/10

I think there is a subtle, but real, difference between claiming something as sexist and exploiting sexism.  It is the latter that Gillard is facing.

Helen says:

09:49am | 29/07/10

Why don’t you refer to Abbott as a “career man”?

No sexism here, nope, move along…

Adam Diver says:

10:38am | 29/07/10

@ Helen “Why don’t you refer to Abbott as a “career man”?” About 50,000 years of human evolution perhaps. Your right though Men can breast feed, no differences in sex exist at all.

Ray says:

11:12am | 29/07/10

Helen, Why don’t we refer to service men and women as service personnel. No we have to labour the ‘women’ aspect. Women klike you are totally blinded by your blinkered belief in inferiority despite how much it is warranted

Ray says:

11:17am | 29/07/10

Adam, I breast feed as often as possible.

jb says:

12:02pm | 29/07/10

Okay Helen, very sorry for that, one is a career/family man the other is a career woman….
Happy?

Smack says:

12:49pm | 29/07/10

Just out of curiousity Jb; did you vote Liberal at the last election, or were you turned off at the possibility of a Costello led government rather than a Howard led one? Because I believe you are making the same argument.

Ray; no one inside the ADF refers to servicemen and servicewomen - they are all personnel. The only people having that debate are people who want to have that debate - its a non issue.

I’m not speaking to anyone in Warsaw about what we are voting for either by the way.

jb says:

01:54pm | 29/07/10

Smack well to be honest I would like to see Costello PM today, JH although a great PM should have retired gracefully!

Ray says:

03:06pm | 29/07/10

Smack, every politician will use the term ‘service men and women’. Absolute!

TimB says:

07:53am | 29/07/10

Rob the school halls were completely under her jurisdiction, she was the manager in charge. Or are you saying that the BER policy was forced on her? That she’s just a puppet that isn’t able to make her own policy decisions? Interesting choice of leader you have.

And no Rob it’s not sexism, no matter how you or Mark would have us believe that.  If Rudd was still in power and these leaks had come out about HIM (perhaps from a disgruntled Swan or Julia), we’d be giving him the exact same criticism.
Because it’s not about sexism. It’s about hypocrisy. Opposing a policy in private then crowing about in it in a debate like you were personally responsible for it is decietful, whether you’re male or female.

Doh says:

08:25am | 29/07/10

Alas, if only she asked the same sort of questions in the rolling out of the BER.

MarK says:

10:04am | 29/07/10

Rob the way you do your job is all that matters.

Let us for arguments sake say she thought the BER was a complete fail of a policy. Let us assume that she came up with numerous arguments against it and warned of some foreseeable;e issues. Lets say she did that with the batts, the NBN, the computers in schools and everything else that Labor has attempted to do.

Fine she opposed the lot.

Now let us look at the delivery,

NBN has no business model or cost benefit analysis yet she supports it publicly and shows no intention of winding it back.

BER has been shown as wasteful and expensive. She supports it in public as a necessary measure and was directly in charge of its implementation. Ergo it is her baby. Are are you seriously suggesting that because she “may” not have supported it in cabinet she is then entitled to run it like crap….. to what end?......to show up the scheme and say I told you so?

I really don’t get your point.

Bottom line we could analyse the other government schemes that she was involved in, that is all of them, and show her to be inept at management and oblivious to cost. Her “anger” and defence of being prudent and cautious does not fit her performance record.

In other words we got concocted anger and spin to cover up a gaping lack of competence in her news conference yesterday.

The mere fact she has to come out to defend herself against internal leaks during an election campaign merely shoes she cannot manage her own party which is consistent with her record.

As a manager she is incompetent.

As a leader she is weak.

Jason CR says:

11:01am | 29/07/10

Surely you don’t watch the 7.30Report Rob - who wouldve thought?

Let me get this right too Rob….Rudd was responsible for every mistake and stuff-up when in power - yet when it comes to keeping Australia out of recession and unemployment low, it was all Swan and Gillard??

Can’t have it both ways Rob.  Just face it “Old people don’t vote Labor” but dole bludgers do….

James1 says:

12:08pm | 29/07/10

Jason, I know dole bludgers who tell me I should vote for the Coalition because they will give less money to boat people and more money to dole bludgers (although they do not call themselves that).  I just wish there was a party I could vote for that would give less money to dole bludgers…

MarK says:

12:42pm | 29/07/10

“but what would you expect from the conservative side of politics. The reality is they fear women with power or access to it; it cuts across the very grain of their makeup.”

I totally missed this at first read.

I can’t wait to see Palin be the first female US president.

Rob r Charteris says:

02:54pm | 29/07/10

MarK says:10:04am; ok point out to us where all this waste??? less than 1 percent of 25000 projects in schools have had complaints or have blown out, For the siaze of the BER you would expect it to have a few problems.

Lets look at Abbott record of blow outs….

Keeping budgets under control was not one of his fortes when he was health minister.

Examine his record and you’ll find almost every big policy he introduced suffered a major blowout in costs. Many of those blowouts cost taxpayers over $1 billion.

The blowouts were due to Abbott’s other weakness - lack of interest in detail.

The Medicare Safety Net scheme he introduced in 2004 to help people cover large out-of-pocket medical bills was meant to cost $495 million over four years. By the end of its first year it was costing taxpayers $1 billion.

His 2006 Better Access Scheme for mental health, which introduced Medicare rebates for psychologists, was meant to cost $538 million over five years. By December last year it was costing $732 million. It’s now forecast to cost $2 billion over five years.

The scheme has been criticised for providing Medicare rebates for middle class women in wealthy suburbs while shutting out the mentally ill who can’t afford the $35 out-of-pocket expense required for a psychologist.

Abbott’s scheme to provide a Medicare subsidy for the dental care of the chronically ill was meant to cost $377.6 million over four years. By March 2010 it cost $869 million.

Tony Abbott said in 2003 he found economics boring: “I have never been as excited about economics as some of my colleagues; you know, I find economics is not for nothing known as the dismal science.”

His big spending alarms his cabinet colleagues, who say he doesn’t understand what it means to be a fiscal conservative.

Former treasurer Peter Costello holds a very dim view of Abbott’s economic skills.

Last week, shadow cabinet knocked back Abbott’s uncosted bid to include a $10,000-a-year payment to stay-at-home mothers in his Budget reply speech.

They did not believe this would fit well in a speech that was meant to be telling voters how the Coalition would do a better job of getting the deficit back under control.

In fact, Abbott’s speech was thin on detail about how he would shave back the $40.8 billion deficit. His only costed announcement was a plan to chop 12,000 public service positions, saving $4 billion over two years. No other costings were provided.

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will have to do the heavy lifting on finding $56 million in extra savings.

One thing he’s unlikely to tell you is that about $2 billion of the current budget deficit is due to poor control on programs introduced when Abbott was health minister.

Abbott was a minister in times of economic plenty. He was indulged by a prime minister who found the money to finance his big policy ideas when cabinet’s expenditure review committee wouldn’t.

Times have changed. He might find economics dismal and boring, but Abbott needs to master the art if he wants to become prime minister or he’ll be facing more embarrassing knockbacks in shadow cabinet.

Rob r Charteris says:

04:14pm | 29/07/10

Jason CR says:11:01am; another expert eh’ Howard and his Coalition turned dole bludgers into baby making machines, just have a look up here on the north coast!!! but I’m sure you wont have to as it is mostly likely like that right around the country.

And what about Abbott big back flip the other day. His PPL is now a PML never trust a monkey.

Adam says:

11:31pm | 29/07/10

Rob r Charteris perhaps you have never studied tertiary-level economics but the fact that Abbott has successfully completed a bachelor in economics i think gives him reason enough to comment of the validity of the “science” that is studying choices that we make.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:05am | 30/07/10

Adam says:11:31pm “but the fact that Abbott has successfully completed a bachelor in economics”

Well if what I have pointed out is true then he obviously graduated top of the class.

James1 says:

10:11am | 30/07/10

Adam, Craig Emerson has a PhD in economics.  Neither side has a monopoly on university credentials.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:01am | 29/07/10

CC says:07:18am; Yes your very right, that’s why we are seeing questions about her ear lobes, her fashion sense, being athiest, childless, de facto relationship that might get to live in the lodge. Give me a break you wont hear a straight answer because to your opinion wont let you you just assume.

Joe Blow says:

08:30am | 29/07/10

@ Rob d C - Gosh, and has there ever been anythig in the media about Tony Abbott’s speedos?  Or any refernec to him as ‘the mad monk’?Funny how Wayne Swan can continue to ridicule Abbott’s wearing of speedo’s while he’s supporting a very worthwhile organisation, yet no one is allowed to comment on the princess.  You are a hypocrite Rob.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:44am | 29/07/10

Joe Blow says:08:30am; what a ridiculous reply, you obviously could do with a little education revolution yourself. If comments and questions to either Julia or Abbott were just about fashion sense then ok. But comments about Julia go a lot deeper than that. Hypocrite my @$$ you wouldn’t know the meaning of the word.

Gary Web says:

09:43am | 29/07/10

“What nonsense; Julia is losing support because we are beginning to find out who she is and what she stands for. etc”

What nonsense. We have always known she was responsible for the school halls situation, that she was a ranga, and that she was s childless woman living [perish the thought] in sin. Basically all we have learnt is that she questioned the affordability of $50b over the next 10 years,  and that she has long ear lobes.  [Gosh, she must be a witch. string her up.]
We have always known Tony has limitations, is truely sexist, is far to the right of the rest of Australia. I don’t care about his speedos or his ears, appearences don’t matter.

Other things we know;
If Julia wins, we will continue to get a world class broadband network which we so badly need, the miners who are raping our country will have to pay more for the privelege, our hospitals and schools will get much needed funding.
If Tony wins, we will retain the hopless internet service we have been struggling to cope with for many years, the miners will get their way and pay even less tax, our private hospitals and private schools will get even more funding, in fact middle class welfare will get a huge boost to maintain the rift between ‘rich and poor’ , and I have no doubt that there will be an attempt to ‘right the wrong’ and reintroduce work choice type workers conditions.
OH, and for some reason I keep reading that there is no differences in their policies.

Andrew says:

10:48am | 29/07/10

Um Gary, you seem really angry. Your rant would be so easy to tear to shreds but hey only a fool argues with an idiot.

BTW “continue to get a world class broadband network…”, gimme a break, how can you continue to get something that hasn’t been started? That comment alone marginalises your rant.

Joe Blow says:

11:32am | 29/07/10

@ Rob d C.  Please point me to a couple of ‘comments’ about Gillard that ‘go a lot deeper’ (I assume you are suggesting that these comments attack her gender).  All I’m seeing in the media are comments that go to her ability to a. tell the truth, b. competently run her beloved BER program, c. run a disciplined goverment, and d. take some responsibility for the failures of the past 3 years (According to her story, as Deputy PM she resolutely reviewed every expenditure and yet simultaneously had nothing to do with any failed program? It was all Kevin’s doing.)

Samuel says:

11:33am | 29/07/10

@ Rob - you’re not serious are you?  You cannot honestly say that Julia has had more criticism than Abbott.  Let’s break it down for you nice and simple: Gillard gets questioned about atheism, Abbott gets hammered for being Catholic (‘mad monk’).  Gillard gets questioned about her fashion sense, Abbott gets all over the news for his budgie smugglers.  Gillard gets questioned about her marital status, Abbott has his son-that-wasn’t on the front page of all the newspapers for a week.  Gillard gets mocked about her ears, Abbott gets mocked about his ears.

Apparently Abbott’s ears, swimwear, religion, wild student days and family are fair game but Gillard’s ears, clothes, lack of religion, family and previous affairs are not.  What a joke.

Ben81 says:

01:42pm | 29/07/10

Samuel - just google “Rob r Charteris” and “mad monk” among other interesting things, turn off omitted results, and you’ll see what you’re trying to reason with here.

And Rob, again, you really need to improve your spelling, grammar, and generally attempt to make sense before you tell people to get an education as usual.

Rob r Charteris says:

03:05pm | 29/07/10

Ben81 says:01:42pm; tough eh’

BobM says:

04:51pm | 29/07/10

Ben81 - I just googled ‘Rob r Charteris’ - remind me never to go to Casino….

Rob r Charteris says:

06:56pm | 29/07/10

BobM says:04:51pm; At least I’m not gutless and hide behind some nerdy handle. You guys remind of those tough guys who drive past you at 1000kms while giving you the finger. I bet you’d squeal like a pig if you were cornered

Rob r Charteris says:

07:24am | 30/07/10

Ben81 says:01:42pm | 29/07/10 “And Rob, again, you really need to improve your spelling, grammar, and generally attempt to make sense before you tell people to get an education as usual. “

Gee with a name like “Ben81” it appears I’m not the only one. You seem to like to make repeated comments about my spelling and grammar to the point I think you must be fixated by it or is it that your just fixated by me which for me is a horrible thought. I get the impression you must be like the detective Monk fella, you go around the place making sure everything is neatly in its place, you probably use a hanky to open doors. You know people who go around pointing out the faults of others are usually trying to hide inadequacies of their own. In the attempt to make themselves feel bigger or better than they really are. Who try ever so hard for something meaningful in their lives, you know fill that empty spot. You must be a frighteningly tough guy eh’ and super perfect to boot.

Fact is your comments which I rarely bother to answer but I will this time, are water off a ducks back. I’ve never claimed to be a literary genius nor have I ever claimed to be perfect like you. Fact is I’d rather keep my spelling mistakes and poor grammar if it means I don’t have to go around continually bleating on about others.

Ben81 says:

07:40pm | 30/07/10

It would be fine Rob, if at the same time you weren’t constantly telling others that they need to get an education at any chance you get.  That’s the problem.

It’s not like you haven’t told me that and called me a “dickhead” and similar things in the past instead of bothering to prove me wrong.  If it seems that i’m poking you with a stick, it’s because you’re drawing attention to yourself.

Rob r Charteris says:

05:51pm | 31/07/10

Ben81 says:07:40pm “It would be fine Rob, if at the same time you weren’t constantly telling others that they need to get an education at any chance you get.”

So you think your some kind of forum policeman. Anyways it is not true Ben81 it may have been said a couple of times but constantly??? And from memory it was after you repeatedly posted things about my spelling and grammar that I referred to you as a dickhead and as far as I can see that is what you are. Like I said above I rarely reply to your repeated posts at me, nor will I again. Enjoy yourself

iansand says:

08:45am | 29/07/10

I see your problem.  “Rightly”.

Gary Webb says:

09:47am | 29/07/10

You forgot ‘athiest’. Heavens, we can’t have anybody in charge who dares to differ from our redneck steriotype. And did I mention she is a woman?

KH says:

10:41am | 29/07/10

Yes. Why not? Its no different to all the men that don’t represent me personally.  I would rather have someone career driven than a lazy person or one who has other committments.  In fact, given the 24/7 nature of the job, I would think that would be more ideal to have someone who can focus on it all the time. 

Further to that, hands up all the morons who think the PM makes all decisions personally?!  HA…...........they don’t.  They are surrounded by others including advisers, other members of parliament, and of course, the electorate, and the circumstances in the world they are operating in.  Hence she may not agree with or argue about some things, but ultimately has to support them as part of the Labor policy.  So she has a personal opinion - that doesn’t necessarily translate to policy and implementation of policy.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter what her personal life is - so she isn’t married, so she has no children - she isn’t stupid - she knows that a majority of people do have these things (well, the children part, maybe not the marriage part), and therefore to keep votes, they have to be pandered to.  Any politician will do that.

Helen says:

09:55am | 29/07/10

“She’s a girl”??? Would you refer to Tony Abbott as a boy?
Way to reveal the unconscious sexism which you deny!

Bitten says:

11:01am | 29/07/10

Yes, I would. Tony Abbott is a boy. There you have it.

And in reference to my actual comment, my reference to Julia Gillard as a ‘girl’ was made in the context of how she would be viewed WERE she being singled out for different treatment on the basis of her gender (being female, a girl, a woman, a lady, a sheila - pick the term that least twists your smalls and inflates your indignation gland).

However, as anyone who read my entire comment could clearly see, my assertion is that she is not being subjected to different treatment on the basis of her gender. In fact, she is being subjected to the exact same attacks on character and credibility as her opposition in Tony Abbott and as her predecessors in the ALP have been - all of whom are male. (or boys or men or blokes - again, you choose the term that makes you feel most mood-stabilised). This is a triumph for gender equity, she is NOT being treated differently because she is a girl (*oops, I did it again! Naughty!)

BobM says:

09:15am | 29/07/10

If Laurie ‘approved’ of Gillard, she would be getting the same cushy ride that all Labor poiticians get - he obviously didn’t like the way she ‘removed’ his mate, Kev - so look out Julia. How does it feel to be running scared? Male or female, when the media turns on you, your days are numbered.

Bob H says:

10:13am | 29/07/10

Agreed BobM, but do Australian media ever turn on politicians?, never an awkward interrogation,  just pre-agreed and easy questions with no follow through, all very cosy, lazy and “embedded”.  I do appreciate Oaks rattling and shouting from his cage, I don’t think its to settle a score for an old mate, rather her gender rocking his comfort.

Timmo says:

11:51am | 29/07/10

I think most people are sick of Laurie Oaks. I think he is a decent person tho, but commentors are mostly biased anyway. That bloke Kerry O’brien is boring as well. People should make their own decisions, aren’t they capable of that at least. Why do we have to have all these so called experts on everything dominating our airwaves.

Every time something happens they crawl out and assault us again and again. I’m sure most of us know who to vote for without all the Rah, Rah, Rah. and Blah, Blah, Blah. We should give ourselves some credit regarding having the semblance of a brain and not having all the time to promote the out of touch brain dead.

Julia chose not to marry, so what.! What’s the big deal!. My son and his girl chose not to marry as well. Many people chose not to marry, and they have their own reasons for that. Doesn’t make them bad people. So get off Julias case everybody who is on it. And get over this obsession that The Lodge and Kirrabilli House are some sort of Holy Grail.They’re just Government Housing that’s it and nothing more. As long as they de flea them they will be OK. Canberra’s a cold hole anyway and Sydney just an overfull semblance of a Sardine can. Both totally overrated.

Joe says:

08:05am | 29/07/10

Well said Maudie. You go girl.

James Darby says:

08:06am | 29/07/10

I am distressed that Australians and Americans die fighting a non-war against a non-enemy for non-friends. Nothing as been done to solve the root cause of the problem there amongst the Afgans, i.e. Socialism. The socialist admins of USA and Australia are happy to continue the war as they really get off on bleeding their own countries. Blood letting and cannibalism are symptons of socialism. Why drain yourself to put the frozen snake before the fire unless you want the snake to attack your family? Or in JG’s case my family.

James says:

08:24am | 29/07/10

Have we moved so far away from the concept of democracy in Australia that we cannot see an election choice between Labor and Liberal parties?

Are we electing a party or a president here? To make an informed choice based solely on whether a woman chooses to have children or not seems to bear out the premise that a country gets the leaders it deserved, God help us all.

Does anyone recall that the Labor parties of the world were painfully founded to represent the working people, i.e 95 percent of us? Liberals or Conservatives or the Right have always traditionally represented the bosses or the rich, but I repeat myself.

Joan says:

01:20pm | 29/07/10

WW in same spread could have had Therese Rein and Margaret Abbott - both successful women in career, as mothers, wives, with spiritual dimension, rounded lives part of current political still getting on with their lives and with stories to tell. Not the one track airbrushed life of Gillard as presented by WW.

Reg says:

09:08pm | 29/07/10

Maudie you seem to resent the fact that women have managed to get beyond what you see as their only acceptable status of bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen. I also have six children and four of them are women. On their behalf I would like you to climb down from your self-styled position of spokes-person for all women on the grounds that you would rather my daughters be confined by the strictures to which you and some of your Liberal brethren aspire.
I have no interest it what the WW prints because we have come to expect superficiality from the publication, but you seek to force substantial retrograde thinking on others, apparently based on your belief in Christ.  I question you personal morality and your world view as being sourced in the dark ages with every prospect of remaining there.  Your status as a supervisor of others, does not impress me at all.

emmgee says:

09:56am | 29/07/10

sosmething else weird, here is the transcript of the Australian Story on Julia Gillard.
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2006/s1586140.htm
This story was re-broadcast in the days before Julia knifed Kevin. I watched the show, and don’t recall the section relating to Craig Emerson being included.

Simon says:

10:05am | 29/07/10

That’s because you’ve just hit on the next ‘leak’ which is not far off…

Joe Blow says:

08:37am | 29/07/10

Actually Holly, the truth of it is that the princess expected to breeze into the Lodge with no scrutiny just because she is a woman.  Now that she is being held to the same scrutiny applied to Abbott, Rudd, Howard, Keating et al, it’s all getting a bit hard ... so let’s wheel out the sexism card, eh? 
Oh the irony - surely the princess discredited herself when she agreed to do the WW photo shoot.  She was the one who agreed to be made-up and air-brushed further demonstrating her phoniness - imagine the outcry if a male did that?

Greg says:

09:17am | 29/07/10

Hey Holly, ask Craig Emerson’s wife if she thinks Joolia’s actions were based on fairness! How many women would find her attractive and popular enough to vote for if they knew the truth behind that? And not much has been said to date about Joolia’s membership of the Socialist Forum up until 2002! Nor the radical leftist views she wrote in it’s propaganda.

Louise says:

09:25am | 29/07/10

Joe Blow - to imply that Julia has had all the air brushing is an ignorant joke. Abbott is so groomed right now we don’t even recognise the shooting from the hip, budgie smuggling misogynist we knew 6 months ago.

Have we all forgotten how he stood up Nicola Roxon at the press club debate on his own portfolio, health, at the last election. I think the indignation he treated her with is a fine example of his opinion of women in power.

Right now, there is far more scrutiny on Julia’s life choices than his.

Troy says:

10:45am | 29/07/10

Holly if you look beyond your Laborite glasses, you would know the KRudd destablised himself, in fact he had the media swooning all over him for most of his time as PM. KRudd can only blame himself for his demise, as Abbott for the last couple of months pretty much just sat back and did nothing and was more of a spectator in watching KRudd capitulate in front of us all. Gillard has also had the main stream media licking her boots since she knifed KRudd, until some of the more intelligent reporters like Oaks started to see through the gloss and realised that there is not much behind her but the Labor factions that propped her up. If she is so intelligent tell me one thing she has been successful on since she became PM? So far she has looked like a total amateur in everything she has done. She has the KRudd disease when it come to announcing any policys, as she annouces policys to get a headlines without any thought of what the ramifications are. Her boat people policy is an absolute joke as she didnt even know who to speak to in East Timor to make a decision, her cash for bombs policy has failed in every country thats tried it, yet she got her headline, her Global Warming/Carbon Tax policy flopped as soon as the words left her mouth, and her mining tax policy has been proven to total lies (or should I say spin). So tell me what has the princess done to prove to the Australian public that she deserves there vote?

Joe Blow says:

11:50am | 29/07/10

@ Louise - the reason that their is more scrutiny of Gillard at the moment is a. she is the PM (in case you have forgotten), b. Abbott has led hi sparty for 6 months (during which time he has been scrutinised), she is the one who wanted to race to an election before we could judge her performance.
Imagine the furore if Abbott appeared in a magazine with his physique enhanced by digital means.  the sisterhood would be out in force. 
BTW - your attacking of TA because he wears ‘budgie smugglers’ does somewhat explode the sisterhood’s case that lifestyle, dress, gender etc shouldn’t be an issue, don’t you think? It’s clearly an issue with you.

Gary says:

10:10am | 29/07/10

Dead to me says “I want my PM to be competent” and yet you are voting for Abbott?

Mikey says:

10:18am | 29/07/10

Abbott and the liberals are way more competent than Julia and her labor mates. Look at the mess and waste they have achieved in the last 3 years. Labor had its chance and they blew it! ETS, asylum issue, environmental issues, family issues, insulation debacle, health care, co-ordination with state labor party etc. A bloody mess I tell you!

JJ says:

11:36am | 29/07/10

Tony has more competence in his left toe, than Julia can muster Gary. I understand this is a harsh reality to the many people who dislike Tony Abbott. His passion for fitness, his faith in God and genuine vision for the country are really irritating!

Gary says:

01:16pm | 29/07/10

JJ, his passion for fitness has nothing to do with his competence to run the country, nor does his faith in god. You may notice, anybody with a ‘faith in god’ feels obliged to impose their beliefs on others. His ‘genuine vision for the country’ is merely to undo anything and everything Labor has done. He will scrap the NBN, which we desperately need, and I anticipate a form of work choices [by another name of course] to appear while the libs still rule the senate. He will scrap the miners tax, afterall, he does represent big business. As for his beliefs, I anticipate abortions will become illegal, and if he had his way so would the pill.He has shown with his version of paid parental leave and his school fees rebates that he will expand middle class welfare.

For the record, I’m resigned to the libs winning this election, they are the ‘born to rule’ and have been blocking and lying since they lost last time. The Murdoch press did much of their hatchet work for them., and now that Laurie Oakes has come to the party, Labor has little chance. The gullible will get the government they deserve.

Michael says:

01:33pm | 29/07/10

And exactly how does Tony Abbott fit your reasonable criteria? If indeed you believe he does..

Sam says:

12:33pm | 29/07/10

MarK, how is it you know the NBN ‘got through’ without any type of questioning? How do you know just what Julia did or did not question?.
What is your connection to the person leaking information to Laurie Oakes? Do you sit in on Labor meetings, or did the libs ‘bug’ the offices before they vacated them in 2007/08?

Nicole says:

02:44pm | 29/07/10

@Sam, sources like that can never be revealed. If MarK were to tell you, you would have to disappear.

Polywatcher says:

10:14am | 29/07/10

Tony Abbott had his wife at his side in Brisbane at the time he presented a policy announcement for child care centres of which his wife has particular interest in Sydney as a Principal of one of those organisations. Mrs Abbott said “tomorrow I shall be back at work looking after twenty-five littlies”. She was not “wheeled out” to show the world he was a family man in contrast to Joolya.  Yes indeed he has every right to invite his wife to be by his side on any occasion. Therese has done it, Margaret has done it, Janette has done it and so it goes on. Maybe when Joolya has a policy on hair care products, she could “wheel out” her de facto.

Brutus says:

09:05am | 29/07/10

@Ray Graham,  You summed up really well.  Women who want to vote for Gillard just because she happens to be a woman, and the first PM standing on the carcass of Krudd, is senseless sexism.  There are women who hate Abbot, just because he is male and who have said somethings that does not sit well with the lifestyle of some women.  To hate him for that too is sexism.  Women are no angels, all grace and sense as much as men saying disagreeable things.  So what?  Scrutinize the politician who want to lead Australia, male or female without fear or favor.  Mark Kenny’s article is the most silly piece I have read so far.

Nicole says:

09:23am | 29/07/10

@Ray, I think Mark already has a grip.

Ray says:

09:39am | 29/07/10

A grip Nicole? Are you suggesting Mrs Palm and her 5 daughters or are you serious?

Nicole says:

10:39am | 29/07/10

@Ray, Mrs Palmer and her lovely 5 daughters.

Ray says:

10:04am | 29/07/10

Nicole I can now see you were joking on the ‘get a grip’. Tongue in cheek. I’m relieved and think I feel a romance coming on. Thanks.

mark says:

09:46am | 29/07/10

not re-election, election. She has not been elected as leader.

James1 says:

10:38am | 29/07/10

Incorrect mark.  We don’t elect prime ministers in this country at all.  We elect local members.  When attempting to correct someone, it helps to have the correct information.

Dash says:

09:42am | 29/07/10

AdamC, as Greg above has mentioned, if women knew the Craig Emerson story, I doubt there would be many lining up to vote for Gillard!

Hamish says:

09:48am | 29/07/10

Yes AdamC, it is blatantly obvious that a number of men in the meeja can’t help but defend the poor damsel in distress. The fact is that Jools’ nasty backroom stabbing of Rudd is coming back to haunt her. Stabbing people in the back is sooo unlady-like after all.

I find it fascinating that people think the only reason everyone is interested in Julia’s relationship and her lack of children is because she’s a woman. It’s not as if we’ve had many unmarried, childless men running for PM either. Most Australians either have children and are married or one day aspire to have children and get married, so I would have thought it’s perfectly reasonable that people question whether a childless unmarried person is who they want to represent them. I’ve got a feeling that if an unmarried, childless man was running we would get exactly the same commentary, but of course that wouldn’t be sexist. You can only be sexist when you’re talking about women.

AdamC says:

10:56am | 29/07/10

Dash, I can’t say I have followed that too much. Are you saying that Gillard is a ‘scarlet woman’ in more respects than she already is (i.e, being a read-headed socialist)? I guess the press is too decent to report on Jools’ home-wrecking.

Hamish, you are probably right that a confirmed bachelor would be accused of not understanding the difficulties of family committments much more openly than the spinning spinster is. Nonetheless, it would be ideal if people could concentrate more on substantive character issues.

Not that such considerations do much for Gillrudd, given the knifing. Also, another issue that people aren’t talking about, is the ‘sincerity gap’ between the two leaders. On the one hand, Abbott is open and up-front about his convictions, even when he is mercilessly criticised for them (remember the virginity comments?) while most of Gillard’s campaign is a focus-group confection. In truth, Gillard is a socialist, not a centrist. And, while nobody is denying it, nobody is really talking about it either. Shouldn’t it be relevant that a PM doesn’t agree with many of her own polciies?

Shelley says:

02:04pm | 29/07/10

Remember the married WA treasurer having it off with married WA Green not long ago? How do the expense claims of Gillard and Emerson look?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1044960/buswell-resigns-as-wa-treasurer

Ray Graham says:

12:17pm | 29/07/10

Davida, i’m annoyed to have to put explanation to your comments
1, The affirmative action of the Labour Party is conceived and introduced by the Hawkes, Rudds, Wrans, Burrows, Macklins of Labour with their quota system.
2, There is an issue of sexism in our community. It is predominently against men and they have no avanue of recourse. You don’t have to place anyone anywhere. That’s my point. Appointment or achievement should be through endeavour not protectionism not artificial promotion known as social engineering.
3. With the military my first point is to say comments are difficult in this area because of the absolute respect deserved. We have however through the great wars and others conflicts seen our men used as cannon fodder, disposable. Their valour, partriotism and heroism, deserves our uncompromising respect. However in the major wars when more than 102,000 made the ultimate sacrifice with five times that critically wounded, and now on-going, we need the recognition where it is warrented. I think around 400 females made that ultimate sacrifice. We don’t need laborious commentry of ‘our Service men and women’ in deference to ‘service personnel’. At a Dawn Service I even witnessed a female Colonel refer to the service men and women storming the beaches of Gallipoli. Where this is a matter that deserves respect, to depart from reality to fantasy is a sign of disrespect. Is in my eyes anyhow. I also respect the families left behind and the gaps in our society.

Davida says:

03:23pm | 29/07/10

@Ray Graham,
I am not annoyed by your comments, merely perplexed.

I agree that “The affirmative action of the Labour Party is conceived and introduced by the Hawkes, Rudds, Wrans, Burrows, Macklins of Labour with their quota system.”  Not of course to redress an imbalance, or level the playing field, just because it was a Friday and they were bored.  Last time I checked Hawke, Rudd and Wran were in fact men.

You state that “There is an issue of sexism in our community. It is predominently against men”.  Interesting,  given that it is men (with more numbers in government, holding higher office/ positions of power and influence in government and business traditionally)  “conceived and introduced” affirmative action.  What a bunch of sillys.  What a bunch of traitors to “boy power”.

Hearty congratulations to the conniving minxes, who with fewer numbers, a shorter history in politics and public life, managed to not only seize power politically and socially, but managed to convince the “boys club” to do it for them.  Genius, if you are to be believed.

Greg says:

10:27am | 29/07/10

Seano, don’t you think that people have a right to understand who they are voting for and what they stand for? Tossers are those who get sucked into the spin and lies. I would encourage everyone to look at Gillard’s membership of the Socialist Forum up until 2002 and to read, if they can, some of the communist rants she contributed to it’s propaganda. I would also encourage people to look at her relationship with Craig Emerson who was married at the time. I think women would be reluctant to vote for the “other woman”. This will give you a much better idea of who Julia Gillard really is and what she stands for. You certainly wont get a true picture from listening to what is now coming out of her mouth!

Seano says:

03:15pm | 29/07/10

1. I think poiliticans private lives should be private. It’s none of your business what their family relationships are. it’s about whether they can do the job. I don’t care what Abbott does or doesn’t believe as long as he keeps his private life private. If and likely when he starts imposing his personal choices on others then I’ll get upset. Whether he has children, a wife, a defacto, believes in the great flying spaghetti monster or has a shoe fettish thats his business. Anyone who wants to stick their nose in whilst he keeps his business privates is a tosser.

2. Please give up the childish anti-communist rehtoric! Who reall cares? We all know communism is a failed system that doesn’t work and we don’t want it here. But we’re never going to get it here so let it go champ, this is not America. Gillard is not going to make this country into a communist paradise and she’s not even going to try. It’s a childishly stupid slur that has no real meaning here.

Greg says:

04:37pm | 29/07/10

We’ll have to agree to disagree Seano. I think the ALP is playing up to the fact that she’s a woman with the electorate. Therefore it’s relevant to understand what type of woman she really is. Look up Craig Emerson. Enough said! I also think there are a lot of people who care that Gillard describes herself as a radical socialist and feminist (and they are her words). It reflects strongly on how she thinks socially and economically and I think people need to understand what their leader truely believes. She is a socialist, who has made/written statements about tax redistribution which basically means wealth redistribution. People who work hard and built financial success and stability would be very concerned about that! To say it doesn’t matter is head in the sand stuff. Gillard said she was only in the socialist from when she was 22 but that was a lie. She was a member up ‘till 2002. Oh and btw, Gillard cannot do the job Seano! Where was the “under the spotlight” review of the insulation scheme and the school halls taxpayer rorts? She’s a good talker but the policy failure of the last three years speaks for itself!

Seano says:

04:49pm | 29/07/10

They don’t have to play anything up Greg, she’s our first female PM it wouldn’t matter which party she was from the attention would be the same. It’s an historic moment.

But why is it important to understand the “type of woman” but not the type of man? It’s misogynistic BS.

No I’m not going to do your homework for you. “Enough said” generally means that there’s more to be said but you’re not equipped to argue your point.

You’re going to have to do better then hollow rehtoric and using socialist like a dirty word.

Seano says:

05:49pm | 29/07/10

@Greg - I’m sure I’m amongst many who are not interested in communist conspiracy theories and rhetoric. Get over it.

What I want to know is why “it’s relevant to understand what type of woman she really is” and yet that same critique is not applied to what type of man Abbott is? Not only is it irrelevant,it’s mysogyny at its worst.

BT says:

11:05am | 29/07/10

What a load of rot. Male dominated societies have perpetuated these myths for centuries for their own benefit. Keeping women in the home, uneducated and without being able to make an independent living for themselves meant they were the underclass of society, ripe for exploitation and abuse (particularly evident during Industrialisation during the Victorian era). It may surprise you but I am female and don’t want children, and there is nothing wrong with my hormones. I don’t feel the need to tell a child how to respond to life’s difficulties based on their gender. The truth is that men and women may experience some aspects of life differently but for the most part they are exactly the same, it is only the expectations of society that create the divides.

MarK says:

10:56am | 29/07/10

You can only call it how it is mate.

James1 says:

12:06pm | 29/07/10

You are no different to your opposite numbers, MarK.  Anything the ALP does is bad, anything the Liberals do is good to you.  In reality though, both sides are terrible, and we are forced to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.  Your blinkers may prevent you from seeing the truth, but for many elections are about choosing the least bad option, as there is very rarely a good one.

MarK says:

02:01pm | 29/07/10

No.

I just choose to bash Labor. I think some of the Libs stuff is trash as well.

Never presuppose to know what others think.

But I will say one thing.

I cannot think of one thing this Labor government has done that is good or noteworthy. All major policy implementation has been a disaster or pure symbolism.

I truly believe, without any hyperbole, that this is the worst government ever seen at Federal level and begins to rival the current NSW lot for incompetence.

History will not be kind on them.

James1 says:

02:07pm | 29/07/10

Take it from a detached observer, MarK, you come across as the polar opposite to persephone or Seano.  You are very quick to (rightly) call out the ALP on bad policy, but do not seem to do the same for the Liberals, while Seano and pers can only see flaws in the Liberals.  Switch a few “Gillards” and “Labors” for “Abbotts” and “Liberals”, and you are essentially saying the exact same thing as your opposite numbers.

Seano says:

04:42pm | 29/07/10

@James1 - Please don’t lump me in with MarK - I currently support Labor because I can see the disaster Tony Abbott represents as PM with his archiac ideas and about religion, women and workers - I currently support Labor because the alternative are the same mob that forced work"choices” down the throats of workers.

I would seriously consider a small “L” Liberal party, it’s the far right wing nuts like Abbott that worry me.

I’m quite looking forward to voting out Labor in NSW although I’m concerned we will be booting one lot of no hopers to replace them with another. Hopefully serveral changes of government will see both state parties lift their game.

MarK says:

05:10pm | 29/07/10

Oh I hear ya and get it.

But I will repeat that this current government will be seen by history as beling the worse federal of all time for waste and lack of progress in any area that really matters. That is why I kick them so hard.

It is a disgrace. Carr, Iemma, Rees and that American giiirrrrll do take the prize as worst govt eva though

James1 says:

05:28pm | 29/07/10

Apologies to both MarK and Seano for generalising.  However, I believe that what I outline is the impression you both give in your comments.  That is, one side of politics is shining and squeaky clean, while the other is a cesspit of communism/right wing douchebaggery.  I will be the first to admit, though, that impressions can be misleading, and furthermore that we all lose our sense of balance from time to time (like me when discussing asylum seekers or burqas).

Liz Aitken says:

10:43am | 29/07/10

surely a “leftist/communist” ideology would support having large families to keep the working class of sufficient size?

talk about dog whistling for the labor party…

and why are you so angry about the “supposed” left side of politics (not that we REALLY have a left and right here in Australia, we have more like the middle and the right

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:49am | 29/07/10

Didn’t you know? Single and Childless Couples are the second class citizens. After all, someone has to slave away for all the family oriented middle class welfare…..

Ray says:

11:14am | 29/07/10

Wrong Shane. It’s white males as the designated second class citizens.

James1 says:

11:46am | 29/07/10

Shane and Ray,

Now I am confused.  I am a white male with a family.  While I am well educated, I am at the end part of that education so could not yet be classified as middle class.  Does that mean I am a first-and-a-half class citizen?

Hamish says:

12:45pm | 29/07/10

James1, don’t you think it’s rather strange for the ‘working families’ party to have a leader who doesn’t have a family? Perhaps if Labor didn’t want people to care if someone had a family they shouldn’t have been banging on about them for the last three years. If you so heavily partake in the prejudice, you can hardly get upset when it comes back to bite you.

AdamC says:

12:51pm | 29/07/10

James1, while I agree that gender shouldn’t matter in politics, I dispute that recent Australian elections haven’t been about policy. The 1998 (GST) and 2007 (WorkChoices) elections were both fought quite bitterly on policy grounds. (Which, in the case of the GST, seems remarkable today.)

The spinning spinster is trying to turn this election into a copy of the 2004 election, with her as John Howard and Tony Abbott as the dangerous insurgent Mark Latham. That election was fought on the basis of leadership and trust, rather than particular policy positions. It’s a pity Gillard’s party is acting like a rabble and she’s going to pieces on policy. It dulls the ‘steady pair of hands’ pitch.

And, Shane and Ray, you are both right. What you are saying isn’t mutually exclusive.

Hamish says:

01:09pm | 29/07/10

No policy in ‘04 AdamC? What about Medicare (rolled) Gold (disaster)? La Gillard’s main contribution to the 2004 election.

James1 says:

01:44pm | 29/07/10

Hamish, Kevin Rudd had a family, and he didn’t do much good for me.  Why should we assume that Gillard would perform worse because she doesn’t have a family.  In any case, haven’t we “moved forward” from “working families”?  And a point of order on your second post - Medicare Gold can hardly be called a policy…

AdamC, I stand corrected - I was too young to vote in 1998, and was very focused on foreign policy issues in 2007, when they were marginal.  I guess there is a chance this election could be about policy - there is still around a month before we go to the polls.

Hamish says:

02:09pm | 29/07/10

Yes, James1, I think we have…

Zac says:

12:59pm | 29/07/10

Liz,

You just heard or read what you want to hear from Mark. There are some horrible people who are married and have kids and we could say the same thing about single people. But let’s not forget there are some wonderful people on both sides of the divide. It is great to know you are a business woman, being in business myself I know it is quite challenging. To me the issue is not the choice someone makes not to have children rather how that choice is driven by an ideology like feminism or warmism and how that affects a person’s decision making. That is issue with Julia people in labor party is trying to tell us. If the media can hold Tony responsible for his religious beliefs, why can’t the media hold Julia accountable for her Atheistic/leftist beliefs?

Zac says:

01:11pm | 29/07/10

Liz,

You just heard or read what you want to hear from Mark. There are some horrible people who are married and have kids and we could say the same thing about single people. But let’s not forget there are some wonderful people on both sides of the divide. It is great to know you are a business woman, being in business myself I know it is quite challenging.

To me the issue is not the choice someone makes not to have children rather how that choice is driven by an ideology like feminism (anti-man and anti-family tendency is a worry) or warmism and how that affects a person’s decision making. That is issue with Julia people in labor party is trying to tell us. If the media can hold Tony responsible for his religious beliefs, why can’t the media hold Julia accountable for her Atheistic/leftist beliefs?

MarK says:

11:51am | 29/07/10

I have been accused of being a Liberal stooge.

I have also written before that the Emerson matter is meh. It takes two to tango.

Her competence or lack there of is all that matters. I am pretty clear on what I think there.

Generalisations are risky.

watty says:

11:51am | 29/07/10

It’s Craig Emerson and it was the lovely Jlulia who blew the whistle on their affair to ABC’s Carolyn Jones in the “Gillard Diaries”

Even related how Emerson swallowed her contact lenses in ther hotel bathroom. (Emerson was still married with 3 kids at the time)

Wonder you didn’t blame Howard?

JJ says:

11:51am | 29/07/10

Agreed Ian. Examining someone’s character is out of line. Our elected representatives should not be questioned or examined in any way. Who are we to questions Julia? After all there is not really any right or wrong as a reference point is there? The Flying Spagetti Monster made up that one!

Zac says:

12:33pm | 29/07/10

Her competence or lack there of is all that matters. I am pretty clear on what I think there.>>>

I agree Mark, she competently bedded someone’s husband. Thats an attribute media thinks we should adore. I wish she showed the competence in her baby BER, which costed the tax paying public 1 billion dollars. .

James1 says:

01:49pm | 29/07/10

*sigh

One could say the same of every Prime Minister in Australian, British, New Zealand, Canadian, and Papua New Guinean history.  In Westminster systems, we do not elect Prime Ministers.  We elect local members, and when enough members are elected that their party forms a majority in the lower house of parliament, that party is given the privilege of forming a government.

In the interests of balance, Howard also left Australia in huge debt during his time as a (failed) treasurer.  Yet he still did a (mostly) marvelous job as PM.

Every day's a school day says:

02:01pm | 29/07/10

Thanks for clearing that up, Fiat Lux. I’d always thought that the UK and Australia had Westminster systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system

The Redman says:

02:56pm | 29/07/10

You don’t mention the fact that Margaret Thatcher was “democratically” dismissed from the Prime Ministership by her own Party. Aside from the period of time between assuming the Prime Ministership and losing it, what is the difference between Thatcher’s loss of the top job and Rudd’s? None.

ABC says:

01:53pm | 29/07/10

Holly,

Less than 25% of Australian workers are members of unions (check the last census data).  How is it that something that a clear minority of workers regard as important (union membership, ergo unions) is the main ditactor of industrial relations policy for Labor?  With 75% of workers not electing (yes electing, its voluntary) to join unions this is a clear indicator of the scope of relevance to unions to the life of the average “working Australian”.

The Redman says:

02:54pm | 29/07/10

ABC, you’d find that if legislation was introduced in that only union members could benefit from better working conditions negotiated by their union, membership numbers would increase very quickly. Your argument might have some veracity, if it weren’t for the fact that, while you might sit there and criticise unionism, every entitlement you have in your workplace was introduced because of that same unionism you despise.

If you don’t think that is the case, then go to your employer and agree to forego all the benefits your industry’s union has secured for the workers, and those of the union movement in general throughout the 20th century. I think you’ll find you working conditions and payment for same would be a little less generous than they currently are.

Northern Steve says:

12:39am | 30/07/10

Redman,
If I could go to my employer and negotiate my salary and conditions based on my own skils, abilities, effort and results, I reckon I’d get a much better outcome than I do out of the unionised crap EBs that I pay for, in fees and lost pay in strikes.

For some reason my emplyer doesn’t want that.  Maybe because if they were forced to pay us what we were worth, it would cost them too much.

James1 says:

01:56pm | 29/07/10

You must have incredible problems finding a politician worth voting for, if you find character important.  Have you found a politician of good character yet?

Raymond says:

02:43pm | 29/07/10

Good point.  But some seem to have held on to their personal integrity much better than others, in my judgment.

BobM says:

02:46pm | 29/07/10

Too bad you’ve been blinded by stupidity, ringo - ‘Julia had the courage to front Kevin Rudd when it looked necessary to challenge’ - the whole of Australia got a blow by blow description of how Julia reneged on a promise to give Rudd more time ‘to turn the polls around’. Amazing how Labor supporters conviently ‘forget’ the true facts.

Martin Lawrence says:

02:46pm | 29/07/10

True.  The majority of workers free-ride on the financial input of union members in relation to wages and conditions etc, yet small minded and self interested voices such as ‘ABC’ continue to sprout the idealogical rantings from messers Howard and Abbott. despite the evidence to the contrary regarding all the supposed gains by breaking the back of the unions. remember how much better we would all be if we outlawed student unionism?
The media, employer organisations (unions?) and the Libs have successfully brainwashed society into fearing and distrusting the union movement despite their pivotal role in demanding a fair go for ALL Australians. Think for yourself (A Current Affair can’t do all the work for you)

Jo says:

03:10pm | 29/07/10

Unions ... the refuge of the lazy and incompetent.

Hamish says:

03:24pm | 29/07/10

Actually only 13.6% of private sector workers are members of unions. The figure in the public sector is over 40% because you might as well join as they determine your pay. You have no ability to bargain for yourself.

Woolworths (and Coles as far as I know) force their workers to join the union, so it would be interesting to see how many people would actually choose to join a union. The main reason people don’t join unions these days is because old union style industrial warfare is pretty irrelevant these days (outside the construction industry). Most companies actually value decent employees and try and treat them well.

AdamC says:

05:30pm | 29/07/10

Martin, re unions, I am not sure that there is a great deal of ‘evidence’ that union activity improves wages and conditions. This is especially so when one controls for labour productivity and the level of economic development of the relevant country.

Certainly, there are some particular industries where unions have been able to negotiate a share of the economic rents that the industry benefits from. But, in terms of the overall workforce, I would argue the abandonment of unions suggests they don’t add value to workers across the economy, only to a privileged few featherbedded sectors like the rapidly-shrinking car industry.

Freya says:

04:05pm | 30/07/10

But these differences are notable preceisely because of sexism. The only reason we’re even discussing gender is because men have been voting for men simply because they’re men for centuries, hence women leaders are relatively rare and novel. And because many people seem to think that to be a ‘real’ woman is to be heterosexual, get married, have kids, stay home, cook, clean etc. That’s sexism.

J says:

09:53am | 30/07/10

The shortest serving PM in Australia was Frank Forde, with eight days. A few past PMs only served for months or weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia#List_of_prime_ministers

Also, I don’t know why people are saying Gillard should be herself, and then lambasting her for doing it.

So true!! says:

04:30pm | 29/07/10

So 100% true mate!! so 100% true!! Not only do women get off lightly on just about every issue, they actually crib about how they are being discriminated against despite that!!!!!

Juju says:

05:51pm | 29/07/10

Oh get over yourself, Russell - Abbott blitzed Gillard during the debate, hence the lukewarm cheering of the media after the event because their precious Joolya failed to impress anyone. Jools is all spin and BS, in fact she’s spinning so fast at the moment, she may well launch into orbit. And it’s Gillard, not Guillard - you can’t even spell her name properly.

jb says:

05:40pm | 29/07/10

Okay Holly, fair enough.
I have had friends with bad bosses and bad dismissals from both sides of the fence but I will throw you some compassion on this one and I am sorry to hear your children were treated that way.
Its not fair on anyone…
I think you may well find things are different this time around.
Unless your children are affiliated to one of the big unions they will be last on the pecking order like all of us under a gillard/swan govt!

craig says:

09:09pm | 29/07/10

actually conditions were replaced with a higher hourly rate , the misunderstood feature of the contracts , most people then had the opportunity to earn more , most employees had the opportunty to earn more however failed to understand the benfits provided

Joe Blow says:

11:01pm | 29/07/10

Ok Holly here’s your chance.  Tell us exactly what conditions were stripped away from you or your children.  Sorry but your email reads very much like the script of a well-known union tv commercial.

MarK says:

08:39pm | 29/07/10

it sure does sound right. Don’t you trust Laurie?

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:23pm | 29/07/10

Got news for you- it is already an valueless society which has lost its way. I doubt the result of this election either way will change things much….

Sam says:

12:37pm | 30/07/10

I know I’m repeating myself here, but how do you know what Julia said in cabinet? You have the word of an obviously bitter person who wishes to destroy her and her party, but doesn’t have sufficient conviction to put their name/face to the allegations.
Don’t I believe what Laurie Oakes tells me? I realised many years ago that the media aren’t truthful. Is LA the exception to the rule? I don’t know, but if he is, I’m surprised he still has a job. What sells newspapers, tv news coverage etc? Sensationalism.
Look at the tripe served up on ‘Today Tonight’ and ‘A Current Affair’. Read Piers Ackerman’s columns.or Andrew Bolts. or Janet Alber[whatever her name is]. In fact, read any Murdoch press publication.  Listen to Alan Jones on the radio. Can you honestly say you believe half of what you get from these sources? Don’t tell me, just tell yourself. How much is true?

Reg says:

05:52am | 30/07/10

i suppose you’re serious Daniel although to be sure many of the contributors here are so superficial it’s difficult to be certain. This ear-lobe thing seems to have it’s origin in some peculiar Mediterranean fetish and ranks with Tony’s big nose and ... oh but wait ... now I get it, it’s a Liberal attempt to divert attention from Tony’s gigantic ears. How really really enlightening, not.

JoC says:

03:58pm | 30/07/10

I agree Annamack - and thanks Mark for your analysis.  I am saddened by some of the comments - particularly those that can’t see the sexism in what they are saying.  Sexism is clearly alive and well in Australia.

Ray says:

12:11pm | 30/07/10

Yeah right Vivian. Act your age and not your shoe size. That’s a lazy cop out in all measures. As with Gillard women brail at any form of accountability. Even feminism and affirmative action is all about spin and misrepresentation.

Gary says:

12:19pm | 30/07/10

Actually, Julia Bishop got the job of #2 because when Labor won, JG got the job of #2 ?: and the libs felt they needed a ‘woman’ for balance against JG. [a case of blatant promotion because of sex] Although she has proved her loyalty to every male she has ever been under, she has shown she is totally inept, and probably only remains because she is ‘the counter to JG’ ?
However, this selection wasn’t nearly as bad as the pre-selection of David Barker in Chifley, because he was a dedicated god worshipper. There can be no other explanation for that poor example of mankind.

When TA ousted Malcolm from the libs leadership, and might I add, in the second attempt by the factions on the extreme right of the libs in a matter of weeks, it was exactly the same as when JG ousted KR, it was a matter of numbers in cabinet. Although we don’t know the actual #‘s in the case of JG/KR, KR did know, because he had spent the night phoning around and counting them. KR then decided there was no point going through the cabinet room process and he stood aside. THERE WAS NO KNIFE IN THE BACK AT THE DEAD OF NIGHT as TA and all you neocon posters would like the rest of the voting public to believe.
In the case of TA/MT, it was the slimmest of margins, a difference of 1.