What Gillard could learn from Obama’s mistakes

Luke says:

08:20am | 15/11/10

If this is the Prime Minister and her Government in their honeymoon period, can’t wait to see them when they come down to more realistic polling.

Carter says:

08:45am | 15/11/10

Unfortunately their greatest follies has been a) to promise the world and b) to not communicate what they have done.

I’m not sure that people don’t recognise that the world won’t change overnight, but leaders need to spell out how they are going to change the world and provide regular, easy to understand progress reports.

They are both fundamentally good governemnts if you look at them without bias (as the OECD does and has), but need to make small improvements to service delivery and huge improvements to communications to be great governments.

Andrew says:

09:26am | 15/11/10

“Symbolism, while attractive and distracting at times, will never win out over realistic action.”

Perhaps you should take your own advice back to your party room and suggest that using “boat people”  to show Labor’s incompetence is just a symbol. “Stopping the boats” is an “attractive and distracting” slogan, however if it were actually achieved it won’t make any difference to the lives of 99% of the electorate.

Don says:

09:51am | 15/11/10

Gillard won’t be able to deliver on any promises or policies, she just isn’t a very good or competent politician.

Seano says:

11:59am | 15/11/10

“Drop the spin - people just aren’t going to buy it anymore. “

You first sophie.

Ryan says:

01:13pm | 15/11/10

Wow that picture is a sad indictment on how pathetic our leaders in the western world.

DaveinPerth says:

03:58pm | 15/11/10

perhaps more instructively, she should go one back to Howard and Bush to realise that speaking plainly, having strong core beliefs, and sticking to your convictions might not always make you loved – but it will make you a stronger, more defined national leader.

You’re so right Sophie.
Howard and Bush are very well defined as lying war criminals. I think Julia should make up some rubbish about WMD’s in New Zealand and then invade. (Purely in the interests of being ‘more defined”)

Gregg says:

05:28pm | 15/11/10

If Gillard makes a fraction of the decisions and follows through with actions Obama has, Gillard may be able to claim something.
Though Iraqs’ violent days may not end any time too soon it has been Obama that has scaled back the US presence.
He may have failed to close Guantamano but no big deal there.
He has had the reform of US health care bill passed.
And he actually has supported a greater focus on Afghanistan to see an end there.
There are many republicans who do not like what Obama has done and the biggest problem for him is that he came on the scene with the GFC exploding and no one has accepted what needs to be done there and so because impact has been huge in the US and will remain that way for some time, quite possibly getting worse, there have been many people who will have the view that he has failed.

I never expected the GFC to be over in 12 months or two years and all the talk of saving Australia from recession is just going to be so meaningless if a couple of years down the track global economics are still not too good.
Banks might be going gangbusters but over taxing your best money earner so as it moves offshore will be just great for the nation as who will the government attempt to tax next to pay for its grandiose NBN as more unemployed home buyers lose homes.
Is it to be a bit like local government who never seem to be fussed about cutting back on expenditure but more interested in promoting what they think everybody needs regardless of cost that is just met by upping rates on ratepayers for no increase in services.
That is a lesson all governments, particularly current Labor governments need to learn for as at least one Labor Minister once stated ” There’s no such thing as a free lunch “
Homes in Australia have a value to wages ratio on average twice that of the US and the potential for impact of the GFC here is far higher.
Amidst all this we have a PM who does have limited economic capacity along with other shortcomings, not too ably supported by her deputy the treasurer and an inability to effectively lead not just because of the factional situation within her own party but needing to rely on Greens and Independants to govern.
If it’s crook now, just wait until the Greens control the Senate.

Perhaps sufficient Australians will come to realise just what they have done in voting the way they did and there will be support for the opposition forcing a double dissolution though Gillard will be prepared to not just govern and go on the attack about an opposition being a destroyer.
If they can destroy Gillard and her gang, good luck to them.

Against the Man says:

06:18pm | 15/11/10

Wake up call to so called PM JG - Singapore is buying our stock exchange and farm land, please wake up and defend Australia!

Mattb says:

06:20pm | 15/11/10

Sofie, Sofie, Sofie, come on now, didnt your mother tell you that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. All we seem to hear from your side of the fence is “stop the boats”’, “stop the spending”, “repay the debt”, “reduce cost of living pressures”, “lower the taxes”. Yet, apart from the boats issue, there is still no release of policies to back up your claims that your side are the ones that can achieve these goals. Sure, you may claim you have some good ideas, but you libs just ain’t putting them out there effectively enough. Then you have the election costings debacle, on the one hand you went with the mantras of “we will stop the spending” and “we are the better economic managers”, then with the other hand you made over 30 billion dollars worth of election promises, nearly five times as much as the ALP and 11 billion of which you were caught out on as being un-funded. Doesn’t really instill a sense of trust in you in the publics eye does it.
You can accuse the ALP of having “nothing to stand for”, but, appart from the asylum seeker issue, the Australian public is still scratching it’s head and wondering what the libs stand for too. Joe Hockeys bank bash is the prime example of this. He came out a couple of weeks ago talking rubbish about “levers” and “unfairness” and “the need for regulations to pull the banks into line” and his own party ridiculed him, his own leader laughed his suggestions off on live radio. Then when the banks raised their rates above the RBA’s rate you changed your tune and all of a sudden big Joe’s a hero. Why?, well not because his ideas followed the liberal conservative ideology, but, because the people were listening to what he had to say, and it was making the libs look good and the government look bad. Many of you still don’t agree with him, but hey, your attitude is “he’s makin us look good so let’s run with it!”. But is it really what the libs stand for???
The point I’m trying to make here Sofie is that if you spent more time explaining how your going to achieve these goals and less time telling us “how bad the other side is” then maybe your hollow rants would be taken more seriously. The people voted back in august, and they sent a message to the ALP that they weren’t happy with them, but at the same time they sent you a message that they didn’t find your side that attractive either. And writing your political rantings down in an article for the punch ain’t gonna help your cause…..

lindykt says:

08:18pm | 15/11/10

Sophie, I do agree with your sumnation of Rudd and Obama lofty rhetoric - was nauseating to witness the MSM falling for that rubbish (and then by default the witless herd following). Now however, the loud rhetoric has swung 180 degrees the other way.  I am yet again dismayed at the MSM sucked in again (and the dumb fool herd following like they do).

This current wave of vitriol and negativity from the right, is pernicious and damaging to democracy. Playing to lowest common denominators is cheap and easy politics, dragging us all down to the gutter.  I would dispute that JG has fallen victim to either the lofty or the gutter charge.

Normally you are one of the worst offenders for vitriol and attack , but congratulations on at least presenting with a reasonable and balanced piece of writing.

acotrel says:

01:32am | 16/11/10

So Tony Abbott is now trying to pillory the ALP over its apparent lack of vision?  Yesterday on tne ABC radio, Cathy Bedford asked Ted Baillieu about his vision for the future of Victoria.  Ted made a few statements about extra police, and improved medical services, but nothing which indicated he had a ‘vision’.  If Abbott wants to go down this path, I suggest he’s on very shaky ground!  Typically his own politics have often been negative, and ad hoc.  I would have thought that ‘vision’ was about what could be the future for Australia under a particular party’s tutelage.  It might cover things such as improved quality of life, improved industrial base, decentralised population distribution, and an idea about the desirable way economic growth should occur?  The first party to express their ideals in this format will be on a winner.  If that unlikely event ever occurs, the attempts at one -upmanship should be quite amusing!  Mission and vision statements are a part of basic management practice.  I wonder if we have any politicians who can actually manage, let alone lead ?

Down from the River says:

09:27am | 16/11/10

Shouldn’t the title of the article be - ‘Gillard is a mistake’ ?

Adam78 says:

10:09am | 16/11/10

Reading this from Sophie is nothing more than a Liberal stunt. How or why would she ever look on anything a Gillard Labor Government done as positive, if she did then she would get a rap over the nuckles from her own party. Why not get someone that is mutual and NOT party loyal to comment on polital issues such as this, then we wont get such a bias opinion.
And since she is so happy to have her say about Gillard I direct people to The Border Mail site to read what Mirrabella has been up to this last week, from having her say in the naming of a public space not in her own electorate or even in her state to then sending rubish tay payer flyers out claiming the Greens want to legalise all illicit drugs, something which has now been proven to be a lie.
Sophie, before you go having a go at someone try looking at yourself and see if your perfect in all the areas you are having a go at them about.

eterio says:

12:18pm | 16/11/10

two Grinners that are losers in the carbon tax climate change Fiasco

James Carthew says:

10:09pm | 16/11/10

What’s with the loud empty rhetoric people? Both the Australian Rudd government and the Obama government have been screwed out of most of their opportunities by the oppositions they face in their respective senates. The LIBERAL party are the ones who killed the ETS bill from the Rudd government. The Labor party was fully behind it. I love how people like to rewrite history. Rudds only mistake was not calling out the Liberals on their BS and calling a double dissolution election. The lesson from this is when you are faced with a party of NO, call them on it and expose them for it. Rudd was too gutless trying to compromise with the Liberals, this led to the mining crisis and Gillard’s coup.

Unlike the Rudd gov who were screwed by the opposition. It was the Democratic party in America that made Obama water down healthcare. Obama also had the Republican party hell bent on stopping any climate/health/financial legislation being passed and he then disastrously listened to financial advisers who were all hand picked WALLSTREET men from Goldman Sachs the instigators of the financial crisis in the first place. Obama’s problems are similar to Rudd’s except he turned to the wrong people to try to fix it whereas Rudd just failed to take action. Neither man should have tried to build consensus within their political structures to the extent they both did.

John Howard didn’t deal with Labor. He crushed them under his jackboot. Labor should have returned the favor. Bush had the 9/11 fear giving him the freedom to ram through whatever he wanted.

Luke says:

10:13am | 17/11/10

Rudd was dumped because many in the ALP didnt like him, not because of poll numbers… as many people have stated, including John Howard, he probably would have won the election.

And Barrack Obama will win the presidential election in 2012. He is in the situation he is in atm because of the U.S economy. Any president/prime minister leading a country that has unemployment around 10% is going to stuggle in an election.

All of Julia Gillards problems are of her own making… Before she became prime minister i thought there was a lot more to her. Unfortunately it appears that this is all there is.