Because in simple terms, she is a shocking leader.

Her expertise is in political expediency and compromise, and shows no back bone to stand up for her promises and swings from pushing to ditch the carbon tax to ramming it through in order to maintain power.

It is not just who she is but the complete lack of consistency in what she stands for.

The popularity of the prime minister has nothing to do with the colour of her hair, her gender or her marital status. It has to do with the fact that in her desperation to stay in power, she no longer acts in the best interests of her people or her country. She is duplicitous and she is weak. We believed her when she promised no carbon tax and we voted accordingly - but now that she is in bed with Bob, we must have one. Our jobs are at risk and so is our democratic process.

The article is a good one . The constant refrain about a broken pre -election promise is irrelevant . What is important is that a leader of government takes the best course for the country , even if that course is different from what the leader proposed to do before the election .

Supposing that a leader said "I do not think that what the government is now going to do is right , but I promised to do it before the election so I will have to do it . " That would be truly iresponsible , even if honest . Would people accept it ? Circumstances change after elections , particularly for a minority government , requiring changes in government action .

There is some inherent reluctance to accept Gillard because she is a woman and living in a de facto relationship [ even though a substantial percentage of the population live similarly ] .

There are also a substantial number who will never accept any Labor leader and often these include some in lower socio - economic circumstances , who seem to like being promised nothing and given nothing by leaders who give them circuses , but no bread . Abbott must be pretty good because he parades as a lifesaver and competes in triathlons .

Strong leader? cough cough splatter splatter.

She got dudded on the super profits tax.

Being a strong leader, is not necessarily a good leader.

Previous comments are all relevant to the dislike of the Australian public for the current Prime Minister.

She is best described as feckless, so naive in not knowing anything of human nature, the motivations of people or their hopes and aspirations, having come from a cloistered environment with little exposure to the problems experienced by the greatest majority, the real world.

She is also one who has no compassion for situations like Palestine, dicated as she is by the Jewish mafia who have had her as a compliant puppet for years. One cannot respect anyone who doesn't even have an opinion on the cruelties of the Israeli regime and has no interest in the plight of people who are disadvantaged, treated inhumanely by a hated occupier with no compassionate foreign policy stance on a subject as important as that is to most of Australia. That factor alone has killed any respect Australians could have had for her. Again, too naive to comprehend.

She is also disliked among her owen party who see her as pushing all the wrong buttons in her efforts to stay at the "top", (even the occasional sob), having been put there by the likes of Howes and Arbib, neither one of which has merit, continuously shouting their support for her just to ensure that she stays where she is for their good, certainly not the good of the country.
Painted into a corner, they have no choice at all but to beat her drum, ad nauseum.

When she falls, so do they. Please make it soon. We are the laughing stock of the world.

So it is not hard to see why the current PM is so disliked. There is absolutely nothing she can do to overcome the opinions of all the people, nothing. She is too naive to see that also is Tony Abbott who is under the deluded opinion that he is popular, but only by default. He is as hopeless a leader as Gillard, both being examples of the state of our political talent in 2011 and the apathy of the voters.

Tanel, we realise there are many in Europe who actually admire a good con man. Perhaps a result of being lied to for a millennia, when you felt you could do nothing about it.

In Oz, when Europe was a settled place, life was a bit tougher. We had to depend on each other. Liars & thieves were really hated, & treated quite roughly. We had to be able to trust our neighbour.

It's an old one but true, about most Ozzies calling a spade a "bl00dy shovel". Bull artists are not much liked, but liars & con-men are hated.

This woman has connived, lied, cheated, & conned her way to where she is. Every lie picked up a bit more dirt, until she is now so filthy, that most would not touch her with the traditional 40 Ft barge poll.

With Keating & Latham, both rather unpleasant people, I would listen to & consider what they had to say, when they appeared on a news program. With Gillard it's different.

With Gillard the wave of disgust in which I'm enveloped, when ever I see her, or hear her voice is horrible. I keep the TV remote beside my chair, so I can eradicate her from my home in an instant.

In the future, when the entire global warming scam is fully recognised for what it is, accusing someone of "doing a Gillard" will a very strong insult