Having sandwiches thrown at her by school-children is very poor, but grown-ups should know better:
http://www.towleroad.com/2013/06/gillardsattler.html

No doubt OLO's usual suspects will defend this kind of thing against the Prime-Minister of our country because it is the demonic, red witch they hate so deeply.

It is a very sad period in our political history that we can not seem to live with a hung parliament and a woman as PM without The treatment of her becoming so deeply disgusting.

The stupid shock-jock's ratings will no doubt get a boost. If Julia had punched his lights out, I reckon hers would too.

please for give my thoughts are known and without fear or favor I repeat them.
Some would censor them, lets think about that?
Because increasingly people want the answer they wish, not the truth.
Hawk in his latter time in office was badly treated by his deputy and media that had taken sides against him.
Today we live in the ashes created by a hung Parliament and, sorry truth will out, knifing of Rudd.
I again and again tell of just the same thing in 1975, a party divided a media rampart against us, and a loss that crippled.
Yet too, we will as then be confronted with a PM who fails to live up, or is it down? to his promises.
Labor must plow the field it is given, and must do it better.
We will reform,and do it well.
But ask your self this,why when polls show Rudd could pick up 6 or 8 percent, [seeming to prove surely we could win] those in control say no?
By the way we clutch at straws blameingeverthing on others.

please for give my thoughts are known and without fear or favor I repeat them.
Some would censor them, lets think about that?
Because increasingly people want the answer they wish, not the truth.
Hawk in his latter time in office was badly treated by his deputy and media that had taken sides against him.
Today we live in the ashes created by a hung Parliament and, sorry truth will out, knifing of Rudd.
I again and again tell of just the same thing in 1975, a party divided a media rampart against us, and a loss that crippled.
Yet too, we will as then be confronted with a PM who fails to live up, or is it down? to his promises.
Labor must plow the field it is given, and must do it better.
We will reform,and do it well.
But ask your self this,why when polls show Rudd could pick up 6 or 8 percent, [seeming to prove surely we could win] those in control say no?
By the way we clutch at straws blaming every thing on others.

By the way yesterdays interview with our fragile PM is an insult to free speech.
Hear the broadcasters question in full.
Know for Gods sake thousands of Aussie males ask that question too.
What was so evil about it?
We ,working class men would say much worse in any pub on any night about the fragile butter fly her self.
We are letting PC eat our national character.
Gillard in my presents said much worse, as a statement, about a past Liberal!

From the Great Red Hope in 2010 with veiled apologies regarding a dismal governments performance and promises of "better governance" ahead....to a self serving liar who will only be dragged from the Lodge with a formal plebiscite.

Even Slater and Gordon will not have her back….what does that tell us.....Gillard has no credibility....absolutely none

Is this thread part of a campaign to build the sympathy vote for Julia?

A shoe was thrown at John Howard on Q&A
(admittedly he was ex-PM at the time)
http://www.smh.com.au/national/viewer-puts-boot-into-howard-20101026-1711z.html

And I can remember when a shoe was thrown at George W and everyone left of centre thought it was a great joke.

Yes, Luciferase,

Apparently if you're a women, all kinds of sniggering school boy tactics are allowed as an extra card up sleeves.

Politics is a "men's club" mostly, and any women should expect to have herself reduced to some kind of physical/sexual caricature, and even have her partner's sexuality delved into.

That seems to be the message I'm getting (and I'm not even a Gillard fan)

This isn't about politics (except it will be deployed for political contrivance). It's about what you can say to or about a female leader that you wouldn't dream of raising with a male.

So reducing Julia to a "big red box" is fine, as is asking whether her partner is gay.

(And some will try and find comparisons with shoe throwing as a protest in response to the vicious invasions unleashed by Messrs Bush and his toady, Howard)

Howard had to put up with the smearing, often deceitful public broadcasters who said he had blood on his hands over tampa. Now with 1000 plus drowings no such accusation is made by the leftist hypocrites.

I eagerly await Abbott having to publicly defend a rumour that his wife is a transvestite.

There's no limit to how low LNP supporters will go in their effort to personally smear and not "play the ball".

Going by previous efforts duting the Whitlam/Hawke/Keating years, it's "in their DNA".

Pickering's cartoons of Gillard sodomising people with with a strap-on dildo were very popular with many of these people and go much further than those he did during the Whitlam era.

As for the Brough menu, I believe there was a similar one at the Liberal dinner where Alan Jones made his "died of shame" comment, so why the big surprise?

Yes, well, runner...are you suggesting that Howard's decision regarding the Tampa should have been left without critique?

Allowing human beings to ride around on the deck of a container ship bobbing about in the tropical sun while you work out your political contingency, doesn't exactly leave you in high stead.

Runner,
The refugee accusations about Howard were about the Siev-X, not the Tampa and we never did get to hear the full story about that one.

Keeping some sort of score reminds me of when a State Liberal claimed they had a lower body count when in power after the Granville train disaster.

There were rumors about Howard's alleged infidelity with a certain celebrity and some facts about the "parties" he used to throw in his offices as a Treasurer under Fraser but he was never confronted with these in the media was he?

I think if Larry Pickering had done that Menu as a Caricature nothing would have been said. Usually naked, usually naked. Ah ha, you laughed. ;-)

I’ve seen much worse emails jokes done on all PM’s & most public figures since I first got the internet in 1990.

Everything is feigned indignation for an advantage. The Media just lap it all up & stir the pot to sell papers. They don’t really care & I just bet she doesn’t care either. It’s just another “gotcha.”

I don’t like ism’s either, but, be honest, we all have a chuckle at times. People in the Public Arena are always fair game.

I realise this thread is a slease colum so I wont enter into debate. Except to say keep Party politicts out of School grounds. Teach government and constitution to children by impartial teachers. We do not need the growth of immature minds being infected by passionate Party politicts.

For those too one eyed to have pick-up on it. The question/challenge was: had any other figure had to endure sandwich throws or similar --we have established that they have!

Now I don’t endorse for one moment the throwing sandwiches or insults at anyone –PM or civilian –male of female.
Australian PM’s should be able to visit schools without having sandwiches thrown at them.
They should be able to choose whatever coupling arrange takes their fancy
And should be able to go about business without fear their loyal and trusted deputy will back-stab them

But this aint limited to Julia –and it’s not a peculiar anti-female thing.

One has to wonder what sandbox those who think this all started with Julia have been playing for the last 20 years

Luciferase, yes they have had to deal with people trying to make an issue of their private lives (or playing on perceptions of their lives for ratings or political mileage).

As an example I recall hearing quite often comedians discussing how un exciting they thought John Howards love life would be. Included into the mix were some fairly sexist views about Howards wife and her lack of appeal.

Not a PM but please tell me you never heard any commentary on Amanda Vanstones figure or that if you did you quickly corrected those who though that behaviour was appropriate.

Those attacks don't make the commentary about Gillards figure or relationship status OK but there is a strong element of pot calling the kettle black from many on the Left over this issue.

R0bert

Oh, puhlease, SPQR...

Anyone familiar with politics knows that backstabbing the current leader to get yerself the top post is almost compulsory for those who desire to get there and who've got a modicum of "ticker".

Or was that revolving door Peacock/Howard entertainment in the eighties some new form of pollie barn-dance?

Yes, RObert,

I can imagine Howard Sattler or Bolt asking Howard "in a serious interview" about his wife's sexual preferences - or perhaps inquiring of Amanda Vanstone why she's quite so overweight.

The sandwich throwing event, unecessary as it was, pales in comparison to some of the rhetoric the PM has to deal with including the latest inanity over Tim Mathieson.

While there may be disagreement with policies whatever happened to playing the ball not the person and this goes for all sides of politics.

Where have manners gone in society and it is not only children. Some of the worst offenders are grown adults.

And the vitriole that comes out from some people is ironic in a country where the only difference between the two major parties is found only in a handful of policies. Even then it may just be a matter of degrees.

Fortunately just occasionally some people get what they deserve in this life. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes it does. Sometime people get much better than they deserve, & some get much less.

The person under discussion is an incompetent, nasty, hate filled, disgusting horror. Australians did not deserve to have such a person in the lodge, & indeed such a person doesn't deserve to be there.

It is no good demanding respect for someone, or some group. People get the respect they deserve, throwing a sandwich was wrong, it should have been a sandwich shop's dumpster, after a busy week. So sorry Luciferase, no treatment could equal the disgust this person has generated in all thinking Ozzies.

Don't kid yourself Poirot, yes Gillard is disgusting, but she is just an irritant compared to that slime ball Rudd. I was prepared to thank Gillard for getting rid of him, until she started filling us all with disgust at her continual lies & hate. The pair of them deserve what they get. In fact they are very lucky that Ozzies are too kind to give them what they really deserve.

So don't give us that injured lefty green feminist garbage, if anyone has a right to cry foul it is the bulk of the population who never wanted or voted for her. Sex has nothing to do with it, unless you are telling us that hers predisposes a person to being deceitful. I would never have thought that, but Gillard could change my mind.

Nah, Rudd is worse than her, so that idea just doesn't wash.

I've said it before, but I still can't imagine how any organization can be so good at picking dropkicks for leaders.

Hasbeen,

"...nasty, hate-filled....."

Have you ever re-read some of the vitriol that you consistently dump on this forum in the direction of any person, race or group that happen to take a dislike to?

Talk about nasty and hate-filled.

Pot - Kettle

Now, imagine Larry Pickerings caricature of "The Menu" with Tim as the hairdresser. Ha! you laughed. Shame on you. ;-).

I'd hardly call throwing a sandwich a just reward for ruining peoples' lives' & jeopardising the whole Nation's future. She was just incredibly lucky she wasn't living in a country where people get really upset at being screwed. Rudd ? Well what can one still say after all that has been said. He's the most egotistical incompetent academic moron on the street.

Larry Pickering would have to be one of the worst and most biased offenders. None of it is funny.

Jayb,

We laughed?

(You see, the baser the humour, the more it relies on malice. The further one goes towards wit, the cleverer it is)

Sorry, but behind-the-shed schoolboy sniggering doesn't appeal to everyone.

Now if anyone can produce some "real wit" - that would be a different story.

poirot: Sorry, but behind-the-shed schoolboy sniggering doesn't appeal to everyone.

Yes it does. You just don't want to admit it. Oh to be so "Holier than thou." I guess you must spend your life in fits of depression. Get out in the sunshine & enjoy life. It's great out here. Preferably naked. Nothing like a good laugh to get the endorphins flowing dearie.

effin' old sourpuss.

Aww...Jayb....just because I'm not a fan of base sexual innuendo on its own and not surrounded by witty banter, .....doesn't mean I haven't got a sense of humour.

I try and laugh as much as I can - It's why I come to OLO so often, there's loads of material here.

(actually I quite liked "effin' old sourpuss")

I note the radio station has apologized to Gillard and suspended the shock-jock (who it turns out is quite sick and Julia could have pushed over with a feather instead of with the response given and calmness she displayed).

Onya Hasbeen, so unexpected. The general public's reaction, and the radio station's judgement of that and the action it has taken, stand in contrast to your philistine view.

There are some whose posts I usually glide over, like I did with UOG before he went missing, and you are one of them. I have no concern with cogently expressed views that oppose my own, that's the reason I read OLO, but your posts constantly wreak of the dumpster muck you speak of above.

Perhaps "Hasbeen" is your alter-ego, and you are actually quite a nice chap playing out a role. I prefer to believe this than you actually exist.

I find the subject uninteresting, but with every question of the ABC's Q&A being directed at gay marriage by the host, even if not asked by anyone and smirking questions of homoeroticism in the recent past, why shouldn't the tabloids ask if the PM's side kick is gay?

While partner benefits are now payable where a politician is in a de factor relationship, does that continue to apply if it is a partnership of convenience? Rulings elsewhere by government say no, fort example, by Immigration.

She sidestepped and criticised the question and said the question was 'absurd' and that she and Tim 'lived in the Lodge as a couple', instead of a simple yes or no. That is what leads the tabloids towards more questions.

It is not OK to ask that question but it is fine to continually allege the Opposition Leader is a sexist mysognist who hates women. That disputes the every basis of Abbott's marriage and his relationship with his wife and children. That is what is absurd.

....We are letting PC eat our national character.

Here here Belly!

Sticks and stones I say.

onthebeach,

You're a hoot.

You habitually go out of your way, hiking miles to twist any situation into a feminist-bashing exercise.

And when a jock, during a supposedly serious interview, asks the "Prime Minister" whether or not her partner is gay - because, let's face it, he's a hairdresser....you think that's fine and dandy.

My hairdresser is a bloke - married with two grown-up sons, etc.

Maybe Tim should call himself a "barber" - that way the puerile mentalities who haunt the media air waves and print pages (and the blogs) will take it for granted that he's straight.

The sneaky rumour that Tim is really Gay & I seem to remember there was a rumour going around that Juliar, possibly was too in her Uni days. This lead me to contemplate weather they both bat for both sides. Who cares.

Still the image of a Pickering caricature "The Menu" with Tim, instead of being a Hairdresser, as someone suggested, but as a Barber, which equates more to a Gardiner. I can just see it now, Tim out there mowing the grass & trimming the hedge. ;-)

That's the spirit Poirot.

OTB, Tim's sexuality has nothing to do with national politics but Abbott's view on the place of women in society does. Tim's sexuality, or mine or yours, or Gillard's or Abbott's, is irrelevant and none of anybody's business.

It is simply beyond the ability of some to see the wrong in the radio interview because they cannot divorce decency from zealotry.

Where do you and Hasbeen draw the line, OTB, short of assassination?

Juliar is the one continuously bringing up the gender card to distract from her chaotic government. While her intent was to focus only on Abbott, she opened herself to question on gender issues. I notice no restrain from the left with respect to commenting on his budgie smugglers.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Tim's sexual orientation should not be the concern of the electorate. Even if he was a raging queen, it would be a vast improvement on her other partners such as Bruce Wilson.

A few strings of garlic on the front door of the Lodge and a good sprinkling of holy water should get Julia well sorted.

Wow, this one got the ladies knickers in a knot didn't it

Must be uncomfortable, depending where the knot is of course.

I can't resist this:

"Having sandwiches thrown at her by school-children is very poor"

I'm sure with training they'll get better.

"Juliar is the one continuously bringing up the gender card..."

Correct. That is a different matter to sexuality which you, SM, and many others confuse with gender making you incapable of seeing the wrong in the radio interview.

The usual blind zealots on OLO are way out on their own, justifying the shock-jock's behaviour while the general public and his employer deplore it.

To throw any article at any politician by a child simply shows the parents have not taught the child respect. The kid should get '6 of the best' and the parents spoken to by the school head.

The shoe throwing incidents, by adults, because one disagrees with the government policy is childish and the throwers should be charged and publicly humiliated.

I was appalled that Pauline Hanson was spat on and had wine thrown over her, not to mention violence aimed at her.

The radio host that asked the PM about her partners sexuality should be sacked.

All these incidents show a dramatic drop in our social standards, unfortunately. My parents taught all us kids to respect others.

Although, I have to admit, politicians themselves have set the bar very low.

I have increasingly ,had long waits while my post was waiting to progress, that may be the reason it was posted twice,sorry.
We live in our time, some of us saw things other here never did.
I think Gillard got it a bit over the top.
But no worse than I spoke of the ex PM Mrs Jonh Howard, there I go again! being an Aussie!
I attract slings and arrows from my side of the fence for? being an average Aussie bloke* no offense but AG, After Gillard, it will be 25 years before we men want another female PM*
Awful bloke me, dreadful! must not say that! unless I am prepared to be PC best thing I cand o is go.

Belly well said.

You've got the ability to recognise that when you do it you are not taking part in a holy crusade or hiding behind some technicality.

The reality is that most us have had a greater degree of tolerance or mistreatment of those we don't like than those we do.

It's also the case that when it comes to mud flinging, negativity and scare campaigns, crossing boundaries between the public (double checked that spelling several times in case I missed the 'i') and private etc no party has a monopoly. At various times one may have an outstanding performer (Keating seems to be one of the most memorable for abusive put downs of opponents that I can recall).

Some people will set quite arbitrary boundaries on whats Ok and whats not which are generally self serving.

The reality is if we want our pollies, entertainers etc to do it differently we have to start demanding better from the side we support, not just our opponents. The partisan treatment of this is really support for the approach, just wanting special treatment for those they support.

For the record I did find some of the Vanstone jokes pretty funny but that did not make them Ok.

R0bert

Banjo: All these incidents show a dramatic drop in our social standards,

I think it also shows the Public’s perception of Politicians & the huge drop in Politician standards over the last 20 odd years, doesn't it.

With any luck in this Election, none of the main players will be re-elected. We can only live with hope.

I'm at a loss.

What's offensive about asking if Tim is gay?

Is it that the implication is that Gillard may herself be lesbian, as Anne Summers (bless 'er, dear old thing) suggested? If so, what's the insult? We have openly lesbian people at all levels, including the inner cabinet in Penny Wong. Is Gillard saying it's offemsive to imply she may be a lesbian? What does she have against lesbians?

Or is it that the idea that people might think Tim is gay is offensive? What does Gillard have against homosexuals?

Just remembered: was in Howard's electorate late one polling day.
Howard had made a last minute flying visit to thank his support staff.

No sooner had he disembarked than a group a eight young men from an opposing booth were straight-up in his face--screaming and spitting abuse -- it looked and sounded like a pack of baboons on the African savannah trying to eject a lion from their territory

In terms of raw aggression I have never seen anything like it before or since --but of course, that was all fair play!

Oh come back John Howard. How Parliament has sunk since naive people voted you out after 13 years of dignity. Most of them now very much regret it. Oakshott takes the cake in his long boring promise to make this Government open and accountable.

Some posters really do have nothing serious to worry about. I don't give a hoot if the PM is a woman or a man but I draw the line at a mere female & a mere male.
Julia Gillard is not disliked because she is female with a huge degree of incompetence as Kevin Rudd is an incompetent male.
It shows that even the highest office in the land is for any selfish git to get. It really is an equal society from that viewpoint.
Julia Gillard & Kevin Rudd were ousted because they couldn't manage & that has cost many decent Australians their livelihood & half their sanity. The stress that these two leaders have handed out to their fellow citizens is simply unacceptable.
If Gillard & Rudd were competent they'd still be in business. They're out because they can't manage. How much simpler an explanation do some mutts need ?

Fatist, racist, genderist, sex etc. jokes one may tell or find funny privately is irrelevant. This is about the public treatment of the Prime-Minister of Australia.

The public questions on sexuality in Gillard's private relationship, by a shock-jock thinking they were gender questions and relevant to current public debate, were highly impertinant and disrespectful to Gillard personally and to the position she holds.

How some posters here can attempt to mitigate this behaviour by dubiously equating it to past events or jokes about the traits of certain politicians, makes for sad observation.

This is about the public treatment of the Prime-Minister of Australia.
luciferase,
Yes you are right, it is but when the person occupying that office is worse than the school kids then what do you expect. The reason why our young are so disrespectful is because people like the PM & her supporting hangers-on academic do-gooders have taken away parents' rights to deal with their own children. Now that it is biting them in ar$e they scream blue murder. If you don't want people to be a pain in our butt you'll need to take the first step & butt out of their lives. Talk about reap what you sow.

Gawd, yes, that's it, Indy! Shock jocks are rude because of the Gillard government!

Anyway, see
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/howard-sattler-sacked-after-julia-gillard-gay-debate/story-fnhocxo3-1226663453289

If only 2GB had the same standard.

Banjo no one is entitled to anything but the air to breath. If someone wants respect, first they must earn it. Gillard has never respected the people of Oz, & doesn't like it when her lack of respect is returned in spades.

Luciferase this woman is not my prime minister. In fact she resigned as the Oz prime minister the day she decided do join the greens & introduce their carbon tax. She became the PM of the 10% who voted for that policy, & no more.

Since that day she has been an interloper sleeping in our prime ministers bed on false pretenses. Perhaps that explains the disgust she generates every where she goes.

Hasbeen,
If a kid of mine had thrown a sandwich at the PM he/she would get a hiding, even though I have no respect for the PM. I was brought up to show courtesy to others and I expect my kids to do the same.

The fact that the PM has shown herself to be deceitful, a liar and a person who will do and say anything, does not entitle someone to throw things at her. That reflects on the parental standards. It is the common courtesies, like moving aside for others and not blocking the walkway, that show a decent upbringing. Even small things like saying please and thank you seem to be lacking these days.

The fact that the PM choses to deceive and lie, and make false claims about others, shows her lack of respect for us and her low standards. My kids are better than that.

Nor does it entitle someone to publicly ask about personal sexuality.

Likewise the shoe throwing incidents to Bush and Howard. Adults, especially, should be able to express disagreement or dislike without throwing things.

Shock jocks are rude because of the Gillard government!
Luciferase,
You got it ! What else can there be done ? You gotta fight fire with fire so to speak.

should be able to express disagreement or dislike without throwing things.
Banjo,
Many of us have tried the polite ways to get them to listen but they don't so, do something that startles them back into some reality. Don't you realise that if you want respect you have to have some yourself too or are you an academic ?

None of this is improving our democracy. Let us stop talking about the PM and rememberr that we have a parliament of about 220 MPs which we elect. They can all take a stand on what they want. In a monarchy or dictatorship the PM would be critical. IN democarcy it is our local MPs that count. Do your bit, without a party bias and elect the very bests candidate. That of course requires a bit of work. You can always join one of our Residents Roundtables if you would like to influence what government does. That is how democracy should work. The polies can't do what we want unless we tell them. They are not psychic. Forget the PM and contrate on electing decent MPs.

Lucyface,

Perhaps it went over your head, but the topic of gender does encompass sex and sexuality.

While Juliar and others on the left like yourself, would like to focus the debate only on one narrow aspect, once the conversation has been started, you cannot control it.

The discussion of Tim's sexuality is as tasteless as Juliar's suggestion that TA would ban abortion.

<< I'm at a loss. What's offensive about asking if Tim is gay? >>

My thinking exactly, Antiseptic.

Sattler was sacked for that! How extraordinary.

He’s a shock-jock FFS! That’s his job to be controversial.

I wish him good luck with his legal action for unfair dismissal.

The questions about Tim's sexuality are entirely legitimate. The PM has not committed to a relationship via a marriage contract. She has not become pregnant and it is clear the the relationship does not have procreation as one of its purposes. It is also clear that Mathieson is far from Gillard's intellectual peer. Gillard is a committed feminist who has not participated in a long-term live-in relationship before Mathieson, as far as I can ascertain. Anybody have any different mail on that?

The power dynamic within the relationship is quite unconventional, since it is rare for highly-capable and well-achieved women to choose to become involved long-term with men who are not similarly well-endowed intellectually and otherwise and even rarer for them to become the sole mneans of support for such partners. That's understandable, since the role of men in a normal heterosexual relationship is to provide protection and other supports to the woman when she is unable to provide for herself during child-rearing. An unemployed supported by a woman is simply a drain on her resources with a limited quid pro quo.

On the whole, female lawyers become involved with fellow professionals and so do female politicians. Are there any exceptions within politics that spring to the lips?

Male professionals are far more likely than female ones to choose a partner with a lower-SES background or poorer educational attainment. They may prioritise other aspects which essentially indicate good potential as a breeding partner. In such couples it makes sense that a man might be prepared to support a woman, because there is a natural quid pro quo. Therefore, it would not be regarded as noteworthy for a male politician to have a stay-at-home wife, or even an unemployed defacto who is a hairdresser.

But it is regarded as noteworthy when a woman is in the same boat, because it is not a common mode. It is also noteworthy because of Gillard's ideological adherence. There is a natural tendency to wonder whether she's trying to make a political point by displaying a "trophy mate" who happens to be a hairdresser, which is a trade often followed by young women with a fairly traditional view of gender roles. This is a woman who has spent her entire adult life making political points, after all.

My previous point also remains. Just what is offensive about putting the suggestion to the PM when she is in campaign mode that there is a common perception that her partner is not up to snuff and that some people are wondering just what's going on? It's a compliment to Gillard, really, because it says that people find it hard to believe she'd really be interested in such a lack-lustre specimen (with all due respect to Tim, who suffers in the comparison by any measure).

FWIW, I don't think that Mathieson is gay, but I also don't think the relationship as presented is a genuine one.

Does that matter to my voting intention? Not at all. Is it legitimate for people to derive some view about the PM's personal character from her choice of partner? Abso-bloody-lutely. A life-partner choice says a lot about us.

Why should we be fobbed off with faux offence and the question deemed off-limits?

The swirl of confusion that the shock-jock apologists here have been trying to weave into a cut and dried case of totally inappropriate behaviour towards an Australian prime-minister, is born purely of their political zealotry.

Read the link in my last post to get an understanding of what normal, moderate Australians think about what happened and what the consequence was for the shock-jock. I rest my case, leaving the thread to the fate of all OLO threads, i.e the hating zealots spiralling into echoing agreement.

the hating zealots spiralling into echoing agreement.
Luciferase,
Isn't that what you leftie hangers-on do-gooders do to us all the time ?

Luciferase, I am offended by your characterisation of my considered post. I am not a "shock-jock apologist", nor am I twisting anything. I have given what I believe is a reasonable basis for the view that the PM's home arrangements are a legitimate subject for public curiosity, and why it is not unethical to ask her about them.

If you find flaws in my premises or my reasoning I'd be happy for you to point them out, as I always am when people show me why I have made a twat of myself with something I've said.

On the other hand, if you're going to flounce off in a huff muttering then I'll have to assume that you can't find anything to falsify the propositions, which means your last comment is simply abusive.

Which is it?

Why is it ok to ask the PM about the sexual habits of her defacto lover?
That question is rude and nobody else's business!

Imagine if any 'shock jock ' had asked Janette Howard or Therese Rudd if they were lesbians , beause none of the rest of us could imagine how they could possibly want or have heterosexual sex with either of those PM's?

It is a very disgusting question to ask any PM, regardless of her/his gender .
I am glad the disgusting idiot was sacked, and no judge would uphold his comments...

Suse, if I asked you, then yes, it would be rude and you'd be perfectly at liberty to tell me to rack off.

But you are not PM. Circumstances alter cases.

As for a hypothetical Judge, I think there's a public interest case that could be run.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/divided-demoralised-done-20130614-2o9kz.html
A link that is thought provoking, long but worth the read, and in my view supports my so called, [by the few] rantings about my party.
After reading it, maybe the reason our Prime Minister has declared war on the sexist front, and dragged out the right to life debate, in a country that has had no current debate on this subject.
Fellow Males *BE WARNED* any views we hold about those actions, about our unwanted Prime Minister will brand us!
So easy for the PC /FEMINIST MONSTER to feed on men at such times as these.
Sattler, bet your boots some of his loudest opponents *never heard the interview* made it clear his question came from us men, not him.
Gays are again being used , an unwed woman living with a bloke not seemingly very masculine can both not be married, and beleive Gays should not be,but too see people sacked for asking her such a question.
Men and women of good faith please do not let PC takeaway our rights to be what we always have been, cheeky.
And lady,s, be careful what you say about anyone if this minor question to a total failure like our PM is so evil, truth will be watching.

if any 'shock jock ' had asked Janette Howard or Therese Rudd
Suseonline,
Mrs Howard & Mrs Rudd were at the time traditionally married to the PM. There's no logical point in questioning them. Janine Howard in particular however has had to endure a lot of nastiness from the ignorant lefties for no reason whatsoever other than being the wife of the PM. This Tim fellow is not married to the PM & hairdressers albeit not necessarily are generally queer or of some other form of sexual orientation. The shock jock did hang on like a ferret on a mission & I think the PM handled the interview very well. If only she were that competent in important matters.

Suse, I reckon Sattler’s questions were of poor form, even within the sexist/gender-oriented political climate which Gillard had promulgated.

None of that sort of stuff should be part of our political carry-on.

But should he have been sacked for it?

No bloody way!

Now we are in the second decade of the 21st century one would think Australia would have reach a state of maturity whereby this perceived macho type of behavior, would well and truly be a thing of the past.
I have to question the conservative side of politics as to where they really are in relation to woman. Based on their attitudes, comments, questions, so called funnies, menus, jokes etc, these conservatives seem to be locked in some pr-enlightenment time warp, where it’s okay to publicly "bag the sheilas" or in the case of the PM "bag the bimbo", as being not male, in what is in their way of thinking a man’s world. The sad fact of it all is they don't think they are doing anything wrong. It’s not a question of political correctness, rather it’s a question of respect for other people and their abilities and achievements, be they gay, be they black, be they whatever, or in this case be they women.

Paul, the 21st century is simply an arbitrary date refernced from an arbtratry date of a possibly fictional event. At this time it is also at the sharp end of a very long extended period of peace for Western nations, with the odd police action and minor war to keep the military-industrial complex ticking over and use up all the old munitions all safely contained in places far away from the home front. Women have been given unprecedented access to public roles and great preferment in every aspect of life, including those that have traditionally been regarded as male for good reasons based on efficient division of labour and preservation of the capacity to quickly rebuild populations in the event of cataastrophe, such as disease, war or natural disaster.

For the bulk of the 300,000 years of human existence ice has covered a lot of the planet and life was hard. It is thanks to the last 11000 unseasonably warm years that humanity has exploded in numbers.

One of the things that allowed our ancestors to survive and breed is suspicion. When things don't look right we, like they, notice and when the leader of the band looks less than entirely reliable for any reason, it makes us start questioning why they're in charge.

If the Gillard relationship is a sham, it is a matter of public interest, because it means she has chosen to deceive us, the voters. If it is not, instead of playing at being offended, she should go out of her way to make that clear.

As I said, I don't think he's gay and I don't care if he is. But if he's simply playing at playing house, then I do care, because it means my government is being lead by a fraud.

I also care because I think the Gillard politics are badly skewed from the social norms and that a woman or man with no genuine committed attachments is not the right person to be making policy decisions for those who do. This is not about Mathieson, but Gillard's personal credibility and judgement.

"This Tim fellow is not married to the PM & hairdressers albeit not necessarily are generally queer or of some other form of sexual orientation. talk about drawing a long bow!
this is the equation:
Tim = hairdresser = queer, simple logic must dictate
hairdresser = Tim = queer. note the use of the word queer and it connotations.

Indi, would you like to finish this sentence for me, in the same manner as you have applied the above.
This Tony fellow wanted to be a priest, priests albeit not necessarily are generally pedophiles or some other form of sexual predictor.....
Just as ridiculous as the Tim rubbish above.

Paul, "queer" is a term used by homosexual activists as a form of identification. As they have done with other derogatory terms they have usurped it from those who would like to use it as an insult and broken its power as a result. As an aside it's a shame the Aboriginal community can't learn from that.

Which leads to the question about why it would be thought insulting to ask if someone is gay. Any ideas?

voteland: Forget the PM and concentrate on electing decent MPs.

Er... Where ya gonna find one o' them?

Antiseptic: Paul, "queer" is a term used by homosexual activists as a form of identification.

One could ask the question, "Is Tim funny Ha ha, or funny peculiar?."

It’s time the Australian unloaded the main players in Australian politics. Not one of them has Australia’s interest at heart. They are all just self serving mongrels.

I urge you all to vote them all out of Office at the next Election.

Anti,

I think the point that Paul was making to individual was that if you're going to assume every male hairdresser is gay, then why not assume every one who ever thought of being a Catholic priest is a pedophile...obviously both assumptions are ridiculous.

I expect the next time Mr Abbott is interviewed, we'll be treated to a few inquiries into anything a tad juicy from his private life as well - after all why stick to political issues when apparently the point is to get well and truly stuck into peripheral matters of no political consequence whatever. (Hey, Loudmouth, this sarcasm stuff is fun!)

poirot: (Hey, Loudmouth, this sarcasm stuff is fun!)

Ahh... Ya learn'. Quote, "Laughter is the best medicine." If'n ya take life too seriously y'll die of a heart attack.

That's a false dichotomy, Poirot. Firstly, there is no assunmption about Mathieson's sexuality on my part, merely an interest in the PM's faux offence, which seems out of place and which lead me to my chain of reasoning a page or two back. Secondly, homosexuality is the preferred orientation of about 10% of males and many of those men have traditionally chosen to do work which is traditionally regarded as a female creative endeavour. While it would be foolish to assume that all male hairdressers are gay, it would be even more foolish to assume that gay men are not overrepresented in that population.

Thirdly, homosexuality is a well-accepted choice or inherited predisposition, depending on your preferred construction. there is no inherent perjorative in being perceived as homosexual, or at least, not for those of us for whom childhood is to be remembered rather than enjoyed. On the other hand, paedophilia is one of the grossest crimes on the books and is regarded as abhorrent by almost everybody. On top of that, while there is no doubt that paedophiles are overreprsented within some parts of the community, including the priesthood, they are a tiny portion of the whole population, far smaller in total numbers than gay men.

So it's not "just as ridiculous" to assume all priests are paedophiles, it's much more ridiculaous and it's also perjorative, as well as denigrating the priests who are neither paedophiles or in any way supportive of protecting those who are.

All that is still begging the question of Gillard's trustworthiness on the subject of her relationship and by implication, more generally.

Anti,

"...merely an interest in the PM's faux offence...."

How many Prime Ministers have been asked if their partners are gay?

Is it standard procedure during Prime Ministerial interviews to inquire as to the sexual preferences of their partners?

I think you'll find that no other Australian Prime Minister has been subject to a question of that nature.

Would the question have been asked if they were legally hitched - as in "married"?

Should we assume that any woman who's partner is a male hairdresser, and who are not "married" is in reality conducting a sham?

If it was male Prime Minister who was living either defacto or married to an female ex-truck driver, would we assume that his partner is gay and that the relationship is a sham? (However, unlikely the scenario)...should the media inquire as to her sexual preferences because she was once a truck driver?

Signed

The Effin' Old Sourpuss ......(That's for Jayb:)

The apologists for Juliar are trying to claim that Juliar's personal life is not for public consumption. This incredibly hypocritical, nitpicking through every detail of TA's life for decades, and then howling in protest when the same standards are applied to their flawed leader.

While I agree that her sex life has nothing to do with her politics or ability to lead, neither does Shane Warne's sex life have anything to do with his cricket. Juliar's non traditional relationship is of interest precisely because she is in the spotlight, and she and the left wing haters just need to such it up.

SM,

"...the left wing haters..."

Ho, ho, ho....taking your direction from runner now, are we?

(And this is coming from someone who doesn't have much time for Gillard)

'Ho, ho, ho....taking your direction from runner now, are we? '

no he just needs to observe you Poirot. You are hard to top.

Au contraire, runner.

If you didn't exist on this forum - we'd have to invent you.

'If you didn't exist on this forum - we'd have to invent you. '

Exactly Poirot the left are experts at dreaming up characters to hate.

"...dreaming up characters to hate."

Right on cue, runner.

(You never disappoint:)

other form of sexual predictor.....
Paul1405.
Abbott IS NOT a priest plus he IS MARRIED unlike the PM who is neither nor does Abbott call her the female equivalent of Misogynist. She really does bring all criticism aimed at her on all by herself. To defend that just exposes your degree of decency.

Now children. Enough is enough. Do I have to take both of you aside for a spanking. ;-)

The problem is that it's very "easy to accuse someone of "hatred" because they have an alternate opinion from your own.

I don't hate you, runner You're just one of gallimaufry (any opportunity to employ that wonderful word) of interesting characters who abound around here.

When we're talking politics, it's politics we're talking about.

I could have never have voted for John Howard...yet I surmise that I could happily live next door to him They would have a lemon tree which produced so much fruit that they'd pass them over the fence - and in return I'd give them eggs or the odd surplus turnip.

My best friend is a Lib supporter - and scathing of Labor.

My brother is politically aligned with me, yet we don't really get on.

So politics is politics and ordinary life is ordinary life.

Dear Luciferase,

You ask, "Did Rudd, Howard, or any previous PM ever
have to deal with this?"

The only former PM that I recall my parents talking about
was Sir William McMahon and the baseless rumours about his
sexuality. Still Howard Sattler's extraordinary and
inappropriate ambush of the PM was nothing new for this
controversial radio shock-jock. He apparently courted
controversy. In 1990 he cmae out with the statement,
"Good riddance to bad rubbish," in relation to 3 Aboriginal
children who died when the stolen car they were driving
crashed while being pursued by police.

This ambush of the PM follows days of political controversy.
The lewd menu prepared in association with an LNP fundraiser
in Brisbane contained explicit references to the PM's body,
including her breasts and the "big red box."

It is precisely that sort of ruthless exploitation that
has now become a defining feature of our current
political culture that is turning so many off in disgust.

"Good riddance to bad rubbish,"
Lexi,
Oh yeah, that's a lot worse than "who cares, she's only white trash ".

Yes indeed Lexi, it's a dog eat dog world on the political arena alright.

While I agree that Sattler should have been punished severely for the disrespect shown to the PM, I do think the radio station management were maybe looking for a reason to safely sack him.

The poor man is starting to lose his speech from that awful Parkinson's Disease, and I believe he would not have been able to successfully work on radio for the 6 months that remained on his contract anyway.

However, I did not like him as a radio jock anyway, and I am glad he is off the airways....the nasty fellow.

Poirot

yes Poirot we are just two fallen creatures with opposing political views. One of my best buddies is black, voting for Gillard and supporting 'gay ' marriage. I can't believe he is so dumb and tell him so. He calls me a bigot etc etc. We still laugh and our friendship is intact.

I think it was sattler who two decades ago hosted a five minute spot on breakfast *King Billy Coke Bottle*
Tapes rest still on many dash boards and it may be said, now not then, it was not quite right a bit off, but funny.
He lost his job for asking a question that will continue to be asked in years ahead in any pub.
Be fair dinkum the whole kerfuffle is as is the case with abortion debate, a blind to take our eyes of Gillard.
Wore my blue tie this morning, to a town market over a tea shirt, got many rounds of applause , from real Australians.

'Wore my blue tie this morning, to a town market over a tea shirt, got many rounds of applause , from real Australians. '

that is so funny Belly.

Poirot,

Actually runner was not the first to use the term "hater" it was Lucyface, and I was simply turning it around.

Fair enough, SM.

I was merely making the point that "hater" is one of runner's most endearing and oft-used epithets which he employs often to paste on others with whom he disagrees.

Belly: *King Billy Coke Bottle* Tapes

"Billy Coke Bottle" started off in Townsville at 4TO many many years ago, long before anybody ever heard of him. So did "Chicken Man." Which is an old 4 R.A.R. Signals joke from Borneo. All the Burries would come with their Phlagons & Goonies from sleeping in the various parks around Townsville. There were many fights outside the 4TO Broadcast rooms in Flinders St. & sometimes the Police had to be called to restore peace. Just about every Burrie claimed to be a "Lation" of Billy’s or Morton’s eh. That went on for years.

When the Radio Announcer moved to WA he let it known that he was in fact a white bloke all the time. The Aboriginal Organization in Townsville (There have been many because the CEO's keep ripping off the Funds) at the time tried to sue 4TO for racism but found they couldn't because apparently just about all the Aboriginal in Townsville had claimed to be a "Lation" at some time or other & 4TO had documented all the relationships.

I just love history. :-O

Jayb,

I LOVED Chicken Man in the sixties ! Benton Harbor, I think his name was. Which, I found out later, was a place in Wisconsin or somewhere like that. Bk bk bk baaaaaak !

I just found this thread, so I'm well behind the play. I think I missed a lot of the fun :(

I don't understand it really - who gives a toss if x or y is gay or not gay. What does it have to do with politics, the most important purpose in life ?

I've always assumed that the Prime Minister and her partner were a 'standard' [are we allowed to say that any more ?] couple, end of story. Good luck to them.

"We apologise for this interruption to our program. Normal transmission will now resume as soon as possible."

Cue: Susanna's Secret.

Joe

Loudmouth: I LOVED Chicken Man in the sixties ! Benton Harbor, I think his name was. Which, I found out later, was a place in Wisconsin or somewhere like that. Bk bk bk baaaaaak !

Not really. It comes from when 4 R.A.R. was in Borneo in 65/66. There was a Subaltern that was extremely useless & every time he went out on patrol the Bk Bk Bk Bk Bakaaaaak! would break Radio silence at all sorts of odd times. The Sig. eventually got a job as a Radio Announcer in Townsville at 4TO too, I think, or 4AY before it became 4RR, but long before Bily Cokebottle time. Strangely he went off to WA too.

We had a useless Subbie in our Company in Vietnam. Everytime we went out side the wire they would take his weapon off him & salute him in the field if he complained. Son of a General too.

Just a little history, again.

Poirot, I suggest to you that no other PM has ever been asked if their partner is homosexual, because all the previous PMs have been married and mostly they've had children. While it's not unknown for a lesbian to fall pregnant, it does tend to make the question of whether the marriage is genuine a somewhat moot one.

Would it have been asked if they were married? I doubt it, since there would be evidence of a commitment.

We're not talking about "any woman" and I've already given my reasons for why the that matters earlier.

A PM demands our trust and we demand their honesty. It is reasonable to ask about things that may call that honesty into question. It behooves a PM to respond sincerely to such questions, not throw a hissy fit

If her offence is genuine, I would like to understand what the grounds might be. Any suggestions?

Sorry, Anti, but I just watched the interview - and what I saw was a puerile, boyish-sounding shock jock getting his jollies from passing on to the PM online gossip.

She handled him well, I thought.

(I would have sent him to his room)

My opinion is that we shouldn't beat up this crap up into something that has any particular veracity or a serious bearing on Australian federal political machinations.

It was trite gossip-mongering unleashed as a ratings-grabber - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm with you, Poirot.

Move on, people, nothing to see here.

Now let's get back to the issues.

Joe

Julia Gillard has referred to Christopher Pyne, Manager of Opposition Business in the House as a 'mincing poodle'. What sort of a slur is that?

The Left and Labor regularly offered similar slurs against Billie McMahon. Especially because he had an attractive wife (Sonia) it appears. Sonia McMahon copped heaps of criticism, all all aimed at bringing her down for her good looks and charm, an example being the vicious sledging for wearing a 'revealing' dress.

Julia Gillard's master of spin is copying tactics from the US that are inappropriate here. That and the usual 'Big Lie' technique. Where the character of political candidates is made the focus of electioneering, of course it will rebound on all parties and the Greens are far from guiltless in it too.

Some say that Gillard has to be desperate to protect herself from critics form within Labor as well as from outside, to play the gender card. I disagree, it is from riding the gender bandwagon that she and some of her careerist ministers got where they are today. They are just doing as they always have done. But it is not working very well anymore. It is just that playing the gender card has been so overdone for countless years that everyone can predict it in advance, 'Yeah, here comes the gender card yet again and always, yawn.'.

Loudmouth: I'm with you, Poirot. Move on, people, nothing to see here. Now let's get back to the issues.

Yes I'm with you too Poirot. Also having seen the video now. I think he was pushing the boundaries for his own ratings. Don't know about being sacked though. Maybe a good clip under the ear & told to behave himself or something a bit stronger about half way down.

Yes Sattler saved the ones that lied about Mal Brough and the so called Liberal menu. The Restaurant owner was a mate of Ludwig. What irony. Gillard and the sisterhood with egg all over their face. Sattler should apologise but no more than Gillard should to Brough. Fat chance.

Richards is a mate of Bill Ludwig's ? Wow, that changes the game.

So let's see - Brough didn't see that menu, he and Hockey were oblivious about it, but Ludwig's mate put it together.

With friends like those .......

Any room here for the truth?
The menu, silly as it was.
Was left to wait 2 months before it surfaced.
Childlike, it never reached the highs of derogatory comment both sides OFTEN use in print.
I have seen worse out side ALP conferences aimed at both ALP and Liberals of note.
Its purpose,very reason for being squirreled away and used now?
To take our minds away from polls showing a return of Kevin Rudd could even bring victory.
And a large serving of humble pie to Gillards spine less supporters.
While Gillard, mounted on the backs of those ragged Billy Goats offers only sexism and huff and puff .
It is intended by supporters those inside and out of the house who carry still her knives.
But lack the ability to see the future pain their actions bring.

Belly I don't know that it's all about Kevin. Julia seems to be trying to play off the gender wars and is scrabbling for any scrap of "evidence". As evidence on this site there are plenty who think it's different when their side does it, something about the context or the audience makes it different in their minds.

Unfortunately there are some on the conservative side who play along, who think think that gender is the issue rather than values.

R0bert

Gender discussion is fundamentally about values, R0bert. Feminism has derogated the values that I hold as important and has replaced them with no values at all other than the primacy of narrow selfishness as a guiding principle. Our PM is an embodiment of that principle and all of her rhetoric about disadvantage is no more than that. She is bereft of any ethical values, but values herself highly, which sums up the society that feminism has created and her with it.

I won't bother arguing any further about the Sattler comments, since it seems that for some it is a matter of faith rather than reason, but such is life, 'twere ever thus.

The spin masters are manipulating the tabloid reporters, who in turn serve editors who are pleased for anything that is cheap reporting, can be developed into a soap serial and caters to the seemingly insatiable appetite for low grade stories.

Without doubt editors would be aware of the facts Belly related above. They should be joining Actors' Equity along with the politicians.

All of the main protagonists, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Christine Milne prefer to run campaigns based on the character of the candidate rather than on policies, facts and hard numbers. Julia Gillard for instance said the election was about Mr Abbott's values - anti-women and un-Australian, she says without a flicker. Gillard is an untrustworthy person to Abbott. For her part, Christine Milne believes that all politicians are dishonest, except for the Greens, remarkable!

It also suits reporters, almost all of whom would make the late Richard Carlton's efforts appear the very pinnacle of investigative journalism, yet he was a joke in his day. Honestly, you can see Julia slowly coaching most of these dills of reporters as she is supposedly being interviewed. Very few of these journalists could investigate a primary school fete without a media release from the headmistress to hastily pencil their own name on and hand to the editor. The attitude is, 'Who cares, as long as it entertains the punters?'.

The politicisation of the media is pretty much complete. There are very few journalists who are not polarised politically on party lines, which they sometimes dress up as "progressive" or "conservative". The problem is that they often don't have an underlying philosophy informing their adopted label, but adhere to ideology and solidarity while platitudinising.

We essentially have little scope for politicians to do anything sudden or radical, with the inertia of the bureaucracy being the principal force for stability in politics. It takes time to implement social changes when you have to indoctrinate 40,000 bureaucrats in DHS before you start, facing resistance all the way from both genuinely opposing forces and the sheer laziness of people.

Seems like a true merchant of hate, another on ABC this morning got a bit close.
Now may I ask just why, with so very many, both sexes being out of the closet and campaigning for Gay rights, including Marriage, is this question so bad?
*Gillard is using the whole issue*
To hide her low polling and we, all of us, are foolish enough to let her or any one, turn the election in to a circus or sexist street fight.
*I with passion, on behalf of my party*
Require to know why its controllers think our defeat is better than dumping a dud!

I'll give you two words, belly. Bill Ludwig. She won't drop him in it over what she knows about him and in return he'll protect her in politics and when the Victorian Major Fraud Squad comes calling.

It's a simple case of two crooks protecting each other.

She must have some really filthy dirt and the papers to prove it...

Josephus>> Teach government and constitution to children by impartial teachers<<

The last of the impartial teachers have died out Joe.

My family tentacles spread to teachers and academics; they are a politically correct lot, it is politically correct policy first and education last. I no longer go to these groups’ social functions because they do not want to hear what an ordinary job they are doing, and that is what I have been telling this lot of simpletons for over a decade.

Before any teachers or academics jump to their own defense let me tender these facts.

We have more kids in uni than ever before but we have half the number of tertiary students doing subjects that require higher math than in 1970.

In December 2012 a global literacy assessment found Aussie kids come last from ALL the English speaking nations….LAST.

Re the sandwich attacks on Gillard, kids of that age do not have political convictions, but their parents do, and the missiles were delivered on their parent’s behalf. That is what the incidents suggest to me. Gillard is despised, and for good reason.

Belly>> Require to know why its controllers think our defeat is better than dumping a dud!<<

You know why Rudd is not even a last resort for the party, the boys hate him. They need a senior rep in a safe seat, is Rudd the only one? Require to know why its controllers think our defeat is better than dumping a dud!

Antiseptic,

I think you’ve made a valid and considered argument.

As our prime minister of course she should be up to scrutiny (I've always had suspicions with Gillard), and with her recent blue tie stunt she has fully exposed herself. Her past misogyny take on Abbott was a truly disgusting attack on an innocent man. Gillard and feminists like Ann Summers don’t differentiate between sexism and misogyny - big difference. The term misogynist should never be used loosely and does an injustice to the victims of real misogynists.

Tim Mathieson - this all adds to something I was told recently about him who it seems had some colorful friends, including bikies back in Shepparton, his home town. He also liked to entertain them at Kirribilli Lodge on at least one occasion - kind of raucous gatherings was insinuated. Gillard is a philistine and political careerist afterall. Her intellectual capacity is limited to law and her union/socialist background as she has admitted that she does not read anything (out of her restricted landscape).

Public interest and reception here and overseas - I was told by a university board member who has worked with various politicians that Gillard would never have any respect from the Japanese, for one, as their society is highly traditionally, and being in a Prime Ministerial role in a non committed relationship would be a complete faux pas to them.

I think the idea of traditionally spouse partnerships are par for the cause for the sake of appearances as is the case with Bob Carr (I have been informed).

Poirot,

When you use fancy words like gallimaufry, you best understand them before use as Runner’s posts are always clear as crystal.

Time for a snipe again is it?

The employment of the word "gallimaufry" around here is a bit of a standing joke between some us. It crops up occasionally and we have a bit of a titter about it......but don't let me stop you. I'm sure if you think hard you'll find something else to have a dig at.

Btw, I do understand the meaning of gallimaufry - as in hodge-podge or jumble - a bit like your reasoning process as you fling out your flack as you run on by

Have you seen the latest Fairfax Nielsen polling? Labor is on 29% primary vote.

Juliar has sunk to new lows with male voters abandoning her and 50% (a 9 point lead) of voters preferring Abbott as PM.

It is looking like Abbott won't need a DD election to get control of both houses.

I am afraid Shadow Minister you over look the Elephant in the room.
You may get a job with Labors power brokers/owners.
The Senate.
What the polling also shows, apart from men supporting Dillard has dropped off the cliff 7% down.
And womens support is up by 1% .
Anti Labor feelings!
Along with the well known, even if you ignore it, dislike and trust of Abbott.
Threatens in my view, us all, Senate as is the case for all upper houses, is the rubbish dump of Australian Politics.
Hanson will win a seat, Katter may win 3, That silly old bloke building his own Titanic, it could be the same result for his fortune, will win some.

Why my concern?
Look closely at NSW, SEE THE LANDSLIDE VICTORY LIBERALS won, along with the Nationals pup.
Then see the acts of STUPIDITY the upper house forced on them, to get bills passed.
We live interesting times, ALP OWNERS/POWER BROKERS live in a sound proof bubble. I propose the three unwise Monkeys as their emblem.

All the Hoo Haa about "the menu" & how it was in bad taste, etc. I have just watched an episode of "The Hamster Wheel." "The Menu" has got nothing on it.

I still advocate getting rid of the entire Front Bench on both sides of Parliament in this next Election. That would go a long way to clearing out the crap Politicians in the Australia's Government we have to put up with at the moment. It just might frighten the one's left to sit up & take notice because they'd be next if they didn't perform to a decent standard.

'It was trite gossip-mongering unleashed as a ratings-grabber - nothing more, nothing less.'

It's commercial radio isn't it?

I really don't understand the fuss. I would agree that it wouldn't have necessarily happened to another PM, but people seem to be discounting the fact that these days everything is open slather. The idea of respect for the office of PM is about as relevant as cricket being a gentleman's game.

Really, what the hell is any PM,, male or female, doing whoring themselves on commercial radio. Par for the course for any 'celebrity' on such a medium, is to pass the test of being a good sport. That means humoring the inane questions about gossip and topics designed to titillate and be 'edgy'. Has anyone ever listened to this kind of show?

The problem is, the PM needs the radio more than, say, Chris Brown. So Browns publicist would not allow questions about his woman bashing, but the PMs publicist is in the whore position, so they have to take what they get. It's not as if she can threaten not to go on the show, as the audience is more interested in someone who has done something with their lives, perhaps won masterchef.

Apparently they agreed to 'candid'. That's like a red rag to a bull. I think on the whole they overestimated the gravity of the interview, and what possible candid topics people would be happy to ask a pollie.

Anyway, as a man who has started wearing blue ties, in a reclaim the tie protest over the PMs sexist comments, I think it's all a bit hypocritical for her to be upset. How one can hold the view that men cant relate to women in policy formation, but women can for men, I'll never know.

It was oh so offensive when she was critiqued for not being able to relate to family issues, but somehow her using the same logic to denounce all male politicians (or blue tie wearing ones) as not able to relate to womens issues is a-ok.

I don't know that I can agree with "The idea of respect for the office of PM is about as relevant as cricket being a gentleman's game."

It should be...

But as the level of respect for the office of the PM is set by our political leaders (of all sides) it has degenerated to become, as it is now, irrelevent.

Therefore, as Houellebecq stated, the situation they face is "...the PMs publicist is in the whore position, so they have to take what they get" and the PM just has to swallow it.

I have no respect for Gillard.
And non too for those who need to insult her with terms like witch and worse.
Did we hear the interview?
Can any of us remember the questioners morning breakfast show of years past?
King Billy COKE Bottle?
Deep in our national DNA we like humor and cheekiness.
Our failure PM farms the little things, introduces them, and then hopes we will take our eyes away from her.
Pathetic and not unlike Queen Victoria, or past Empresses she is best seen from behind, on her way out of politics.

The worst part of all the attention on Ms Gillard is that the Greens and slimy independants have got off scott free for being liable for the trashing of our country. Brown gets out in order to become a pirate while the rest only seem to get any publicity from their favourite son Tony Jones. I hope people's memories are not to short come 14 September.

runner: Brown gets out in order to become a pirate while the rest only seem to get any publicity from their favourite son Tony Jones.

Don't worry about ole' Brownie. He's down in the bowels of the boat looking for the Golden Rivet. While he's not doing that he spends his time in the Barrel. ;-)

Time to kick 'em all out in the next Election. Out! out! dammed spot.

Most of the above gratuitous comments are a splendid example of the vile and appalling power base behind Tony Abbott and what we can expect from a society under his stewardship.

Thanks for setting the new standard.

Wobbles: Thanks for setting the new standard.

You're welcome.

Maybe Australia could vote in an entirely new type of Government. Like the one below. Some people on OLO would like that, I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h2XBZz88VE&feature=player_embedded

Just a footnote:

When polls were showing a majority of woman were fearful/suspicious of Abbot –it was all do with Abbot’s misogyny/sexism.
With recent polls showing a huge drop in the male vote for Julia -- it was being spun on Q&A last night—as evidence of misogyny/sexism (on the part of male voters).

Some people just can’t will

SPQR we will differ forever, but not on this.
Gillard in my view, was quite right in taking to Tiny Tony in the house.
One of the rare things she got right.
She is wrong now building blinds to hide the fact she should go.
A tendency exists in Australian Women, to blame the bloke ,always.
Lets take the polls apart.
34% of women support Dillard, just over one in three.
While just less than one in 4 men support the frail little petal.
She is doing her best, to see more men dump her.
Dare I? can I? gee not sure? what brand of hair die is she using? its not that red at her age is it!
Now if I asked the woman down the road? no worry,s! ask MS frail thing?
WOOPS there goes another hundred mens votes.
A fact!
Center and left of center voters seem unaware Gillard is so bad we are about to see Abbott win a landslide!
History will condemn her.
I may start doing a bit of that my self >}

Hi Belly,

She lost me last year when she defended Slipper for his vile comments, and had the cheek to attack Abbott - and for what ? For looking at his watch. So looking at your watch is a worse offense than describing a woman's private parts as like a jar of mussels ? What a complete hypocrite.

Then she sucks up to that slime Sandilands.

Then she leans over Senator McCrossin, to dump her and try to parachute Nova Peris into her Senate seat. 'Captain's pick' indeed.

And then, tries to float one of her backers into Batman, ahead of a far better qualified woman candidate.

And THEN, she tries that cheap stunt of slagging people who wear ties - ooh, gosh, they are usually men - and blue ties like Abbott's, especially. In front of a lot of young women holding up sings 'Women for Gillard'. And raises the old boogey-man about abortion.

One wonders what would happen, in an extremely hypothetically world, if Abbott fronted a crowd holding up signs saying 'Men for Abbott'.

No, I hope that Labor sticks with Gillard. They don't deserve to be in power for a good few terms, and the longer she is in charge, the less likely it will be that I will ever see a Labor government again, or at least its current members.

A disastrous defeat, winning say, fewer than 30 seats, might make the Party think very deeply about what it stands for in the rapidly-technoligising and -privatising twenty-first century, about what it means to be 'progressive', and who they might represent in a very different world from 1891.

Joe

This thread has run its predictable, high brow course.

Anyway, to focus on one thing of any substance, "A disastrous defeat, winning say, fewer than 30 seats, might make the Party think very deeply about what it stands for...."

What the Federal Labor Party stands for is on the record. What the LNP stands for lies, so far, in a pile of motherhood statements designed not to scare the horses. Just what does it stand for other than being against everything Labor stands for? It appears unlikely we will be informed in any detail before September, Rupert has decided.

This is the path Howard took to the Lodge with his small target, headland speech approach. Australia cannot afford another decade or so of zero progress while the world presses in, but the polls tell us that's where we're headed.

Poor fella Australia.

Lucyface,

You sound a little paranoid. Perhaps you forget that the reason that Labor is failing is precisely because it says it stands for something, and then does exactly the opposite.

The latest travesty is the referendum for recognition of local government. An agreement was reached with the liberals that they would not oppose the referendum if equal funding was given to both sides of the question (as has been the practise for past referendums). The senate funding bill was just hammered through with 20x the funding for the yes vote.

Loudmouth good morning, you and I no longer matter to the ALP.
Silly? not so! polling clearly shows she is not wanted even in her party.
But personal pride of others inflicts this woman prone to say anything she thinks will help her.
We men can take heart!
While the daughter of our Lady Governor General, wife of Gillards knife holder, is now to head women for Gillard!
She can only bring 34% of her women to her side.
She is gone lets see who she takes with her.
A once known woman told what the people wanted, food, *said let them eat cake*
Gillard? what ever her last words as PM as they will be a blessing!

Dictator Gillard yesterday told caucus not to think of them selves.
In doing so she also said not to think of us.
Few may know, but Gillards Captain,s pick, the NT Senate seat, had to join the ALP, after being selected and told about our values!
Gillard is an extraordinary women, but nothing nice meant by that.