Politics isn't for the faint-hearted and vitriol is thrown at politicians of all backgrounds. John Howard was a "lying rodent", Julia Gillard was a "bitch" and a "witch" and Tony Abbott was a "economic illiterate" and an imbecile. Vile comments have also been put towards Pauline Hanson.

But how much is too much? Where do people draw the line?

The ongoing situation involving Sarah Hanson-Young and David Leyonhjelm is another recent example.

What do people think of this overall ongoing poor pattern of language used by Politicians?

“poor pattern of language” is a very mild way of describing abuse and foul language. You regard Pauline Hanson’s language as “vile” only because you are a member of the Limp Left. PH has never used foul language, nor has she abused anyone.

And what sort of behaviour do you expect from people who are in politics only for themselves and the power involved. Nice ones? Surely not!

As for the two combatants currently in the news .. well, they are both fringe-dwelling crackpots in a senate where only a few hundred votes can get piggy snouts into the trough. The senate could well be described as a pig sty. Let them fight to the death on the floor instead of using our money to bring in lawyers to sort out their gross behaviour.

Hey Nathan J,
'Poor pattern of language by politicians'

I think we firstly need to look at the bigger picture and ask ourselves what's worse;
Swearing by politicians, or lies and deceit by politicians.
In that context swearing is barely worth a mention.

People these days have been dumbed down to a level they react on emotion rather than thinking about things logically, and SHY seeks to exploit this.

Personally, I think SHY should apologise to every male in the country not convicted of rape, then she should be removed from Parliament for her 'white male' comment.

What if the topic was in regards to Welfare of Indigenous kids and SHY was speaking to an Indigenous Senator, and made the comment "You're a black male".

There would be outrage; there seems to be this idea that it's ok to discriminate and inflict collective punishment on all white males; even in Parliament and get away with it.

Yet SHY wants to win the moral high ground by manipulating disgruntled women and gay millennial soyboys with her crocodile tears.

I support Leyonhjelm's comments, the man just got himself short-listed for my vote.

She can't claim slut-shaming and that all men are rapists at the same time.
- Unless of course she's deliberately trying to advertise to everyone how shallow and deranged her logic is.

Regards the 'Poor pattern of language by politicians', I can only remark that in light of this current issue I think it's actually improving.

<< Vile comments have also been put towards Pauline Hanson>>

This means vile comments have been towards Pauline Hanson that are very negative, hostile and plainly out of order, coming from other Politicians.

It is not because I am a member of the Limp Left.

For example: "Greens leader Richard Di Natale has told Sky News One Nation is a 'rabble' that cannot be trusted."

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5791625777001

I hope I have clarified the issue.

Limp left? ttbn, does that stand for try to be nice? failure, yes thought the same when Gillard[ never a fan] copped it, question time is a joke but the mentioned two are both air wasters

Dear Nathan,

Peter Coleman once wrote that:

"Whatever they may say, most politicians do not go into
politics to bring about particular reforms. They go in
because they find the life irresistible. They want to be
in it for all their lives. They enjoy the exhilarating
highs and take the miserable (and tedious) lows in their
stride. They face long years in the wilderness with
equanimity. They take for granted the slander of fools.
They also believe that the voters will get it right in the
end. Their day will come. They are politicians in the way
others are poets. They can't help themselves."

Of course there are a few who are not like that. Who look
upon all that stuff as the excuse of the seat-warmer, the
hack, the careerist, or at best the adventurer. They belong
to a different parliamentary tradition.

They are the ones who believe that politics should be a
civilised and civilising calling. They reflect public opinion
and at their best lead public opinion. They are the men and
women who work the machinery of our liberal democratic way of
life. They are not demagogues, charlatans, and ideologues.
And we should not listen to their siren calls.

Having said that - as we know - there is in both the Senate
and the House of Reps - standards set for behaviour of the politicians. And it is the job of
the Speakers of the House to
call out any inappropriate behaviour. That has always been
the case in the past and will continue to be the case in the
future. However the final word will come from the electorates
of the politicians who will persist in bringing down the
standards on language that they use. They just may find that
they're without a job after their next election.

cont'd ...

Please excuse my typo in my sentence referring to
politicians who are not charlatans, demagogues and idealogues.
We should listen to them. Not to the siren calls of the
other.

Nathan,

While I was sitting on the toilet, and before I read your response to me, I thought that I should not a have commented on your politics, but merely refuted your comments on Pauline Hanson.

Therefore, I apologise.

However, I do refute that Hanson, for whom I have no particular feelings, has ever indulged in vile speech as have both the subjects of your post. You might not care for what she says, but that does not make her utterances “vile”. Unless, of course, you have instances I am unaware of.

And, Nathan, I do not see what the Green’s leader’s opinion of One Nation has to do with anything.

Hi Nathan,

Two hours after my last post. When do you think you will have examples of the "vile" lanuguage used by Pauline Hanson?

<<Vile comments have also been put towards Pauline Hanson.>>

I did not put for example: "Vile comments have "been used" by Pauline Hanson."

Lots of vile comments have "been put" towards Pauline Hanson by other politicians and the general public, including the Greens leader in the Senate, Richard Di Natale.

Yet this is the same party, the Greens, that are making a huge issue out the comments supposedly made by David Leyonhjelm, with Sarah Hanson-Young looking at taking legal action on the issue. Now that's a double standard on this whole issue isn't it?

I don't know how clearer I have to explain the situation - maybe I'll have to consider using some "expletive" language to get my point across.

SHY and her opponent are air wasters both have got down in to the gutter here and in the past SHY in my view is not asset to her party

Dear Belly,

Not sure that you'd call Leyonhjelm any sort of an asset
either. An ass would be more appropriate.

Hell, Nathan. So you did! That's the second time in one day I've had to apologise to same same bloke. Sorry. I need to concentrate more.

Swearing's a part of Australian culture.

Australian Senate Showdown
http://youtu.be/s6VlDwbxNjc

Leyonhjelm on SHY Misandry
http://twitter.com/7NewsSydney/status/1014029758588284928

I think that there is a long record of inappropriate language in parliaments spanning at least a century.

Senator Sarah Hanson Young is going to court.
It appears that there's more to this case than
we thought:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/defamation-david-leyonhjelm-sarah-hanson-young-2018-7

Foxy,
I just hope she gets exposed & the media reports as she really is.