<< Julia Gillard is an insubstantial leader of a major Australian political party, created by circumstances. >>

Geoff, it is far too early to judge whether or not she is an insubstantial leader.

She may be a very substantial leader indeed, with just a few relatively easy policy changes… such is the terrible legacy left by Rudd.

Actually, there is nothing insubstantial about what she has done so far, in terminating the mining tax fracas, albeit by way of a huge concession, or in striving to reverse Rudd’s disgraceful weakening of our borders.

Other simple substantial things that she could do would be to considerably reduce our record-high immigration rate, abolish the baby bonus, get a decent population policy up with a population cap not too much larger than the current level, and make some other basic moves towards a sustainable society and away from one that is based on never-ending rapid growth.

The time is right for the paradigm of sustainability to take over from the terrible paradigm of continuous expansionism. She has already spoken wisely about a much greener future.

Julia Gillard could become a very substantial leader indeed. The stage is set for it. So it remains to be seen whether she can actually steer this country towards it, with the urgency required or whether she will indeed be an insubstantial leader, or worse…a leader like Rudd.

“Julia Gillard may be the most insubstantial leader of a major Australian political party since Andrew Peacock. She is a person created by circumstances.”
Those words are an appropriately unsubstantial start for a soft-between-the-ears souffle of an article.

The most insubstantial?
What substance was there to Malcolm Fraser who also made use of circumstance in creating his day of glory; a leader who, contrary to the circumstance of his predecessor, had no political restraint on whatever legislation he might have proposed – yet repeatedly called early elections in fear of losing power; and when defeat eventually arrived, became weepy because - he said, he had not had sufficient opportunity to implement his ideas.
What substance to Rudd, who canvassed votes on the basis of tackling “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, yet once elected proceeded to put in place a scheme designed to ensure that action to address it would not proceed, and in a manner designed to muffle concern for it.

The author judges Julia Gillard as leader. Her short tenure in that position has not demonstrated any marked lack of substance; and the outline of her history as he presented it has as many holes as gruyere cheese. Whatever she may be, should she maintain her position, it might be one way or the other. This political hatchet job does nothing to inform us

Surprised and shocked. I hoped like hell that Gillard would not lead a coup. There was no need for it. Odd is the operative word. We many tried to warn her. Now alas, possibly presiding a lead forward, toward a spectacular political collapse. No hands to wash... just grime led factional with femocrats weight on heel.

So much genuine goodwill lost in one fowel stoop. While I may like Ms Gillard she now stands for everything I despise in rat-eating factional based silo ridden media and politics. No trust, no vision to stand on, no way forward amid treachery.

Betrayal of trust; deceptive action or nature, leads to more dirt, discomfort and seeds violence and war mentality. Not the way I want to fight where there are alternative values to choose.

Sorry. Sorry we are now in this mess.

We were on track depending on which part you saw in the line. Courage fell as did the stomach muscular spin for ALP.

This time the country will pay. No vote is worth a pledge on this paradigm shift.

If only.... she had listened to her better self.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Why on earth would I want a leader?

When you look at the record of most of our governments you find, that despite being privy to much information hidden from us mere citizens, they have stuffed up more often than not.

We are often subjected to calls from one interest group or another for a government to show "leadership" in some area or other. Have you ever noticed that these calls are always from people with unpopular causes, which would often result in a loss to the general public.

Greens & academics are very good at promoting the use of taxes from the majority being spent on some pet project of dubious value to, if not to the detriment of, the general public. This always results in calls calls for "leadership".

Next we find someone being denigrated for being populist. Hell, isn't the nature of democracy supposed to be "of the people by the people", etc. Aren't they put there to do the peoples will.

So I for one, will be reasonably happy with Julia if she leads from back behind the opinion polls, she will be better than most if she does.

But, if for some reason, you must go gallop off the edge of a high cliff, find yourself some "leader" they will get you into free fall, quicker than you can blink.

If that "leader" happens to be a charismatic orator, run like hell. They are the type that get you killed, or broke, [or both] real quick.

This is a ridiculous article. Julia has been in the job only a matter of a few weeks.

It's like hiring a new employee and carrying out a comprehensive assessment after a few days then dismissing them because they haven't performed.

This type of article seems to be part of an attempt to unfairly discredit Julia, perhaps to advantage Abbot the Rabbit and the party which looks after the interests of the greedy rich.

@David G;

Easy to forget she has been instrumental throughout this government's tenure in all they have done.

She's been there for every stuff up, working on the policies with Kevin, Wayne and Lindsay.
Her performance is well documented, and so far all we've seen is Rudd with lipstick. Same old policy, different delivery.

The cynicism of knifing Rudd, then blaming everything on him in the hope of calling an election during her honeymoon period is nothing short of a disgrace.

I love how you describe the rich as greedy also, as it pegs you one of these socialists from the "I want free stuff from people who work a million times harder than I do" set, i.e.: "I know how to spend people's hard earned better than they do".
Get a real job mate, and stop whingeing about how people who've worked their guts out, or created innovation have more than you.

The rich do a lot more for the underprivileged than thieving socialists like you make out, or indeed do yourselves.

Just watch Gillard get back in as I'm sure she will, since the Aussie electorate is mostly made up of people like you who want a free ride, and we'll see what she's done in another four years.

Pretty sure it won't be much, and we certainly won't be in the black due to her fiscal austerity, as the only way Labor could achieve a surplus is to look around for a someone doing well, and pilfer from them.

In my books, she and Rudd owe this country over $100 billion by the time interest is paid on their ridiculous spending spree which achieved NOTHING.