The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia’s colonial hangover: why we can’t seem to accept Julia Gillard > Comments

Australia’s colonial hangover: why we can’t seem to accept Julia Gillard : Comments

By Tanel Jan Palgi, published 21/7/2011

Gillard should be accepted as a strong leader, regardless of what she said about the carbon tax.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
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.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 21 July 2011 8:26:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by estelles, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:29:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 .
Posted by jaylex, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strong leader? cough cough splatter splatter.

She got dudded on the super profits tax.

Being a strong leader, is not necessarily a good leader.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by rexw, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:18:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Gillard is running the country her way , no matter if someone writes to her about something it is passed onto someone else instead of her giving a reply back, i know when you write a complaint of something to her it gets passed to another part of the goverment, but some emails should be responded by the prime minister specially when they concern many of us living in this country, something the goverment has been hiding about still to this day is the forgotten australians, even though mr rudd gave a national apology , the goverments of australia still cover up about many of the childrens homes and orphanges in this country, their are unmarked graves of children who have died while in these childrens homes and the leader of the country can not even give them a proper burial cemertry and place head stones on all these graves of which the goverment have covered up about with the churches, these children never got to live and those of us alive today who had grown up in the childrens homes still suffer from the goverment coruption and cover up of us victims maybe ms gillard would like to answer this as if the goverment had nothing to hide why have many of the log books of the childrens homes and orphanages been destroyed by the goverment departments
Posted by huffnpuff, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is merely a distraction, I think, to ascribe the antipathy towards Ms Gillard to her gender. Doing so debases any discussion before it can begin, and is therefore a form of special pleading that should be ignored, and deplored. As can the kneejerk insult, "colonial hangover".

The fact is, there are many cogent and totally reasonable arguments why she is out of favour, none of which involves her speaking voice. Which, incidentally, she should get fixed, as Thatcher did before her. It's not hard, and it's not an admission of weakness.

The manner of her accession to leadership of her Party was risky in itself. And where we were slightly mystified at first, given the Rudd
stories that we were fed, this quickly shifted to distaste. Strike one.

Strike two was probably a result of strike one. Her Party failed to gain an overall majority, and was forced to take aboard some bedfellows that normally you'd run a mile to avoid. This compromised every single political move that followed, and was in fact a home-made poisoned chalice. No Australian government has had to work with such a rag-bag of half-baked ideas, both super-global (Green) and super-parochial (Independents).

Strike three, of course. is her patent inability to show any form of leadership in this fundamentally treacherous environment. Unlike Campbell in the UK - who has many faults too - she does not have the innate ability to rise above it all, and take charge.

I suspect she is underneath it all a perfectly normal, decent person. But she is unable to perform the role she has chosen, one that is, after all, faced with unprecedented challenges in terms of the material she has to work with.

It isn't about being "tough". It is about simple, basic fitness for purpose.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:58:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly what Shadow Minister said- down to the most minute detail.
She's simply an awful leader who shows very little knowledge and caves into (or bribes) interest groups.
So far she has done absolutely nothing but try to promote herself to exclusive groups to get their support.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our PM has been " Tainted Goods" ever since becoming Prime Minister.Everything that she has said or done since, is viewed in this Light.

Female or Male , the Gender makes no difference, it was the method in becoming PM.

The sooner the Labor Party realize this and correct the situation the sooner things may improve for them.

Personally , I believe that they have left it too late to save themselves from the Voters' fury at the next Election
Posted by Aspley, Thursday, 21 July 2011 2:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tanel, thanks for your dispassionate article.

The web is full of bile, some commenters even pretending that they voted Labor because of Gillard's carbon tax promise. What nonsense! Abuse is no substitute for reasoned argument. Well, at least it used not be.
Posted by top ender, Thursday, 21 July 2011 4:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Huffnpuff, I know exactly where you are coming from and what you are saying is correct. I was also raised in institutions as a Ward of the State.
I am very SLEPTICAL when any of our governments refuse to listen to the will of the people.
All the Polls concerning the Carbon Tax indicate that the majority of the people are against it. Now not everyone voices their opinions in polls so we can never assume they are accurate.
Gillard/Brown led Labour Greens who are all for the Carbon Tax were provided with the opportunity to save face on the issue by putting it to the people in a REFERENDUM vote.
Had they did this the vote of the people would have proven that the people either supported or declined the proposal of a carbon tax,
This would have given Gillard some credibility.
Australia is a Democratic Country and in a Democracy the people rule, this means that the govenment must listen to the people.
The stance taken by Gillard and Labour to keep Bob Brown and the Greens on side made many of the people see her as a Dictator leading a Tyrannical Government, not a government for the people.
In the past since I was old enough to vote I always voted labour that is up until Bob Hawk was Prime Minister. I voted for him wrongly beleiving he would be a Peoples Prime Minister considering his back ground in the Union Ranks.
I changed after the Referendum of the people in 1986 whereas the people were asked to replace our Constitution 1900 with the Australia Act 1986. The result of the REFERENDUM was 67% voted to retain our Constitution. Bob Hawk disregarded the will of the PEOPLE and overruled the PEOPLE and enacted the Australia Act 1986.
If you are not clear of my age I am 62 and will be turning 63 in August.
Posted by gypsy, Thursday, 21 July 2011 7:42:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crazy people tend to stand out and get abandoned. Julia Gillard is no exception.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 21 July 2011 11:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not vote for Gillard

Not because she is female

Nor because of her marital status

I did not vote for Gillard because I cast my vote based on the underlying values of the party a politician represents

In Gillard’s case, she and the rest of the socialist collectivist swill represent a grave threat to individual liberty through their obsessive demand for pointless regulation, pointless interference (this Carbon Tax being a classic example) and enforced uniformity of everything

I did not vote for Gillard.

I would never vote for Gillard

But in the past, when in a position to do so,

I did vote for a female Prime Minister

and I will vote for any politician, of any gender, who in my own opinion (not the opinion of leftard squealers) shares the same values as the honourable Mrs Margaret Thatcher
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:43:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all of the detractors of the Gillard Government,
Put your hands up if you could step in to her shoes and do a better job.
Armchair politicians are a real bore. Honestly, does anyone really want to be Governed by her Opposition counterpart, who is a reputed liar.?
NSB
Posted by Noisy Scrub Bird, Friday, 22 July 2011 1:26:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting and varied opinions.
As a leader Julia Gillard developed her own brand of
consensus politics which basically entailed letting
others run the show. Perhaps because of the perception of
illegitimacy regarding the way she assumed power -
she didn't have the authority to assert her views or to be
herself. She didn't have enough expertise on the International
stage - yet she managed to impress with her speech to the
US Congress. Now on the domestic stage - she has definitely
taken control and despite the personal attacks - is coming
across as a leader with the courage to make decisions that need
to be made, even though they aren not popular with some
members of the community. It is unfortunate that the "Broken
Promise," mantra is still being bandied about by the Opposition.
All parties promised things before the last election. (Remember
Howard's -"Core" and "Non-Core" promises?). However the electorate
rejected a Gillard Government AND an Abbott Government at the last
election and gave the nation - eventually - a Coalition of Labor,
Greens, and Independents. Surely it was obvious during the
horse-trading after the polls had closed that whoever led whatever
Coalition was formed would be unable to do everything they could do in a majority government. The conservatives and the Murdoch media continually saying "broken promise," does not make it so.
Judge the leader by the outcomes achieved - she's still got until 2013
to prove her worth. Despite Mr Abbott's frenzy to be PM - and his
continued empty rhetoric. Even Malcolm Turbull is beginning to speak out against the party line.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 22 July 2011 2:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said something along
the lines of:

"The cock may crow, but it's the hen who lays the eggs."

Worth remembering regarding our PM - and her male Opposition.
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 22 July 2011 2:11:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi - good to see you reading about dearest Margaret, she is a much more substantial (intellectually speaking) source than the luddite left of politics

So, to add to your quips more from dearest Margaret -

"We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state."

Which, I trust you will take to heart as much as her Chicken and Cock comment.

Of course Margaret is a source of many pearls of wisdom

one of my favourites is

"Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul."


then there was

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

- so true

and of course,

one for Gizzards to consider with her stupid Carbon Tax Death wish

"The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

Finally, the quote which tells us why the socialists ride us down a slippery path

Margaret Thatcher commenting on what Vladimir Bukovsky had experienced under collectivism

"As the former dissident Vladimir Bukovsky one remarked -- referring to the Russian proverb to the effect that you cannot make an omlette without breaking eggs -- he had seen plenty of broken eggs, but had never tasted any omlette."

Yep - socialism... in short

the way to supposedly justify higher taxes by squandering more

(Gizzards and before her, Krudd, Keating, Hawke and Whitlam are/were all experts at that)
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 3:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Col Rouge,

This discussion is about leadership. Much as I'd like to discuss socialism with you, the 350 word limit won't allow me to do so, plus
I don't want to de-rail this discussion. Besides which, there are very divergent forms of socialism in the modern world and they differ markedly in their degree of centralized control of the economy, and in the liberties their citizens enjoy. But back to the discussion topic of leadership in this country...

Intelligent observers of federal politics like Fairfax's Laura Tingle seem to have sniffed a change in the wind. Tony Abbott's fixation on media stunts (like the ill-fated proposal to hold a carbon tax plebiscite) and his breathtakingly threadbare policy platforms have started to make even enthusiastic Abbott supporters uncomfortable.
Abbott's performance on the ABC's 7.30 Report recently, did not remove any of these doubts. Up against a competent interrogator in Chris Uhlmann, Abbott struggled to articulate anything more than his usual slogans.

In contrast, the PM looked surprisingly perky in her appearance on "Q and A," a few weeks ago.

It will be interesting to
watch what happens as people like Malcolm Turnbull Joe Hockey, and others, begin to speak out and say what they really think and not simply quote the party mantra, as they've done to date. The next election is not until 2013. Australian voters will have plenty of time
to judge things for themselves. As they did at the last election when
the electorate rejected a Gillard Government and an Abbott Government and gave the nation - eventually - a Coalition of Labor, Greens, and Independents
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 22 July 2011 9:31:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi "This discussion is about leadership."

So you say,

but we both know

Julia Gizzard has tripped and fumbled across the political stage and failed with every policy initiative attempted in the course of her Prime Ministerial Tenure (Like Krudd before her).

She will not be re-elected.

Conversely, we both know Margaret Thatcher was re-elected 3 times as UK Prime Minister, in 1979, 1983 and 1987, becoming the longest continuous serving Prime Minister of UK in 150 years.

- which does tend to suggest

Margaret Thatcher was a "leader" and

whatever she thinks she is, Julia Gizzards is not.

As for "The next election is not until 2013"

and the hole Gizzards is digging is just getting deeper

I wonder what else the socailists will stuff up by then...

the refugees are a recurring sore... which is turning more like septicimia by the day... a condition which can turn fatal

Carbon Tax has already been seen as a coffin nail

I suspect the fact that socialist policies are driving the economy into a deep recession (check out the retail sales results) might be another demonstration of whay the socialists are the party best suited to opposition.

Doubtless the Liberal / National Coalition will be better off without Turnbull but beyond that, Tony Abbott is looking alot healthier than Gizzards...

Gizzards, who before the next election, is likely to succumb to a similar stab in the back which took Krudd out of the Lodge
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Col, seeing you're quoting Margaret Thatcher (again) I thought I'd repost this - you must have missed it on the other thread:

“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.

Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.

For two centuries, since the Age of the Enlightenment, we assumed that whatever the advance of science, whatever the economic development, whatever the increase in human numbers, the world would go on much the same. That was progress. And that was what we wanted.

Now we know that this is no longer true.

The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

Of course, much more research is needed. We don't yet know all the answers. Some major uncertainties and doubts remain. No-one can yet say with (absolute) certainty that it is human activities which have caused the apparent increase in global average temperatures. The IPCC report is very careful on this point.”

cont'd
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:45:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Margaret Thatcher cont’d)

“But the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can't repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth's atmosphere for just as long.

The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet would become dry, and what is now dry would become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world's population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated.

And our uncertainties about climate change are not all in one direction. The IPCC report is very honest about the margins of error. Climate change may be less than predicted. But equally it may occur more quickly than the present computer models suggest. Should this happen it would be doubly disastrous were we to shirk the challenge now. I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster. It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.

To accomplish these tasks, we must not waste time and energy disputing the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress."
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds like his MA was in Gender Studies...
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 23 July 2011 11:08:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Col Rouge,

Margaret Thatcher like our PM - encountered many problems during her terms in office. That's part and parcel of politics. Thatcher's business strategies hit business, especially the manufacturing sector, unemployment increased - more than doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labor Government. Increased taxes in the middle of a recession didn't help, there were riots and over two million manufacturing jobs were lost in the 1979-81 recession. Finally she lost the support within her own party and was ousted -
making our current PM's leadership problems seem quite small by comparison.

Whether Julia Gillard will win the next election remains
to be seen. As I stated previously 2013 is quite a way off - and in
politics things can change in a flash. I don't share your pessimism
about our PM - because I prefer genuine policies to the rhetoric -
which is all that the Opposition currently has to offer. Of course
this also could change if the Opposition changed their leadership to someone more believable, who had genuine policies to offer - and not
merely a "vision," that they're unable to articulate more fully.
Interesting times ahead for us all.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 July 2011 12:11:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot

there you go again. You and Gillard and her leftie greenie mates are in denial about the past 12 months weather patterns and their effects on your precious average global surface temperatures.

None of your now revamped claims regarding the effects of global warming is supported by peer reviewed literature.

Oh and please read the current peer reviewed literature on rising sea levels. It seems that since the carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere has risen the actual rises in sea levels has been decelerating.

It seems you lot believe, one foot is on the accelerator the sea levels are rising, whilev you are refusing to see the other foot is on the brake, winning the contest and slowing the actual rises.

Mate the weather and newer science is now making you lot and particularly Gillard look in denial of the evidenced weather and facts (Peer reviewed), simple, silly and pig headed.

Gillard's irrelevant. She's a conned dullard who lacks leadership.

You've simply been conned and now you are the denier.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 23 July 2011 1:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comparing Gillard to Thatcher is a joke.

Thatcher did exactly what she said she would. She broke the unions and reformed the economy by taking out all the silly labour laws and industry protection, to make it more competitive. The pain of

Juliar is doing exactly the opposite.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 23 July 2011 1:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

Even though you don't have a clue - you're entitled to
your opinion. As are we all. And that's all they are.
Opinions. And depending which side of politics you're
on - one's opinions will vary. It doesn't mean that
either of us is right or wrong. It simply means those
are our opinions - and we can use them (to each his own)
come election time. You happen to think that our current
PM is a joke. Fair enough. I feel just as strongly about
the Opposition leader - Mr Tony Abbott. As to who whill
win the next election - we'll have to simply wait and see.
Although you and He may not realise it - he LOST the last
one - and if his party was not in Coalition with the
Nationals - they wouldn't have a chance in (well you know),
of being in politics at all.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 July 2011 2:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Julia's nutter,

Me in denial of weather patterns? Of course not, that is just silly - weather is weather. As you know, climate is weather averaged over decades and has bumps and troughs, remember - no, you obviously don't.

@ None of your now revamped claims regarding the effects of global warming is supported by peer reviewed literature.

Really? Can you please qualify this strongly asserted opinion of yours?

@ Oh and please read the current peer reviewed literature on rising sea levels.

Which particular paper are you talking about nutter, there are many?

Hang-a-mo, if you're talking about P. J. Watson's "Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia", Journal of Coastal Research, 2011 - yes, I know all about it. Thanks anyway.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/

A pity really. Not so much because 'deniers' like you probably won't be able to understand a statistical article ... but because 'deniers' like you have jumped on one Australian newspaper 'fluff and bluster' piece that purportedly overturns all other peer reviewed literature. OMG, give the man a Nobel, now!

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/media/DecMedia11072205.htm

Sorry nutter, you will have to excuse me if I don't take someone who calls himself "imajulianutter" too seriously - political motives (rather than science) are just a tad too obvious, imho.

.

SM

Yeah, Thatcher was a brilliant leader and visionary in tackling global warming too - pity the Australian conservatives don't have the same vision and leadership qualities Margaret had, R.I.P.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 23 July 2011 2:49:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yesLexi… I will tell you about those unemployed numbers in Uk

the fact is

they were unemployed for years before Margaret stopped propping up those union-infested sheltered workshop known as “The Nationalised Industries”…. you know Coal, Steel, Railways, telecoms

the result… the same numbers employed in real jobs in the private sector but the chronic overmanning, restrictive practices and union thuggery in the public industries was transferred from “pretend employment” to

the unemployed.

This did two things

1 it made more skilled people avialble for real jobs
2 because the government were not taxing like crazy to subsidise loss making public industries, the money was left in the hands of private investors to put into real businesses.

“Finally she lost the support within her own party and was ousted -
making our current PM's leadership problems seem quite small by comparison”

Oh yes… she was ousted… after 15 years at the helm of government

Hawke lasted half that time - before Keating “ousted him”

And lets face it, Whitlam, Keating, Krudd have all been one-term failures who never got a shot at second terms, Julia herself fixing Krudds chances of losing a general election

And now, Gizzards is travelling the same path as the rest.

Like others have said

“Comparing Gillard to Thatcher is a joke.”

Thatcher was a stateswoman who strode the world stage making the USSR quake and in tandem with Ronald Reagan…. Saw the collapse of the Evil Empire

Julia Gizzards, instead of making long strides on the world stage would (following the examples of her other government “initiatives”) trip and fall flat on her face.
And sad to say, even with the help of Ronald McDonald, she could not work out which end of a Big Mac to bite first.

Bonmot “Sorry nutter, you will have to excuse me if I don't take someone who calls himself "imajulianutter" too seriously”

I feel the same about those who call themselves 'bonmot'
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 23 July 2011 3:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Bonmot “Sorry nutter, you will have to excuse me if I don't take someone who calls himself "imajulianutter" too seriously”

I feel the same about those who call themselves 'bonmot' <<

Let me guess, Col Rouge is your real name.

Let me guess, Col Rouge speaks fluent French.

Let me guess, Col Rouge remembers Margaret Thatcher's strong leadership and vision regarding global warming.

Let me guess, Col Rouge suffers cognitive dissonance ... 1 out 4 ain't bad.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 23 July 2011 3:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder how long Thatcher would have reigned if not for the Falklands War....nothing like a good war to focus the people's attention elsewhere - and triumphalism always works a treat.
Seems she was pretty much on the nose prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 23 July 2011 3:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Col Rouge,

As I've stated previously - we're all entitled to our opinions.
Right or wrong. No matter how funny or ignorant they may
appear to others. And, of course we all see things from our own
political perspectives. It makes life interesting.
As long as we don't stoop to personal insults.
BTW - For such an apparently staunch anti-socialist like yourself
why did you choose a moniker like "Rouge?" Surely you know that
it's a colloquialism for bolshevik, red, communist, pinkie, radical,
extremist, and the lunatic fringe.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 23 July 2011 4:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot

laughable.

I quote a peer reviewed Watsons literature and you attempt to negate it with a non-reviewed global warmers blog.

Then backed it up with a non-peer reviewed letter from some manager containing an assertion of misquoting. ie it didn't dispute the information of the statistical evidence of decelerating rises only that the reporter 'had not consider(ed) predicted linkages between sea level rise and global warming predicted by climate models.'

ie the reporter only stuck to verifiable facts and excluded the modelling guesswork. (Which btw is shown in the statistical evidence to be very very wrong so far.) Laughable!

Isn't this what you criticised us non warmers for doing in the past? Where's your insistance on peer review when the tide has turned against you?

Where are your climate scientists rushing into print to negate the evidence of falling average global surface temperatures, the natural historical occurances of ocean current movements and the now statistically evidenced deceleration of ocean level rises?

Just not happening for you lot now is it?

'climate is weather averaged over decades and has bumps and troughs,'

Wow, success at last, I've finally got though to you. Now all you have to do is accept there was a cooling period between 1945 and 1975, a warm period between 1975 and 2005 and the figues that show over the past decade an indication of a transition to a cooling rather than a continuation of the 1975 to 2005 warming. ie no rise in temperature (Average Global Surface Temps) between 1998 and 2008 with a warm bump over the last 3 years and the beginning of another cool trough with the current record wet and cool patterns of weather.

What's happened to your 'severe weather events' explanation/excuse?
Moving tack again are you?

btw imajulianutter because she's singlehandedly destroyed public belief in global warming in Australia and is leading the Australian Labor Party into total irrelevance and opposition ...forever.

I'm just nut's about her efforts of denial of cold weather and other cooling facts and I hope she keeps up the great work.

Bonmot, you're helping immensely too.
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 23 July 2011 6:18:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

Even though you don't have a clue, you are entitled to your opinion, ill informed though it may be. Thatcher was also in power for about 10 years and took her party very successfully to 2 further elections.

Juliar's first attempt gave her insufficient seats to govern, only by making huge concessions to the greens and the opportunistic independents, did she manage to cling to power. The price she paid was to back flip on a solemn promise to the electorate.

She won power, but lost the trust and respect of most Australians.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 23 July 2011 6:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

You are the one who doesn't have a clue. You keep repeating the
"Broken Promise," mantra regarding the PM. However we all know of
the man you support - Mr Tony Abbott's self confusedly tendency to make things up under pressure. In recent weeks Mr Abbott has attacked economicsts for not supporting his risible "Direct Action," plan on climate change as well as scientists who have disagreed with his analysis. He's talked down the economy in a desperate effort to exaggerate the impact of the Government's carbon tax, even arguing recently it will cause house prices to fall. The man is driven by ruthless ambition to the point where he blatantly lies and is willing to use virtually any weapon available in his pursuit of the Government so that he can get the top job.

Much like the US Republicans, the Liberal Party in Australia has recently seemed surprisingly content with advancing positions that
clash with the legacy of the Party's more noble traditions of reason and prudence in a libertarian assault on the foundations of government itself. It's hard to believe Robert Menzies, with his firm
belief in the value of conserving and preserving social institutions and the common wealth of the nation, would support any of the current Liberal rhetoric.

Broken election promise? Yes, all parties promised things before the last election. But the electorate rejected a Gillard Government AND an
Abbott Government and gave the nation, eventually, a Coalition of
Labor, Green, and Independents. Surely it was obvious even to you, during the horse-trading after the polls had closed that whoever led whatever Coalition was formed would be unable to do everything they could do in majority government. The conservatives and the Murdoch media continually saying "Broken promise," does not make it so.
BTW - were it not for the coalition with the Nationals the Liberals would never be able to be elected on their own.
Posted by Lexi, Sunday, 24 July 2011 10:58:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Julia’s nutter

“Just not happening for you lot now is it?

@Moi: 'climate is weather averaged over decades and has bumps and troughs,'

@ Julia’s nutter:

“Wow, success at last, I've finally got through to you.”

Um, er … NO nutter. I didn’t get through to you, second paragraph:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12254#211663

Here are some more bumps and troughs of the 30 year trends:

http://tinyurl.com/3nfg3k9

There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville)

Are they hoaxes too nutter?

Sheesh, even Roy Spencer from UAH agrees on the trends – see his grey line?

And Roy is a pin-up boy of "anti-warmers" like yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/32t2q27

Here are some more bumps and troughs nutter, depicting the global average sea level rise to 2011.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

See the bumps and troughs nutter, see the resultant bi-monthly averaging, and do you see the 30 year time series trend line nutter?

Before you go into apoplexy again, hold your breath … that dip this year is due to the diminishing La Nina. On trend, global average sea level continues to rise.

Not a hoax nutter, sorry. Hold your breath a bit longer.

Mr Phil Watson’s paper summates three (3) historical tide gauge data-sets from Freemantle, Sydney and Auckland in New Zealand (4 if you include Newcastle).

The Australian newspaper distorts the findings and nutters like you immediately think this one study of 3 tide-gauge sites overturns the projections by the IPCC. Take a quick breath and hold.

Depending on where and when readings are taken, readings can (and do) vary greatly. Ergo, 3 tide gauge sites don’t paint the full picture – as Watson acknowledges.

In fact, Watson's also acknowledges there has been an acceleration in sea level rise this century.

Cont’d
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 25 July 2011 9:03:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Julia’s nutter cont’d

Now, it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue about statistical time series analysis; otherwise you would have understood this:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/

Take a another deep breath – not many others would either.

Nevertheless, the point to take in is that there is variability in the rate of rise (remember the bumps and troughs?) For example, go back to the 1930s/40s and you get a declining rate – go back earlier (which Watson didn’t) an acceleration; later another acceleration.

CSIRO and others show global sea level rise since 1993 has been between 2.8-3.2 mm per year, near the upper end of IPCC predictions.

For your further information, sea levels around the Australian coast have risen an average of 5 – 6mm per year between 1993 and early 2011, well above the 20th Century average of 1.7 mm per year. On this all scientists agree, monitoring must continue at all levels.

.

@ nutter

“What's happened to your 'severe weather events' explanation/excuse?”

Liar!

I said that the current record wet and cool patterns of weather are associated with one of the strongest La Ninas, ever.

You are clearly incapable of understanding why the world’s average temperatures in 1998 and 2010/11 were on par, given the former was affected by one of the hottest El Ninos on record, and the latter by one of the coldest La Ninas on record.

Why are you so incapable? Like all "anti warmer" nutters, you only believe in what you want to believe - on political ideological grounds.

Nutter, you obviously don’t understand the concept of the peer review process.

Mr Watson’s paper clearly was reviewed by editors for content and his managers. Make no mistake, it is very well written. What happens now is other experts may (they may not) use his paper to bolster their own research, or because of the questions raised, critique and challenge the findings.

It would be helpful if an expert time-series statistician submitted a critique, just to allay the shrill from nutters like you and the deliberate distortion and misrepresentation from broadsheet newspapers, like The Australian.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 25 July 2011 9:36:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

Are you trying to claim that Juliar has not broken her promises?

As for the direct action plan, remember that the carbon tax as stated in the productivity report is not high enough to motivate the change over from coal to gas ($40/t required) and that the vast majority of the emissions "reduction" will be achieved by buying carbon credits from over seas.

Real emissions are set to grow by 5.5% from today's figures and be 13% higher than in 2000.

Of the remainder of the reductions, the vast majority will be achieved by the $10-13bn allocated to the Bob Brown bank for direct action on renewables.

To sum up very roughly the reduction effect by 2020:
60% by buying carbon credits from shady 3rd world dealers
30% by direct action
10% by the increased cost of energy called the carbon tax.

This carbon tax is a complete Joke.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 25 July 2011 10:55:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM,

I can see that it's pointless attempting to have any sort of a
discussion with you. Economists do not support Abbott's risible
"Direct Action," plan, and Australia's top scientists disagree
with his analysis. Mr Abbott, as I've stated earlier has
talked down the economy in an effort to exaggerate the impact of
the government's carbon tax. Yet you continue to repeat your party's
line. However, that's understandable. The first rule of propaganda -
confine the message to a few simple points and repeat them over
and over. Tony Abbott is a master. And you attempt to follow suit.
The only joke here happens to be - the both of you.
I shan't be responding to you any further. My sense of humour does
not stretch that far.
Posted by Lexi, Monday, 25 July 2011 2:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

All the modelling is about reducing emissions in Australia, and for that the clear answer is that a price on carbon is the most efficient means of doing so.

What the modelling assumes is that all other countries have a similar price regime, and that emissions simply do not transfer overseas. If production simply moves overseas, which is the most likely result of a one sided price on carbon, the total change in global emissions will be zero, and Australia, sharing the atmosphere will achieve zero environmental benefit.

Secondly the tax is being introduced in a massive step, increasing the cost of brown coal power generation nearly 3x. As the brown coal generators have borrowings of more than $7bn to Australian banks, and the tax will lower their capital value to lower than this, the banks will face debts not covered by collateral.

However, I will grant that the solar schemes and other direct actions so far were complete abortions, but in fairness they were run by Labor (state and federal), so what can you expect. :P

There are strong arguments for a carbon tax, but the package being offered by Juliar, is so compromised that it is damaging.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 25 July 2011 3:58:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,

Lets address your abusive allegation

'Liar.

I said that the current record wet and cool patterns of weather are associated with one of the strongest La Ninas, ever.'

But you also said something with quite the opposite inference following an interchange on 30th June. Did you forget?

1.
'Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather.'
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:44:20 PM

2.
'"Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather. "

Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?'
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:45:19 PM

3.
'"Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?"

'A statement from a person who obviously hasn't read or understood AR4.
Expect more of the same, if not more, when AR5 is released.'

Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:54:47 PM

Lets see what else you've said.

'The rate of rise (Sea Level)is getting greater though.
And the world doesn't end in 2100.'
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:00:25 AM

'They are rising faster than what was projected 5 years ago – 80 cm by 2100. This might not seem a lot, but tell that to 50 million people that would be affected.'
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:22:32 PM

So now that the science, like the weather, is proving you wrong yet again you've again returned to the defence with your old inaccurate science and sunk to your usual level of abuse.

I think you might need to show some decency and apologise to me.

Oh and Gillard is a liar.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 25 July 2011 6:17:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,

The assertions you are making about Watson and his peer-reviewed article, the peers who reviewed his article and his publishers might be a tad upset if anything you are asserting (Without Peer review) is incorrect.

Oh and you'll look really really very very silly if the IPCC scientists in their calculations have used the same methodology in presenting their historical statistical data in their reports and their subsequent modelling.

You have checked ... haven't you? No, I'll bet you haven't.

'Watson's also acknowledges there has been an acceleration in sea level rise this century...'

Yes of course he does and you grab that straw as an aid in your argument and you don't dispute his statistical methodology in regard to that statement while at exactly the same time you reject his acknowledgement that there is currently a deceleration in sea level rises and you dispute his statistical methodology in regard to that.

All in the same peer-reviewed piece.

Laughable really.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 25 July 2011 6:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 25 July 2011 6:45:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 25 July 2011 7:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Delete for abuse.]
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:23:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 12:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now now Bonmot,

Just because you are losing the argument and that you are showing yourself now as the very centre of the 'warmist rump' there is no need to get nastier.

You lack the courage to spew abuse under your own name. If you did I would absolutely shred your reputation. You've laid out enough contradictions to ensure that.

e.g. Start with us disbelievers as anti-warmists being minimifidiasts (sic).

ie. minimifidian: Exhibiting or requiring the smallest degree of faith: one who has the least faith.

Did you realise with that name calling you simply inferred that climate science and warmists required the exact opposite. ie. The greatest degree of faith.

I've been laughing at you ever since you used minimifidiaists as an abuse. But I agree with you that Climate Science and Global Warming is based on and requires the utmost faith. lol

You had ample opportunity to explain 'minimifidiasts' (Sic) but you arrograntly refused, thinking you'd been clever. Laughing stock. So easy Bonmot, so easy.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 7:37:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 7:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse].
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 8:45:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 10:48:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,

Now here is your tutorial in decency and liberal attitudes. Stay awake now.

Indeed you didn't use the term "minimifidianist".

Here is where it originated.

'...it should have been "minimifidianist". I felt denialists deserved a more impressive title to cover for their unimpressive credentials....
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 29 June 2011 8:05:48 AM

I erred and I am sorry for any offense.

Now for your lesson.

Part 1.

That was an example of decency at work.
I haven't ignored your protestation.
I checked, found my error and have corrected it..

Unlike you, I haven't ignored the proof I found or could have been refered to thereby compounding the error and increasing the original level of offense.
Nb. No evasion nor weasel words.

Part 2.

In situations like this commonsense and common practise would be to point out the error and ask for a retraction and/or apology. That allows everyone to maintain a civility, sense of balance and courtesy. ie liberal behaviour

Screeching abusive terms like 'Liar' not only inflames what could have been sane and sensible debates but tends to turn them into yelling matches.

Nb. It is one of the reasons Parliamentary debate bans the use of such words ... but of course you'd know that.

Now I think you have the opportunity to retract and apologise for your original allegation of Liar and secondly apologise for you intemperate attitude ... as is usual for parliamentarians using such language.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

Thank you for your reasonable behaviour especially your tolerance.

I had started writing my response to bonmot prior to your posting. So I'd claim you have proved my point.

However you are quite wrong. I am used to debating with people of all levels of intellect, and try to treat all with equal respect ... regardless of intellect.

I tend to become less than tolerant with individuals, who should know better but who deliberately set about denigrating and abusing others when maintaining, by becoming involved in debate, they have the intelligence to conduct sensible debate. They often show they assume knowledge equals intellect. It doesn't it is only one part of intellect. They do tend to think superior specialised knowledge is singularly more important than logic, commonsense, comprehension and expression.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 11:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darn, I missed the best bits, my only question is that Shadow Minister and Col Rouge are hardly restrained when casting out insults (Gizzard and Juliar), reading this thread appears somewhat biased with their less than courteous posts remaining. Maybe all comments should be deleted?

No there was some reasoned debate on all sides of the political spectrum.

Dunno what the answer is, but have to wonder what Lexi said that was worse the ad hominem style of Col Rouge and Shadow Minister.

Here Shadow Minister starts by insulting Lexi and refers to Julia Gillard as Juliar - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356&page=0#213743.

And Col Rouge: "Julia Gizzard has tripped and fumbled across the political stage and failed with every policy initiative attempted in the course of her Prime Ministerial Tenure (Like Krudd before her)". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356&page=0#213706

It is a shame that neither Col nor SM can deliver quotes with the intellect of Margaret Thatcher, whether one agrees with her or not she can at least opine without the vitriol.

A look at the early term of Gillard's term:

"The laziness that characterised Australian foreign policy in the late Howard era was replaced by a new energy and a search for fresh answers to problems. Perhaps it was all too much, too soon: more might have been achieved had the focus been narrower. Nevertheless, there is a good platform for this parliamentary term.

What about the Gillard government's international team? Starting at the top, Julia Gillard is a tough, decisive politician with a strategic brain and substantial personal charm. She comes to the job without a lengthy foreign policy curriculum vitae. So did most of the previous occupants of The Lodge, including John Howard and Robert Menzies.

Gillard's announcement of the Timor solution was not ideal. On the other hand, her stewardship of the post-election period, in which she comprehensively outmanoeuvred her opponents, shows her potential as an international negotiator...

...There are certainly factors that could derail the Gillard government's approach, including internal strife. But a fair-minded observer would see foreign policy as a strength for the government and a weakness for the opposition."

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0918_australia_foreign_policy_fullilove.aspx
Posted by Ammonite, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 8:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ammonite,

I just turned Lexi's words about me around, as she used them first, and I wanted to make a point.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12356#213728

I also see that a whole lot of people have had their posts deleted for abuse, and Lexi was one of them, also Bonmot, Poirot etc.

Julia Gillard Lied, that's why we call her Juliar.

The name is a whole story in one word, beautiful!
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 4:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have to say Pericles' argument was by far the most pertinent to the article in question. I agree completely with his '3 strikes', with perhaps more emphasis on the first. The real question, I would have thought, is how popular John Gillard (with a plum in his mouth) would be, if he rose to power the same way, and made the same compromises to stay there?
Once again, why do we Aussies so blithely accept unconscionable behaviour in our elected representatives? Why should our representatives not be held to the same social accountability as the rest of us?
The bloodless coup of Rudd (and Turnbull) demonstrated fairly clearly that ambition and self interest motivates our politicians far more than patriotism or a desire to 'do good'.
I think it's quite possible Lexi and Ammonite are right, and Ms Gillard quite possibly will prove erself to be a competent and able politician by 2013.
I'm just not sure that that is in any way a complement.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 30 July 2011 9:32:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy