My goodness! What a very peculiar article.

Latest opinion poll, Gillard -
Voter satisfaction = 27%
Voter dissatisfaction = 61%

This is a victory for women?

The Gillard government, unpopular and rocketing towards defeat. I can't quite see how that's a victory for anybody except Tony Abbott.

Well, like I said before. A very peculiar article in my opinion.

What a very peculiar comment, VoxUnius. I can't begin to comprehend where you got that from, and if your voice is united with anything other than the rest of your body I'd be extremely surprised - but probably quite fascinated as well!

Jennifer you have depressingly well summed up the abject dysfunctionality of Australian politics at the moment, and the absoulte disappointment that a lot of people feel at the pointless squandering of opportunity that has characterised the Labor government since, well, since the end of Kevin Rudd's honeymoon period. Their failure has not been a result of effective opposition - it has been a result of the personal foibles of a small number of senior Labor Party members who have misread, mishandled, and insinuated their own personal agendas and ambitions upon a large groundswell of goodwill. People voted against the deception and meanness of the Howard government, and we imagined that Kevin Rudd, with his big ideas and his ostensible compassion for others, would steer the country back to a place where we could be proud to call ourselves Australian again.

However as the article points out, things have turned pretty dire. I must say though I'm less optimistic for Julia. I don't think it's possible to turn one's public image around. In some sense I feel sorry for her. I think the pressure to stand up to the negativity of Abbott has forced her into an "out-Herroding Herrod" situation. I'm sure when this is all over and she is breakfasting out on her front porch she will lean back on her calico outdoor chair with a cigarette and a sweet milky tea, and hate herself for what she has done. But at the same time it is her fault. She should have saw the signs. My theory is that, having been schooled in Howard-era gutter politics, she just couldn't drag herself back out.

Interesting to think that the kids who are now reaching uni-going age have never seen what it means to have a responsible, effective government. what does this mean for the future?

Yes, it is an odd article. I don't want to comment on the general argument, but ask about the term 'asylum seekers'. Doesn't that beg the question? What is the difference between those on the boats and those in the camps in Indonesia and Malaysia? Are 'boat people' more genuine in seeking asylum than those in the camps? How are they different from 'economic refugees'?

At the moment my feeling is that boat people should be dealt with in Australia. But since we already take in several thousand 'refugees' deemed to be so by the UN, isn't doing so giving priority to those who have the money to pay for the risky boat journey? And is that fair?

I don't have answers to these questions, and I think that the movement of people out of awful environments should be expected. Australia should do its bit.

But I do think that using the term 'asylum seekers' is a form of emotional coup d'etat, because we don't know that they are plainly refugees from political oppression of a severe kind. That is still to be determined.

If I'm wrong, perhaps the author could respond.

That's "seen the signs", Sam Jandwich!

On the one hand I fully endorse Jennifer Wilson's political satire here and long to see genuine leadership from either sex, but especially from a woman. On the other hand populist politics demand that all sides demean themselves over despicable policies such as "stopping the boats". Popular politics is the ultimate in non-representational democracy, whereby political/philosophical subtlety in every important issue is leached away until all that remains are slogans: stop the boats, tough on crime, no to big taxes, creating jobs--unquestioned verities! This kind of political gruel is served up to us en masse because each slogan is identified as broadly representative among a paranoid bogan centre that's never considered the arguments and only knows its petty nationalism and gut-insecurity. But these asinine policies are also broadly "influential", cultivating ignorance and sparing millions the bother of actually thinking about anything. Allowing them instead to be led by "popular wisdom"; fear and loathing whipped-up in self-fulfilling fashion by the media--vicious and hapless by turns. Popular opinion is reported, thus spuriously validated, inducing the uncertain to cave-in and join the ranks of the selfish and the weak-minded--memes in action!
This is what all politicians do in our populist age. Politics as the platform for the statesman/woman has devolved into puerile degeneracy, wherein the bogan is pricked and agitated in tender spots so that s/he reacts predictably and on-cue. We are absolved of thinking over the details of popular debates, indeed admonished for it, and complex ethical issues are reduced to fear-mongering. Gillard's position is despicable, but no more so than the rest. And, sad to say, the populist woman--politician or suburban bogan--is no better than her bigoted "darl".
What organ of the media is impartially expounding the real complexities of this debate, or any debate! Why the hell are "asylum seekers", "AGW", "carbon tax" and all the other big ticket issues emotive? Lets consider issues omnisciently. People are susceptible to having their fears and prejudices reinforced, but they can be educated to think and consider complexity.
Instead of importuning Gillard to "woman up" and "have mercy", have her canvas the problematics.

There is no greater truth that given any set of circumstances and sufficient pressure, women and men make the same decisions, gender has nothing to do with it. The myth of female softness was debunked long ago when Thatcher took the reigns in England. There is no reason either sex can't be tough (read unconciousnable behaviour and attitudes).

More concerning is the continuing government (and opposition) relying heavily on small sample focus groups to "read" the electorate and make legislation based on its values.

Lie down with dogs and you get fleas. Its about time Australia has some genuine leadership. The current leaders look like participants in a Jerry Springer audience slanging match...neither is a leader, neither capable of heading up a government.

As far as Asylum seeker policy goes, (and this has been debated in our media since the early 1990's) your either in or your not. For political reasons, as the article states, Australia clings to the convention. Some countries arent so caught up in ego and readily make themselves unavailable from receiving refugees full stop. Australia under Rudd commenced the era of the policy tweak. So instead of a firm stance one way of the other they fiddle with the edges and arrive at a half baked policy which is neither effective or particularly useful to anyone involved (politicians, refugees, the Australian people). It seems the emotional reaction is dictating action rather than a calm conclusion about what we want to achieve.

One poster on another forum pointed out we have a ready input from potential asylum seekers to train people and begin to address our skills shortage for instance. That suggestion, although a stretch, at least has as its goal a productive outcome.

"Tough" doesn't impress me at all. It's the language I most commonly associate with prisoners. (And we know why they got there dont we?)