My main concern about Ms Gillard is her oft-repeated statement that she is governing for "working families". What happened to the traditional stance that the elected government, while of one party or another, is governing for all Australians?

It is very clear that while she has been successful in passing legislation that favours her left wing constituency, at least some of it (particularly the Carbon Tax) is highly controversial.

My other concern with Ms Gillard (and many other politicians, to be fair) is that she has absolutely no experience of working in business, running an enterprise, or for that matter employing people. She clearly doesn't understand the issues. Like many in parliament, for her whole career, her income has been paid either by union members (one way or another) or by the taxpayer. It is hardly surprising that while she may understand the situation of working families, she has very little understanding of business, particularly small business, that provides so many of the jobs in this nation and much of the taxpayer revenue that keeps the government going.

It is clear that there are 'significant humanitarian objections' to both the carbon tax and the NBN, if wasting vast amounts of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on food, clothing, hospitals or libraries counts as a 'humanitarian objection'. And you don't mention the Slipper affair, or Craig Thompson.

I'm afraid the "you just hate her because she's a woman" line won't get much traction here: there are too many valid and continuing reasons to regard the whole Federal ALP as currently toxic, leader and all.

Or, let me add, her opposition to gay marriage, despite her declared atheism. Is that because she is a woman, do you think? Or just a leader scared witless by the Religious Right?

'Policy gains of the Australian government since 2010 election contradict Roosevelt's contention that a woman leader 'could never hold her following long enough...'

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
(Gasp for breath)

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

"Julia Gillard thus broke through the barrier recognised by Eleanor Roosevelt"

I suspect that Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind the US election process, that requires two stages. First the drawn-out contest for Party nomination, voted for by the citizenry as we have just witnessed amongst Republicans, followed by the endorsement of the whole of the nation in an open election.

There is no comparison.

Julia Gillard was placed at the head of her Party, not by the public, but by a classic internecine numbers game, conducted by powerbrokers behind the scenes. Then she failed to gain election when placed in front of the public, and needed to thoroughly compromise herself, her party, and the country as well, by making Faustian compacts with a bunch of political fringe-dwellers with agendas of their own.

The rest of the piece, following this thoroughly-failed analogy, is mere puffery, seasoned with a few defensive charges of "sexism".

Face it, Ms Scutt. If a "bloke" had performed as Ms Gillard has done, perpetually gaffe-prone, error-prone and ultimately devoid of any recognizable principle, he would have been knifed by his party many months ago. I reckon that the only reason she is still there is because she is female.

Of course they are possible.

They are also a great way to ensure any government that has one will be a one term government only.