Jocelynne,

'Neither party room nor caucus members are 'faceless'. They are seen and heard almost daily on Senate and House of Representatives broadcasts. Many (some may believe too many) are seen, heard or read about in other media coverage.'

I take it from this that you are suggesting Gillard wasn't installed by an all male group which included five union heavies and party apparaciks: Bitar, Marles, Farrell, Ludwig and Howes as well as three elected representatives Shorten, Arbib and Feeney?

And if you don't think they controlled the factional elected representatives you'd be quite wrong. It's been reported in the media, at least once ... without denial.

The electorate clearly resented and still resents their interference in knifing Kevvy the elected PM and consquently, because they are not all elected and some are clearly faceless, we cannot punish them. So the electorate sees Julia Gillard's ascension as illegitimate. Her subsequent performance at lying to the electorate, the betrayal of the electorate with the purchase of the support from Windsor and Oakshott and the endorsement of Thomson as tainted and the unfolding disgraceful scandal surrounding he and Fair Work are all contributing to her current unpopularity and the Labor Party's 30% standing in the polls.

The only sexist thing about all this ... well look at this comment ... there is only one female mentioned, excluding of course those women used by Thomsopn (alledgely)

And that situation Jocelynne can only be laid entirely at the feet of Gillard and the Australian Labor Party, not K. Rudd, Tony Abbott, The Liberal National coalition, the media nor the wider community.

Her predicament is her own and that of her faceless men.

I think, sometimes, we are too quick to play the sexism card when sticking up for our PM. While it's natural to observe that she's a woman, that isn't necessarily the reason for the public attitude towards her. The author lists quite a number of scenarios in which parties have determined their own leaders, but I don't know that any of these situations are equivalent to the one in which we find ourselves now. I suspect that it's the legitimacy of our government first and foremost that comes under scrutiny; the issue of leadership is secondary. I don't know that gender even comes into it.

Why is the legitimacy of our government questioned?

1) At the 2010 election, the ALP didn't win a majority of seats. They won 72 seats - equal to the Liberals, the Nationals and the LNP's total.

2) In first preference results, the ALP didn't win a majority of votes. They totalled 4,711,363 votes compared to the opposition's 5,370,295.

3) In a two-party preferred race, they had a lead of about 31,000 votes.

4) It came down to a couple of independents to decide who would hold power. This is in keeping with our democratic process, but surely it can be accepted that many would object. Many would also argue that, with the fate of the nation in their hands, the independents should have swung the other way (though, of course, there are valid arguments that they made the right choice). I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

5) Since the election, polling has consistently shown that the government is out of favour.

With all these factors in play, it is reasonable for the media - and the public - to throw a couple of scenarios out. How could things have turned out differently? would the ALP have polled better with a different leader? Can they survive with Gillard at the helm? Would Rudd be a more popular choice? Carr? Swan?

Maybe I'm naive, but I have a feeling that a Julian Gillard in the same position as Julia Gillard would face the same questions.

I should add that, despite my dissatisfaction with our current government, I don't endorse such questions of its legitimacy. It's the way our system works and, as such, what I have to live with. I've lived under much worse systems. My suggestions in the previous post are simply reasons why the legitimacy could be questioned and people could reasonably demand answers.

" There will be no carbon tax under the Govt I lead." There has been nothing but a litany of lies, incompetence and deception ever since.

It was election fraud,just a bad as rigging an election.

The debauchery of sexism directed towards Australia’s Prime Minister from News Ltd’s blatantly discriminatory and soon to be outlawed board of fifteen men and a sole woman, encouraged by a culpable and profoundly incompetent to govern opposition, is unquestionable. If women prime ministers weren’t different from men prime ministers women would never have been discriminated against in achieving the office of prime minister in the first place, as women were for centuries. It follows that ultimately, a male vote for a female candidate to the office of prime minister, and a female vote for a male candidate to the office of prime minister (or a judgement delivered by a male judge to a female defendant or by a female judge to a male defendant for that matter) is delivered from the basis of guesswork as to integrity, intention and ability. It’s precisely this guesswork into which governance has collapsed in the transition from male privilege to parity. The only truly equitable approach to parliamentary leadership is the appointment of conjoint male and female prime ministers, as with the vanguard National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, which takes premium advantage of the differences women and men bring to leadership. As to whether Ms Gillard should respond in like-manner, I would advise her to avoid the privilege driven rhetoric emanating from the mouths of members of my gender, as she should, as is obvious she has in achieving the extraordinary reforms and brilliant economic management she and her colleagues have, if exhibited by members of her own.

Please whistler, putting thoughts of debauchery, & Gillard in the same post makes a man's blood run cold.

Sum things are just too unpleasant to contemplate.