How about a little cross-pollination.

I was just on twitter and noticed this, titled "Why I stand by my article on Sue Boyce":

Jonathan Swan defending his journalistic integrity.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/why-i-stand-by-my-article-on-sue-boyce-20140624-3aqir.html#ixzz35X3LMwjx

"Retiring Liberal senator Sue Boyce has repeatedly, over the past 24 hours, claimed I misquoted her and has denied saying the Prime Minister was “a sexist”."

"In it, she accuses me of “grossly” misrepresenting her views. She also writes: “Mr Abbott is certainly not a sexist.”

On Tuesday, she told the Coalition party room that I had misrepresented her."

(Full Sue Boyce interview included in link)

Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not...but that's the sort of thing that can be quickly clarified on twitter. There are so many people distorting the truth in politics these days that it's handy to have twitter access to what really went down.

Cont..

(post limits again)

Realising the truth of those words made the actions of the Greens in our area seem far more fathomable. I started to be able to pick the true haters in both of the major parties and the Greens, even a few within the Dems. It really took the shine off the political game for me.

To me Tony Abbott is a hater on steroids, so was Keating and Latham and Minchin, but in Abbott his hatred of women in power adds a dimension that is deeply unsettling.

If I was to point to one figure who really drove this climate of divisiveness and hatred it would have to be Keating. As entertaining as he was I still think we might have been better served without his impact in parliament. Abbott is a product of that era. The case might also be made that the demise of the Democrats accelerated the change.

Hopefully for the sake of us all we might be afforded the opportunity to move past it but likely only post Abbott and probably Shorten.

When I joined the Democrats I did so because I supported a number of their social issues but was economically conservative thus to me they were middle of the road which was where I considered my own politics to be. I certainly didn't consider myself of the Left. Within a few short years it seemed Labour and the Libs made gigantic leaps to the right and left me sitting like a shag on a rock now being considered a leftist. My views are still much the same as they were when I joined but everyone else seemed to have gone off for a madcap jaunt trying to outdo each other on how extreme they could be. Australian politics does seem far less sane now than it did back then.

I'd like to blame Keating, and he does bear a lot of the blame. Bob Hawke was "the great conciliator". But he only needed to be because Malcolm Fraser raised the heat as much as he did, and Whitlam responded in kind. Remember phrases like "Kerr's cur" and "Well may you say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the Governor General". So it predates Keating, although both Whitlam and Fraser were much more civilised than Keating, but not as civilised as Hawke.

However, I'm still waiting for any evidence that Tony Abbott is a hater in that sort of vein, or any sort of vein.

Dear GrahamY,

It is highly unlikely that we are going to agree on this whatever is presented but I am happy to go through the exercise regardless.

Perhaps we should at least see if we can agree on what constitutes hateful behaviour.

Let's for a moment leave aside judgement of whether or not Tony Abbott purposefully intended to use the 'dying of shame' comment to unsettle Julia Gillard, who was clearly deeply impacted by the death of her father, or whether it was completely innocent on his behalf.

I offer the following hypothetical;

You, Graham Young, are out at a Liberal Party victory celebration after the next election and Tony Abbott, in an understandably gregarious, champagne assisted mood of camaraderie throws an arm around your shoulder and says “Youngy you good thing mate, I have a confession to make...”. He then tells you how he got away with the biggest sledge in Australia's political history when he went after Gillard that day and hardly anyone was the wiser.

Armed with this knowledge would you think all's fair in politics and pour him another drink or would you wonder, as I would, how on earth could one human being use the death of another's father in an attempt to knock them off their game? If the first then we probably should finish here, if the second then would you agree, in this hypothetical at least, that it would constitute an eminently hateful act?

SteeleRedux,
What was said about Gillard's father was said around an air of real possibilty but we can't prove that. What we can prove though is that she was the worst public figure, with the worst management, with the worst personality, with the worst ego & with the worst outcome for Australia.
Her father may or may not have stressed beyond his limit about the antics of his daughter but she certainly caused us irreparable harm, all just for her own ego. She had no intention of doing anything for Australia, she merely wanted to be the first female Prime Minister which she achieved but we're still waiting for the first woman PM. That she could never be.

We're referencing one of the lowest comments ever made by a public figure in this country - and what does individual say?

"What was said about Gillard's father was said around an air of real possibilty but we can't prove that...."

Jones didn't say it because it he thought it had any bearing on reality.....he spruiked it as a savage, vengeful and personal attack on someone who's politics he didn't like.

Of course, it backfired big time - and Jones was the one left dripping with dishonour.