Hmmm....there must be an awful lot of people out there who have something in common with Bin Laden and Julia Gillard!
Most of us like to think we are right. Those who have a strong commitment to something have more to lose if proven wrong - any wonder then that they get arrogant with it? It's a defensive stance.

LOL Peppy,

Then don't take it seriously.

Communicat,

I also have strong opinions. However I am always ready to admit I could be wrong.

People like Gillard come across to me as uptight to the point where they could never admit, even to themselves, that they may be wrong. Gillard's rhetoric strikes me as being that of a person who regards as stupid or malign someone who disagrees with her point of view.

I don't get that impression about Rudd BTW.

But I could be wrong about both Gillard and Rudd.

Stevenlmeyer makes a good point.These people are all egotists who think that their slant on life fits all our needs.Well they have been proven to be wrong in our experience in decades of democracy.

Socialists like Julia Gillard want to impose their version of enslavement in the name of social equality,yet have no solutions to a Govt bureaucracy that sucks the life out of human motivation in the name of social justice.

Arjay, so what does social justice mean to you?

Rainier asks Arjay what "social justice" means to him.

The issue of social justice is a hard one and nowhere is this better illustrated than in the field of IR laws.

BOTH the following statements are probably true:

(1) Doing away with unfair dismissal laws makes it easier for people to find jobs. Unemployment will probably be lower without unfair dismissal laws. People with poor or no skills will probably find it easier to get that first job if there are no unfair dismissal laws.

(2) Doing away with unfair dismissal laws lessens job security and increases the stress on workers.

Finding the right balance between the sort or labour market flexibility you need in a modern economy and protecting the most vulnerable labour market participants is HARD. There are NO easy solutions. Go too far in one direction and unemployment soars. Go too far in the other and you leave people vulnerable to some pretty vicious exploitation.

The issue is further complicated by the lottery like nature of most tribunals. If you make it too dangerous for employers to hire marginal workers then they won't.

If I had a small business I would prefer to work 24 / 7 than risk having to face some sort of tribunal in order to be able to fire an unsatisfactory employee. Even if I were to win, the cost in terms of time could sink me.

IR laws are a perfect example of the dangers of being too dogmatic about anything; of assuming you know all the answers.

BTW unfair dismissal laws tilt the balance against small businesses and in favour of the big businesses that can afford the IR specialists they need if they want to sack someone.

What I fear is that Gillard strikes me as someone who would be dogmatic, who would assume she knows all the answers and anyone who disagrees with her stupid or evil.

To answer the original question: they both want Kevin to win.