The thread then Steve is rubbish Gillard is part of a team not the instigator of Labors policy on unfair dismissal.
An insight into the re crafting of that policy may show you it is far from a free ride for the sacked person.
In fact it in my view is not going to restore many jobs, and maybe , again in my view that is not a bad idea.
Explanation? old system has at times been miss used just as workchoices version was.
Gillard it seems is no longer Socialist, the elephant in the cupboard is she seems to have switched factions.
And that elephant has company, Gillards IR policy's if they are hers are not the ones she had 12 months ago.
The thread offers chances to defame people but has little substance .
If it was meant to be funny it failed, may I ask in a list of people such as this why did Howard, Costello, Abbott, the three wise monkeys of conservative politics not appear?
Julia however remains not one of my favorites.

"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".
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 30 September 2007 11:05:55 PM

Yes, but one could say this of all politicians. Anyone who disagreed with Peter Rieth, Joe Hockey, Kevin Andrews, Peter Costello were all waved aside as stupid or Bolshevik - with lots of help i might ad from the Murdock media and their stable of conservative hacks.

What we need to fear is the ability to dissent being eroded.
Over the last 10 years there has been an increasing retreat from the basic principles of freedom of speech (and no i don't mean the freedom to vilify).

Did someone say unions are there to provide a voice for workers?
Or was that an echo from some long ago era?

Yeah, I've got to say this is exceedingly vague.

You've picked a number of people with strong views and lumped them into a certain category - people who don't take into account opposing views.

Pick any Howard hater or leftist basher. You'll find exactly the same thing. In fact, it's very difficult to get through to most of the population who feel strongly about a certain issue.
Those who are capable of considering any issue dispassionately and without bias are the exception rather than the norm.

Gillard has been singled out as an example, though to be honest I've seen little evidence for it - there are far more obvious examples out there.

Really. This all seems pretty spurious.

Belly,

I'm well aware the Gillard is part of a team headed by the admirably (small "c") conservative Kevin Rudd. That does restrain her. My guess is Labor's IR policy is more Rudd than Gillard.

If you think Howard, Costello and Abbot belong on the list by all means add them. For what it's worth I think Howard and Costello, like Rudd and Swann, are at heart more pragmatists than ideologues. Not so Abbot who I would have put on the list had I thought about him.

In the end who to put on the list is a judgment call and I don’t expect you to agree with mine.

Rainier,

Yes, unbundling a politician's rhetoric from what he really thinks is hard. That being said, in my judgment Gillard is mostly ideologue who believes her own rhetoric. Rudd and Howard both put on convincing shows but are, I suspect, pragmatists at heart.

Poor old Kim Beazley never managed to put on a convincing show. He would feign indignation at the "Howard government's" latest "outrage;" but his body language always said "I know this is all equine fertiliser but I have to pretend."

Were unions ever truly the voice of workers? Or are they businesses run for the benefit of the union bosses?

I STRONGLY agree that freedom of speech is being eroded.

stevelmeyer you do like the odd low blow don't you?
If at some stage unions did not have the support of workers we long ago would not have them.
With some thing like 20 or is it 22% now under workchoices they exist still, remember unions can not do as much now as they could under a fair system.
I have never said here or any place union power should belong to other than share holders the members.
Future unions are challenged to move to wards those members not attempt to drag the members to the water hole.
Now you are entitled to your views, but that dos not make them true.
Gillard is not the person you claim her to be, my deepest concerns about her are the apparent faction change, not possible if she is as you say.
And her abandoning of her IR policy's under Kim.
Am I alone in saying comparing some to Hitler and co is bizarre?
I think not.

Stevenlmyer
I am going to call SM and hope you dont mind.
You have made my day. I have not been posting much but love your thread and your humour.
The really scarey part is your right. The truth is there are several reason I would be scared to vote for Labour.
' We need look no further than our hospitals and plice which they keep putting back on the Federal Government.
They of course only fool the fools with no idea what so ever how this country is run.
' Apart from that I am scared stiff that woman is going to have any say in running this country.
Have you ever watched Parliment? Have you seen her? My God but they cant be fair dinkim. Shes rude arrogant and darn right scarey.
You have done well to point out the same likeness to other nutters.

' They say if Rudd wins it wont be long before she will stab him in the back and try to get herself in the top position.
How horrible would that be.
Labour would do themselves a favour to be rid of her.
All my friends say the same thing. None of us would ever ever vote Labour ever! with her there.