I watched an interview with Julia Gillard on the Today Show this morning where Julia was talking about how she is going to let the real Julia show through.

The things that stuck out in that interview for me
- Where the Labor party has been running a safe campaign it was "we" have done this, where the Liberal's have run a safe campaign it was "Tony" is doing this.
- In response to Alexander Downer's comments about Rudd it was a Liberal Party attack on Rudd although as far as I'm aware Downer was not speaking as a representative of the Liberal Party.
- Gillard will lead is confidently forward, Tony would look fearfully behind yet shortly before I'd seen an ALP add listing a bunch of things from the past that Abbott would bring back (regardless of him clearly saying he would not do so). Ad's based on fear.
- Question's which were awkward were just not answered, instead used as an opportunity to launch yet more attacks on Tony Abbott.
- Labor seems to be running the campaign around the leaders (making it a presidential style campaign) yet the leader only get's to stay leader while they have the confidence of the party room.

Every answer seemed to be spin and misdirection in an interview that was about the real Julia shine through.

R0bert

As you know RObert I respect you but often do not agree.
Maybe it is perception but I truly find it hard to think Julia started this mud slinging.
And to find you think she did, that you see none from your side amuses me.
The I hate a woman leading this country mob are and have been more than rude.
The shrew is one of a thousand insults not being wed even having children, are others.
Remember when that fool called her barren?
Abbott's word is of no more worth than Howard's, both had non core promises Howard's included no GST.
Abbott? he lies he told us so look at his words on climate change birth control can anyone trust him?
He will rename and rebirth workchoices.
If labor uses HIS OWN WORDS against him surely that is not mud throwing but it may be clown baiting.

Belly where did I say Julia started it? It's been standard far for both sides for far too long.

My point is that when she is claiming to letting the real Julia show through most of what was on show was spin and misdirection. If this morning's example was the real Julia we should all be deeply concerned.

I'd like better from both side's. I don't know if you spotted it but on one of Julie Bishop's article thread's I suggested that if they want to mark themselves as different they change tact's on that approach to politic's.

R0bert

RObert

I understand what it is that you are trying to say - now, for your therapy....
Repeat this exercise twenty times..."I will no longer watch interviews with politicians through the popular media - it is purely an exercise in spin."

Personally I think the 'real' Ms Gillard is scarier than the fake Ms Gillard. I think the public are starting to agree.

R0bert

First I'd like to thank you for starting this thread - a genuine discussion regarding a significant political leader.

Second, I had to laugh, Poirot just echoed my thoughts exactly - The Today Show is not exactly in the realm of hard hitting journalism.

That said, if Julia could just return to the Julia who existed before this appalling election campaign. She started brilliantly then, in the space of a week, turned into plastic. Whoever her advisers were, I be dumping them post haste and looking hard at successful speeches and strategies from the past that led to her reaching the position of Deputy Prime Minister. She is articulate, humourous, quick on her feet - and that's the Julia I want to see again. Before it is too late.

I am so excited at the chance to see the real Julia. It makes me forget the Julia I have known for so long. Just like the phrase moving forward makes me forget anything that has happened in the last 2 years.

I especially look forward to the Real Real Julia replacing the Real Julia in about 2 weeks.

Should I dare to dream of the Real Real Real Julia?

I'm sorry Julia. It's over.

The polls seem to be 'heading in the right direction' as one M.Lemma used to tell me.

Julia Gillard has lost no opportunity to sling mud at the opposition from day one. The difference is that with TA, she is now getting it back in spades.

Whilst Labor had been in opposition, they had little in the way of dirty laundry, but now after 2 1/2 yrs of policy blunders, they have bulls eyes painted all over them.

JGs election strategy has been to try and stick to the message and create as small a target as possible. This is obviously not working, and now in desperation she plans to try the negative campaign against TA. The Liberals must be rubbing their hands in glee, as a negative smear campaign is generally bad news for the incumbents.

Her first words to Tony Abbott were "game on". I bet she is now regretting them.

Poirot and Severin, the popular media is where most of the election is played out.

Many of the undecided voters are not so interested in politics that they will seek out the genuinely hard hitting journalism (the definition of which often depends on our own political bias's anyway).

Like it or not the Today Show and other popular media is where a lot of the public impression of the parties and leaders will be formed.

I was left with the impression that the minders had realised that commentary was against the staged managed campaign approach so they decided that it need to be more "real" (an a staged manner). No actual change, just some words to add to the spin.

Will the lib's counter it with real speak to go with real action?

R0bert

RObert,

"the popular media is where most of the election is played out."

So true....and that, I might suggest, is the tragedy of our times.

Belly, Severin, it's time to start really worrying.

Little Julie is in big trouble, because just enough of the "real" Julia has in fact shown through, & a lot of previously fooled people have got a glimpse of her. The more we see the quicker she will drop.

Any other leader to pull out of the swamp?

Perhaps having taken over 2 years to wake up to what a peanut Rudd was has sharpened peoples focus. It may be that they are now seeing through the spin, & seeing the almost empty barrel behind it all. Almost empty, because despite much effort, they have not managed to clean it of all the rot. Rot that unbelievably grew in less than 3 years.

A couple of months ago my only thoughts of Gillard were, "dreadful voice, dreadful hair colouring". My opinion was an empty slate for her to write on. Well, it didn't take long for her to cover it in the red ink of failure. You can tell by the way it comes out, that most of what she says is preprogramed spin.

Also a few months ago my only opinion of Abbott was "dreadful speaker, lousy haircut". It was frustrating wanting to finish his sentences for him, while he stumbled over ums & ahs. Well, I can now see that he is thinking of what he is saying, nothing preprogrammed here. He says what he thinks.

Which ever one gets in, it will be a pain listening to them, but I know which one will be closer to talking truth. I've switched off now. I know which one I would hate to have as PM.

She is a true product of her party. She winks at her elites, while kidding her rednecks that she will stop the boats. I wonder if anyone knows where she stands on AGW, or even if she knows herself. She is probably waiting for a poll to tell her. What ever, we need someone like her like a hole in the head, & thankfully, quite a few are seeing the same thing.

RObert,

I think the logic goes like this the polls are showing that TA is winning the poll because of his simplistic almost every bloke mannerisms.
TA is simplistic delivery is a bit like Joh's 'don't you worry about that'.

The great unwashed want some one who appears to be like them because they assume that means that they don't have to put much thought into issues all they have to do is consider the wants. They assume that the issues involved from there are as simplistic as the govt telling the PS and that's it.

JG by being measured 'safe' is painted as being controlled both personally and professionally (by whom? back room gnomes).

What is ignored is that the Liberals have exactly the same pressures.

So the powers to be (JG) have decided to try and make her more accessible (in the great unwashed's perspective), hence less scripting.

They figure that TA isn't as personally mentally agile as JG and that he will make bigger gaffs or leave himself open to claims of control...what is he hiding.

Personally, If I went to a Brain surgeon who sounded like TA I'd want to check his credentials VERY CAREFULLY. The last thing I want is someone like my neighbours running the country.

I disliked Turnbull's persona But I think he's got a better grasp of the benefit to the country than TA.
Side issue Watch 4 corners tonight then tell me how is TA going to stop the boat people with Indonesian corruption as it is? Clearly King Canute comes to mind.

Why not let the real Julia Gillard speak for herself?

She did so on 5 October 2009, here on OLO, while still at the time Deputy-Prime Minister. This is a link to her OLO Article 'Driven by indignation at injustice': http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9513 . I just searched for it on Google. Here is a Twitpic of the first page of the Google listing for the search term I used: http://twitpic.com/2atvpa

Julia Gillard's article attracted 106 comments over 18 OLO pages. This is a link to a post in that thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9513&page=0 . The whole thread is accessible just by scrolling therefrom. Viewers may think the responses to now be of more interest due to the fact that they were made outside of the context of an impending Federal election, and at a time when Julia was not the Parliamentary leader of the ALP.

I would have thought the challenge initially posed in that discussion provided an opportunity for Julia to demonstrate, in a non-politically partisan matter, her concerns as to injustice. More so now than ever, perhaps, as she has to answer to no one other than herself to set things in train.

Dear RObert,

It's extremely hard to find the person behind
the politician at the best of times, but
especially so - during an election campaign.

Who is this woman? What makes her tick?

Well, we all know of her previous incarnation
as deputy prime minister and also of the
succession of positions she's inhabited during
her 12 years in Federal Parliament. She's been
in our living rooms on and off for almost
a decade.

It's understandable that many people are undecided
about our PM. As the article in,
The Australian Woman's Weekly, August 2010,
points out, " Her life choices have rendered her
unrecognisable to a large majority of Australians
and the method by which she nabbed the prime
ministership has left many in the electorate uneasy.
So while we want to rejoice and while we want to
mark the moment and support, by celebrating her
promotion, first of all, we want to know just a
little bit more about her..."

I read the entire article in the Weekly and I must
confess that I was impressed with what I read.

I also tend to agree with the summation that the article
gives, " Julia is betting the house and its no less
impressive a pile than Parliament House - on a hunch
that Australians will be sufficiently untroubled by
her childlessness, her de-facto status and her past
relationships to focus solely on her performance
as a politician and her ability, as she puts it,
"to do the job."

I think that we've already learned a fair bit more
about her and her life, even in this short period
as prime minister. And as she tells us, "I
overwhelmingly think people will make decisions about
my capacity to be prime minister in the things I do
as prime minister, rather than any private life issues.
That comes with that practical Aussie sense."

We all know what Tony Abbott and Co stand for - we had
12 years of it and the record is there for all to
see and remember why we got rid of them.

While everyone is waxing lyrical about how mentally agile JG, perhaps they need to consider her opponent.

Qualifications and Occupation before entering Federal Parliament

BEc, LLB (Syd), MA (Oxon).

Rhodes Scholar.
Journalist.
Plant Manager, Pioneer Concrete.
Press secretary and political adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, Dr J.R. Hewson 1990-93.
Executive Director, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy 1993-94.

The last time I checked, Rhodes scholarships were not handed out to numb nuts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes, let's consider qualifications...

Rhodes Scholars?

Kim Beazley
Bob Hawke
Mike Fitzpatrick (footballer)
Malcolm Turnbull

To name just a few.

Then of course there's our current PM -
Julia Gillard:

Straight-A-high-school matriculation.
Law student at the University of Adelaide
President of the Australian Union of Students
Partnership at the age of 29 in the Melbourne
Law Firm of Slater and Gordon and then a
Member of the Australian Federal Parliament
by the age of 37.

She of course is not from a privileged
background. She's from a migrant background,
did not attend private schools, attended
public schools, worked hard, got good grades
and has gone on to become a stunning success.

Definitely not a numb nut!

cont'd ...

Seen on a sign outside a local Church:

"Tony Abbott should not wear budgie smugglers.
Not when his favorite hymn is:
"Holy, Holy, Holy!"

Foxy has to go down as THE most one-eyed, Labor propaganda swallowing, earnestly gullible pie baker I've ever seen.

I'm just relieved she's shown us an incite (wink) into how the "women's vote" is sought, and just how effective it is.

If only the lefty media didn't sabotage Abbott's attempts with the weekly by blowing the precious gift quotes out of all proportion.

We're all doomed.

Either way.

Foxy, that was the old Julia you read about. That Julia doesn't exist any more. You'll just have to wait and see how the new Julia portrays herself for the rest of the campaign. You know when you just wish you could start again and rub all your mistakes out and ask that girl out on a date all over again using a different sales pitch. Well, that's what she's doing.

She went for the flashy business exec with the hot car and bad boy tendencies and exciting hobbies, now she wants us to know the real her, the Julia that writes poetry and loves soulful walks along the beach, the tortured sensitive artist who just needs love.

I rename her Madonna. She just keeps reinventing herself! Or is it Stock Aitken Waterman.

SM,

That little piece of information is kept quiet for obvious reasons. The lefty 'elites' hate him because of his social conservatism and call him stupid even when they know he isn't. The 'punters' are less than impressed with smart people, they want 'common' sense and hate intellectuals.

Foxy,

No one has any doubt that JG is a smart cookie. However, Labor has been running its campaign as if TA was not. This has been a fatal error, as TA has also been a senior director and is familiar with surrounding himself with competent people, and in doing so has out manoeuvred JG at every turn.

I feel sorry for JG, as the Labor cabinet looks like a complete snake pit, and she is suffering from more attacks from within her own party than from the Liberals. A few more strategic leaks, and the election is lost.

Shadow Minister

If Abbot wins will you keep your name?

Dear Houellie,

Oh, go evolve!

Should I 'Move Forward' Foxy?

Julia Gillard's stocks shot up when she made apparently decisive announcements like the reduction in Rudd's over-the-top immigration for his 'Big Australia'. However she then showed that her promises were likely worthless and she was playing the electorate for jackass punters when she turned around with a wink to the elites and promised another talk fest instead.

Then there were the leaks suggesting that Julia could not be relied upon by the vulnerable such as the aged and young families to champion them even if votes might be lost. Her explanations were unconvincing.

Her affair? It was played with a side step and a flick pass back to the man and his ex-wife to answer. Weasel words instead of a strong and principled denial with dates to prove it. People are forgiving but no-one is sucked in by side-stepping, that just smells of possible hypocrisy. In her defence, maybe that is how some bureaucrats and lawyers habitually answer, but a leader must be forthright and frank, if she is to comment at all.

The public will react badly to Julia's present attempt to blame a fictitious whipping boy for scripting her campaign and presentations. However, a strong leader would take it on the chin and resolve to do better.

Julia's problem is that she doesn't seem to have a strong core to her being. She is coming across as ambitious and pragmatic, but sans a centre core of beliefs, ethics and principles. Maybe sans a centre core at all, just a stuffed blouse.

To be blunt, she looks like any other of the ambitious 'can do' unprincipled types that are always in abundant supply in the nation's capital. Now she may not be like any of that, but the only way of showing the difference is to stand up on her principles and be counted. Ahem, exactly what does she stand for again? Because that is different to the easy motherhood stuff - saying what she are opposed to, like 'injustice'.

Julia has to give reasons for people to vote for her.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Katharine Murphy wrote an interesting article
in, "The Age," Saturday, July 31st 2010,
"Insight" section, entitled, "Caught In A Trap."

Murphy tells us that, "Several people say the
current position is bad but it is not yet
diabolical - after all there is still time.
The crisis has not engulfed the party in the
final weeks... in the end, this campaign
will come down to what is happening off the
national narrative - to the mood of the voters in
the country's marginal seats. Mike Rann's victory
in South Australia shows leaders can prevail even
if campaigns veer wildly off script if the right
practice is being followed in marginal seats..."

So, I guess we'll have to wait and see what
happens. The difficulty seems to be as Anson
Cameron tells us in, "The Age," Saturday, July 31st,
2010, " Both major parties have moved into the
space of the other so willingly they have become
cojoined and if Labor lands a blow on Liberal
it is Chang slapping Eng, a Siamese squabble
as unsightly as self-flagellation. Product
differentiation has almost got beyond even
advertising's best liars ... airlines encountered
this problem years ago. They used identical
Boeings, and had to meet the same safety
requirements. They were in essence, the same.
So, how did an airline distinguish itself from
its competitors? "Singapore Girl...You're a great
way to fly. They highlighted the sexiness of their
front-of-house staff...The Liberals and Labor have
taken to doing the same, playing up their
front-of-house staff and ignoring the 767 in the
hangar. But politics is a dirtier game than air
travel and political parties go further than extolling
the beauty and serenity of their own hosties, they attack
the history and morality of their competitor's cart
tarts. The TV campaign is becoming an apocalyptic
catfight between a Singapore Girl and a Virgin."

If Australians are dumb enough to elect Tony Abbott as PM,
frankly they deserve him.

As for the intellect or experience of the combatants it is hardly relevant
when you consider those intellects are beholden too their respective masters.

Big money spin determines the agenda and the Australian Media are
embarrassing and disgraceful generally, and if you wanted an accurate picture of
what's going on, you wouldn't watch Carl Steph-anonothing and co anyway or any
other commercial alternative, particularly in the morning. I totally agree Poirot.

The damage they do to the social fabric is another matter.

The responses of the Herald Sun's readership to their daily loaded question
is surprising to me and seems as if we are either a nation of barbarians,
or the same people respond everyday to their question.

Julia Gillard is just the lesser of two evils for mine with Abbott at best
a volatile unknown quantity. He could be consulting with an ideological
crystal ball in a cupboard somewhere, for all we know.

I have just re-focussed on this because poling indicates that Abbott
has a chance of winning. This cant be happening!!.

The Govt has been disgraceful in it's handling of some things and has
succeeded at others, but their message is not resonating as they play
Abbott on his home ground, "the politics of dissent", his very game.

No doubt R0bert, Tony started it, Tony maintains it and Tony enjoys it
and thrives upon it.

It's what you wont do the counts, not what you will. So far it's a nil all draw,
and the idea is hope your opponent kicks an own goal. Yawn

thinker 2

Julia Gillard has to stand up and be counted on matters of principle and be a team player. She should be pushing her team forward so she doesn't appear to stand alone. Pushing the team makes it obvious that Tony Abbott hasn't got one, well not a very credible one when Julie, 'honest' Joe Hockey and others get going.

Julia is about to become the first ever elected woman prime minister of Australia.
She will owe some of her victory to
Tony Abbott he is unelectable.

Dear Houellie,

You ask:

"Should I 'Move forward,' Foxy?"

You'd have to evolve,
and run the risk of becoming extinct.

Julia Gillard has now decided to discard the ‘script’ provided by the ‘faceless men’ of the Labor party and go forth as the real JG. This indicates that she now has become her own women, injecting her ideas, her strengths, her style and her convictions in this election campaign. Does this mean that “I am a team player”, “I believe in negotiations and consensus…” are out? I find this puzzling! Wasn’t this what K Rudd was doing before he was so unceremoniously given the boot by Labour? That he wasn’t ‘sucking-up’ to some within the Party? What makes it OK for JG to practice that which she denied Rudd? I am utterly confused.

Foxy, I am loving your spirited, amusing defense of our Prime Minister!
I am with you on this one.

I am of the (unpopular) opinion that Julia Gillard is mainly vilified for being a female politician who dared to beat the boys at their own game.
It is mainly a gender issue, plain and simple.

Media men like Laurie Oakes only barely disguise the fact that they are appalled that this woman has got as far as she has.
With all the carrying on about opinion polls and the like, I am sure Labor would not be within a bulls roar of the Liberal party if Rudd was still at the helm.

Shadow Minister joyfully listed all of Abbott's educational achievements, and I am sure he is a smart boy.
However, I can't get past the fact he also studied to be a priest.

Someone who takes their religion that seriously will find it very hard to split his religious convictions and politics when making decisions.

Maybe that is the main reason why many people on this forum prefer this inarticulate man?

Foxy and Suze,

Got to say that I think I've regained a goodly portion of my political interest over the past few days. (I think runner's splendid thread might have helped it along, somehow) - 'tis a good thing as I was quite dispirited there for a while. I'm still fairly cynical as to the whole process - but it is what it is.
Let's hope that Julia can regain her mojo as I find it ever so slightly ludicrous that Tony might slide into the top job almost by default.

Here here Poirot!

I too was despairing of ever being interested in politics as it is now, but the current offering in the form of Abbott, has me despairing even more.

The 'real' Julia Gillard would be far more preferable to either the real or any other form of Tony Abbott.

We can only hope that eventually common sense will prevail, and Julia will be returned to be the Prime Minister.

Julia's this is the real me, football analogy positioning statement elicited a 'don't come the raw prawn' with the electorate reaction. I was a bit disappointed in this approach and people are questioning who is Julia and what have been seeing up until now.

One would have thought, even hoped for a millisecond, that the whole Rudd poll-driven media-spin approach fell flat on the electorate the first time around. Why on earth repeat the mistake!

Despite this stumble, Julia Gillard has what it takes to be PM but she needs to throw off the shackles of the polls and get about telling us what a Gillard led government is about and what they plan to do. The same applies to Mr Abbott.

I don't dislike Mr Abbott personally and have even defended him on some fronts, although I do not share his party's general aims or philosophy. Much of the politicking in this election is coming down to one-upmanship and bickering. How loud do the bells have to toll for the pollies to sit up and listen - are they that removed from reality.

The Greens IMO are the best option - they have from the beginning laid out their policies and there is no to-ing and fro-ing according to the changing winds. You either like what you see or you don't and the 'vision' is not limited to a three year term game plan.

So the decision on what party is better to govern us for the next 3 years has all come down to nothing but personalities - like some sort of reality TV programme.

Policies no longer matter it seems.

From what I can see, neither alternative has any vision beyond the next few months.

If Abbott wins and he pays off the "debt" (already due in 3 years regardless), stops the mining tax the looming refugee invasion armada plus various infrastructure programmes and abandons one parental leave plan for another - then what?? Nothing left to do?

Likewise for Labour.

Beyond the all the serious discussion about Julia's earlobes and Abbotts irrationality there's little else left to discuss.

No vision of what sort of future we are heading toward - let's just make it up as we go along.

This is a really vicious and hollow campaign (and I've seen a lot of them over the years). It's not surprising that most of the the debate is as phoney and full of contrived bluster as the candidates themselves.

We should be demanding more from all of them.

I'm surprised that so many reich-wingers have conveniently forgotten that Abbott was behind the jailing of their pin-up girl Pauline Hanson a few years ago.

As Howards former attack-dog he has plenty of bulls-eyes painted on him too and we may be reminded of them soon enough.

Abbott may have passed some exams long ago but Knowledge is not Wisdom.

Robert: <"Labor seems to be running the campaign around the leaders (making it a presidential style campaign) yet the leader only get's to stay leader while they have the confidence of the party room.">

Yes, as was recently demonstrated again hey.

Interesting though to read, "I'd seen an ALP add listing a bunch of things from the past that Abbott would bring back (regardless of him clearly saying he would not do so)...".

If we take the former and the latter (truths IMO) then what we have is an explanation for why campaign promises are rarely kept. Why we still all act surprised I don't know.

It would seem pretty clear that no matter what a leader promises the public, they individually seem to feel no obligation to keep those promises because in fact they CAN'T. If the party (and whoever inserts the real strength - eg: mining companies) disagrees - then the promise is effectively non-existent.

Yes it may well be very close seems the media wants it that way.
We all should be afraid of what we are not seeing in the media.
RObert is partly right it is a fight between leaders, Julia has the press against her.
If we focus on Abbott we ignore his party and its policy's.
The divisions in Australia can get very much worse and maybe will.
Remember Abbott's parental leave? funded by a tax on big firms? now it will be partly funded by pay as you earn tax payers and 12 months later than promised.
PAYE paying wages for very high income earners?
We are starting to see the real Abbott not before time.

Foxy,

I never said or even expected that the coalition could win, and the disintegration of the Labor campaign is as much due to Labor ineptitude and in fighting than brilliance on the part of Abbott. The playing field is now even.

The Coalition has differentiated itself very well on the economy, which Labor waste has handed on a plate, and shot itself in the foot on the boats and the climate.

Thinker2 - "If Australians are dumb enough to elect Tony Abbott as PM,
frankly they deserve him."

Personally, I don't think anyone is bad enough to deserve Labor.

Consider this.
When madam became Pm, labors popularity soured, but not because Julia (fake or real) took the helm, but because Krud (Mr waste) was gone.

Now that the voters have seen ‘the fake Julia’ (her words, not our’s) they obviously don’t like what they see. Or at least that’s how she sees it herself.

So, one must ask some serious questions about the two sides of Julia Gillard.

While in her role as #2, was she real, or fake?

While in charge of the schools rebuilding programme, was she real, or fake?

While objecting to both maternity leave and the pension increase, was she real or fake?

While making major changes to IR laws, was she real or fake?

Now think about this. If she was ‘real’, during these major policy changes, then that’s a huge worry ‘moving forward’, as the decisions made were her decisions, not those of others and, they have cost the tax payers billions.

Now remember, if elected, she will have the greatest say in the entire country, that’s if she remains ‘the real deal’, however, if she was ‘fake’, then that’s even more to worry about as the labor powerbrokers are still there in the background and will continue to drive the labor party and continue to waste billions we simply don’t have.

Now if the ‘real’ JG gets elected and governs ‘her way’, then isn’t that exactly what Krud did. My way or the highway, which by the way, is why he got the chop.

One can only assume that Krud 'was real' and that's why the labor powerbrokers cut him out.

So, what's in store for mandam PM 'moving forward' if she wants to be 'real' and not be a puppet to the labor powerbrokers.

Food for thought, hey!

Robert “watched an interview with Julia Gillard on the Today Show this morning where Julia was talking about how she is going to let the real Julia show through.”

Regarding “let the real Julia show through”

Reminds me a bit of what another lady politician said

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

If Julia need to reveal her real self, I ask myself this

Why has she needed to deceive the electorate about who she is so far?

Do you want to vote for a party lead by a prime minister who is a mere shallow front, like a poorly made paper mannequin?

If you do ...

Please do the rest of us a favour

spoil your vote

I'm afraid the Labor spin department thought it was necessary to give Julia the "election" treatment - a style and substance makeover. And being her first experience in her present position, she just went with the flow. I think she is regretting it now - time will tell...(well, not much time - hope she can pull it off).

(I was absently thinking to myself that Prime Minister Poirot has rather a nice ring to it...do you think I've left my run too late?)

I still cant believe you lot actually believe it was Gillard who decided to show the 'Real Gillard' and not the hollow men of Labor.

I'll let you all in on a secret; There is no Real Gillard. Well, certainly not to those who don't know her personally. Same with Abbott.

Look at the Monkey, Look at the silly monkey! You've all fallen for it so easily.

The spin masters have changed the channel and you lot think you have the remote. That's the most depressing thing!

... and so the Great Moral Challenge of our time will have to wait for some time in the future. Now, anyone interested in a cigarette Tax?

... leaks, disunity, incompetence, dog whistling, Nauru whoops East Timor. Hey look over here! No look over here now! THIS is Julia, forget about all that! The Real New Julia. Moving Forward. [Hey look another leak] NO! No come on don't look over there, here is a shiny new Julia!

Are you sitting on a horse Houlley. Give us all a bit of credit - we might pontificate to your disatisfaction but clearly comments so far reveal we are sick of the hype.

PM Poirot does have a nice ring to it. The seat of Griffith may be coming up for a bi-election pretty soon if you are a QLD'er.

Dear Suze, Poirot, Pelly, and others,

The next few weeks are going to be interesting.
It appears that many people may
change their views, and that public opinion
appears to be in a state of flux. I'm beginning
to think that an assessment of public opinion is
valid only for the time and place in which it
was made. Let's face it - opinions are not formed
in a vacuum; people don't necessarily get their
opinions directly from media sources. Information
and viewpoints are sifted through other people,
particularly family, friends, workmates and so on.

People are also influenced by "opinion leaders,"
people who spend greater time studying the issues,
form definite opinions about it, and interpret
the issues for others. Of course if opinions appear
to be swinging in one direction, some people
(particularly those who were previously undecided or
who had no very strong commitment to the other side) tend
to change their viewpoints. I guess that's why commercial
advertisers often stress an "everybody's doing it,"
theme and why we're seeing both Tony Abbott and Julia
Gillard trying to build that vital "momentum" in the
remaining weeks of the campaign.

As I've stated previously, for me, Tony Abbott and Co.
would be a return to the Howard past. And that's not an
Australia that I want to see returned. The Liberal slogan for
this campaign ,"Real Action," to me means cuts in
things that make our lives easier, like health, education,
medicine, infrastructure, and much, much more.
I've been accused
of being "one -eyed," well that's better than leaving
no room for social equity, compassion, or the idea of
an egalitarian society. When they scream about "save,
save, save," we need to ask - at whose expense?

pelican,

The hype is a means to an end. You lot are arguing the veracity of the claims about real Julia, when the announcement of the tactic is the tactic. You're all jumping and asking what does this mean, or lauding that you're 'onto them', but really they are pulling the strings to make you 'onto them' about something trivial so you wont be 'onto them' about anything important.

The subject needed to be changed, as the government is losing the campaign. Why do you think Gillard didn't more subtly change tactics? She would then appear less fake and less calculated in showing the real Julia. But, the announcement of all this has a definite purpose (to change the subject from the leaks etc and to somehow validate and announce the negative campaigning against Abbott) and I think people have missed that.

Dear Julia, having paid our taxes we trust our government to invest our hard earned contributions fairly and equitably for the future of all Australians. I can accept and live with ideological differences between governments and I fully accept the differing political priorities applied to the major portfolios.

All I ask of any government is to demonstrate the same fiscal probity in spending our taxes as we taxpayers had to endure to earn them.

Under the Hawk/Keating government we ran up a debt of $92bn, which made me sad because I knew we would all contribute to paying this off, and under Howard that’s exactly what we did along with leaving $20bn in the bank. This made me feel good because I knew this was a solid achievement by all Australians.

We have already spent the $20bn cash on hand and are now racking up debt at a rate of $100m a day.

Unfortunately we cannot find the business cases for the “reforms” in which you have invested. It’s good that when asked, “You are entirely satisfied” that there is a return on Australia’s investment and tell us about the social equity benefits.

You have started so many initiatives yet failed to deliver. Health reform is suspension, along with mining tax, border security, ETS, super clinics, NBN, Henry Tax Review, home insulation, BER, green certification, stop the blame game, whaling litigation, indigenous housing, hybrid cars, green jobs, child care “double drop offs”, trade centers and many more initiatives. You ask us to believe that all these incomplete policies will have positive impacts on our economy and will ensure a return to surplus by 2013?

This leaves us with no fiscal justification, only the social equity benefits which you articulate often, particularly when asked for the missing business cases. We can only hope that we get a great deal of “bang” from the ALP ideology for our $100,000,000.00 a day.

The ear lobes are fine, your magazine picture is good and I have no problem with Tim, now will the real Julia please tell us about the economy

Foxy,
You state "Real Action," to me means cuts in
things that make our lives easier, like health, education,
medicine, infrastructure, and much, much more."

Comon, you are spruking nothing more than Labor propaganda. Where has been infastructure under Labor? Unless you mean the massive expansion of facilities at Christmas Island! the other things you mantion are all state responsibilities and our state Labor government have shown their incompedence on these issues.

Where is the compassion for illegal entrants? When 170 have drowned in the past 2 years under Labor.

Don't forget the Libs paid off a massive Labor debt when they came to office and left with billions in surplus. Labor has blown all that and much, much more, with nothing to show for it. No infastructure and no projects that were done in a compedent manner.

No, working and taxpaying people cannot afford another term under Labor.

Gillard has shown herself to be a fake, hollow and a liar, who will say anything and do anything to get elected.

Houlley
We can all make judgements about strategy and tactics to the point where it is difficult to distinguish the real from the manufactured.

If this was a strategy from the hollowmen it fell flat from the moment it was announced. Personally I think it was a desperation tactic in response to polls with little thought to the only inevitable response. If you are going to detract from one negative don't issue a statement that creates a worse negative.

Why not just be real from the beginning - we are all getting sick of media-driven policy.

The response is so inevitable I think it validates my claim.

Hey pelican I don't condone it. I just work within the reality. I'm all for luxuriating in our idiocracy. I've transcended any objections I once had to this media game.

I just wish polling companies would ring me more often as it's the closest thing to democracy we have. Those pollies jump and jive at every poll, so being called up by Galaxy is much better than voting. Only thing is you can only change the spin but not the policies whatever you do, so you might as well sit back and enjoy the entertainment.

Come'on, you chattering classes love all these games. Look at Foxy with her heroes and villains and simple slogans. I think those hollow men are underrated, what would we talk about on OLO if it weren't for the slapstick like this.

Then again maybe HasBeen can ask us all what our favourite colours are...

BTW: Have you seen 'The thick of it'. I think you'd like it.

Houellebecq,

I like the way you separate yourself from the milieu - "you chattering classes". However, I have to agree to a certain extent on the "slapstick" aspect. It is like a circus or carnival...all the fun of the fair, with the media as ringmaster.

Ah it's not so hard poirot. You yourself had separated from the milieu as you stated earlier, but then felt compelled to join in now the election is becoming much more fun. 'Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in!'

What separates me is that I make no allusions about any earnest desire for the commentariat, the politicians or the electorate to rise above this game of spin. It's a wonderful tri-dependency, full of beautiful human frailty. A continuous spiral to the bottom devoid of authenticity, progress or ideal. The election campaign evokes images of a really fat bastard eating a tub of ice cream watching the biggest loser and laughing at the contestants. What could be more fulfilling.

BTW: 'you chattering classes' was as in... pelican, and pelican knows full well why I use chattering classes. She's a Chardonnay sipper from way back. An elite in an ivory tower!

So what do we call the Julia?

Julia 2.0?

Julia Lite?

Vintage Julia?

Original Julia (as opposed to: Hot and spicy Julia)?

Want fries with that?

I always favoured Baron Julia (Latin baro meaning "free [wo]man, or free warrior).

It has the 'red' connotations (hair and socialist past), it rhymes so well with Barren Julia, it's perfect!

Houellebecq,
(I can now spell your name accurately without referring to notes - who's idea was the curious arrangement of e's?)

"It's a wonderful tri-dependency, full of beautiful human frailty. A continuous spiral to the bottom devoid of authenticity, progress or ideal."
I like that - indeedy I do.

I love it when you play Houlley. Chattering classes - love that little gem which is trotted out from time to time to detract from debate, as though the middle class by virtue of ordinary status is ineligible to make comment about social justice.

Hate to disillusion you but compared to many others in the world we are all elites chattering from ivory towers including - dare I suggest it....you.

We worry about media spin which is annoying while others live with famine and military juntas. Take a deep breath...it is okay to wish for improvement to another's lot even if it is from ivory towers. It is also okay to wish for better democracy which is not served by the current charade.

Now to food and drink. A drop of Chardonnay among elites is not a bad thing to get the juices flowing but why stop there...why not add a few other bourgeoise cliches like brie cheese a stilton with a side of quince paste and a sticky date pudding with a rasberry jus.

I am quite happy with my simple lot and tend to live by my own rules (sometimes to my detriment but so be it).

Folks

The clear issue is staring you in the face yet no one is seeing it.

Once we vote in a party we are stuck with it for the duration i.e. NSW Labor. I feel sorry for the premier she has inherited a mess which she can't fix.

However, the public can change a PM and therefore direction i.e. Rudd and Turnbull. Logic dictates that if the PM is unpopular with the people enough to worry the party it won't win the next election instant Head change.

This BS about Rudd being voted for is tripe or should be.
his and to a lesser degree Turnbull's demise is clear proof that if the public become unhappy enough they can shift the policy.
I see Rudd's removal evidence of public feedback. No backroom gnome in either party would rock a successful boat.
In NSW the case is the problem is that the problems are now systemic 'backside covering'.

I repeat no Head can assume longevity is their right.

The mistake you make pontificator is that you think the head matters.

pelican,

' brie cheese a stilton with a side of quince paste and a sticky date pudding with a rasberry jus. '

I bow to your obvious knowledge of such things, representing as I do a bogan cultural cringe to elites such as your good self.

Oooh I love jus! Well played! I cant look at a menu at all these days without the word jus giving me a chuckle (you'd be surprised given some of the places I frequent!). Not as much of a chuckle as the protestations in your post though. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

You are a Chardonnayist Houlley.

Raspberry jus
Raspberry jus
Raspberry jus
Raspberry jus

:P

Aaaah that feels better. One has to let out the inner child occasionally.

Hooooly,
You missed the point comprehensively.
For some thing that doesn't matter, the head of government (PM), doesn't matter, an aweful lot of energy is being taken up examining her in extraordinary minutia and irrelevance.

I have said several times that I vote for policy directions...the detail often by circumstances differs in government.

Life and politics aren't black or white. It is for that reason I distrust any system that is weighted that way and then dwells on the above minutia/irrelevancies to manipulate the population.

Notwithstanding if we vote for a policy, theoretically the the leader determines the strategies. If those strategies are not what the people want then the leader is replaced (this is the way it works in business) the board still remains untill the election plus or minus specific executive failures (forced resignations)

Let us have two more Julia,,, the words of Tony Abbott to Julia at the end of the so called debate.
Not now however Tony has fears he fears we may see the real Abbott not the fake on display.

Belly of course there is nothing cynical about all that is there?

A genuine request for a debate at a mutually suitable time rejected by Tony just because he is afraid to face Julia.

Nothing to do with prior commitments or anything like that.

Both sides are running cynical dirty campaign's, to champion the spin is less than I'd expect of you.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Prior commitments?

Come on RObert, what could be more important
a few weeks before an election that would
make a contender for the top job -
turn down the opportunity he's been asking
for all along, unless he is totally
unprepared to discuss the big issues (like the
economy) and doesn't want to be made to look
like a dufus. At least he's got the sense not
to risk it. But it would be wise if he'd get
rid of his slogan, "Real Action," and replace it
with something more appropriate. I'm sure OLO
posters could come up with something...

Foxy Julia turned down requests for extra debates earlier in the campaign. Labor's interest in a second debate has only come after a slump in the polls. It's my understanding that the prior commitment is a campaign launch, hardly a trivial item and one that would require booking's, travel plans for a lot of people etc.

The Lib's could propose another time but they are playing politics with that.

The whole thing is a sham from both side's. I'm surprised that you are letting your dislike of Abbott blind you to the game Labor are playing.

Don't you wish for a campaign that was more about real vision rather than ugly pictures of opponents and big stamps (and both seem to be running add's that fit that description).

R0bert

Yes, but which Julia wanted the date? If it was the 'other woman' Julia, tell her that Margaret has already warned Tony off.

Oops, it's election time and we're not supposed to laugh, but I have this cartoon image of Julia waiting around the corner while Margaret is nailing the house doors shut to keep Tony inside (chafing at the bit in his best Speedos). [caption needed]

Either that or a political handler restraining the Libs' excitable attack dog with the *ugly mug and ears back from the inviting ginger-haired Corgi, now in season, but too late. [Suggested caption, "No way, the stud fees are MUCH higher now"]

Well I for one am waiting to see the "real Abbott" slip off his leash again.

He's being tightly controlled by his own faceless power-brokers and factional leaders (yes the Libs have them too, make no mistake).

I think he almost lost it earlier today with some journos but it's only a matter of time before he says something inappropriate or inflammatory. That's why he's avoiding another debate and resorting to hollow posturing.

Once a political thug, always a political thug.

Where's Barnaby and Wilson? Except for QandA last night Barnaby's been kept away from the media. Maybe he can't be trusted to follow the script.

Blind freddie can see that julia needs something as it appears she is loosing the un-looseable.

I would like to see another debate, mid week would be fine and with todays tec it could be done in conference style.

Q1. While you say you are now the 'real julia' can you guarantee you won't switch between the 'real' or 'fake' julia?

Q2. While you oppossed both the parental leave and increase in the pension, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Q3. While you approved and oversaw the wastefull school halls programe, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Q4. When you dumped you leader, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Now if you were 'real', then that's a worry, however, if you were 'fake', then that's also a worry.

Moving forward, I would suggest the 'real' julia won't listen to the labor power brokers, which, by the way was the demise of Krudd.

Finnally, a debate about the economy should be between the treasurer and his shadow treasurer, don't you think?

ah rechtub you seem to have an insight into blind Freddy's movements, a close relation by any chance?

Dear RObert,

We've got to maintain our sense of humour.
Cornflower's right. And of course both
sides are trying to present themselves
as being more ethical than the other guys.
This is an election campaign after all.
(Putting the HIP back into Hypocrisy!)

Anyway, we can argue until we're blue in the
face on this Forum, Australia will decide
who's going to be our next PM. Fingers
crossed that the voters will get it right.

As for my so called dislike of Tony Abbott.
I don't dislike the man. I simply don't want
him as PM. Now, Malcolm Turnbull, would be
a different story.

Foxy,

For all of his academic accomplishments Tony is a very small man, as evidenced by his early whistle blowing on people on disability pensions and work for the dole. A typical Liberal Tory and never a real conservative - who would have some concern about the disadvantaged - Tony's social Darwinism and reverse envy require that the poor be kept in their rightful place. His Roman Catholicism would applaud that thinking as well.

Unfortunately Turnbull isn't much different from Abbott, he just dresses better, physically and verbally. Turnbull is the archtypal smug city Liberal, the sort of smooth, rapid talking spiv that farmers always warned their sons about before they went to town. Turnbull would have his arm around you while he had someone else reach into your handbag - no way he would do his own dirty business.

Turnbull is clever enough to espouse concern about the environment while using it as a ploy to win his ultimate prize of privatising water to make a profit from it. Faux concern for sustainability become more expensive water to 'conserve' it. Faux concern for population becomes a glib assurance that better transport can fix anything and the States are at fault. Turnbull and his mates at his club would have a deal there too, just like Arthur Daly (Minder TV series), but with all of the contacts with the 'knobs' that Arthur never had.

Julia's problem is that she is hollow, an eggshell. She needs to define success other than by the material things she did not have as a child. Listening to Julia you get the distinct impression that she is only half-convinced that the less well off in society deserve any support. She has a lot of growing up to do, which is not always possible for a product of a law faculty. Perhaps like Mal Fraser she might one day actually to come realise that the vulnerable in society are not necessarily in that predicament through their own doing, that is, from sabotaging their own chances in life.

Are these the best people available, why so?

Cornflower,

Sadly I think there is much truth in what you say.
I can only rephrase what I have said before. It's the system that attracts these types.

Real leadership skills, competence etc are all optional traits.
The prerequisite are the ones we see all the time.

I can only repeat that politics like prostitution are the only professions that don't require specific teachable skills.
TO the system of party politics the way it's run is so flawed that it borders on dysfunctional for task it was designed to do.

examinator, "It's the system that attracts these types."

Politicians are regarded poorly by the electorate and that negative opinion seems to be reinforced by regular reports of bad behaviour by politicians.

I reckon you are spot on the money (it's the system) as far as many voters are concerned. They would attribute the poor standing of politicians on scales of honesty, ethics, principle, frankness and so on, to the political environment in which politicians exist. That was clumsy wording, but you and others would catch my drift. As usual I only have time to draft, without ruminating and forget the edits.

Now if politicians would agree that it is the 'system' not necessarily them (they would!), there is a 'fix' which is to go the way the Brits have gone and have formal structures in place to ensure corruption, fraud, porkies and so on are subjected to scrutiny. Plainly parliament is not always up to the task because it is 'their' club and political parties protect their own.

If you are also referring to the processes of pre-selection that cannot be relied upon to deliver the better candidates available, I would suggest wiping out a tier of government, putting a limit on the overall number of federal ministers and paying ministers very handsomely for their work. Raise the pay for ordinary members too and bring their superannuation and post-separation benefits into line with community standards (a slight trade-off for productivity, fellas).

It seems to me that we don't pay enough for the life experience, skills and accountability we expect and we are getting professional politicians who have come almost direct from university and student politics - with limited life experience, limited accomplishments in life and limited personal strength, character and ethics. No wonder they are so easily influenced and random.

Dear Corflower,

I agree with much of what you've posted.
However, for me there doesn't seem to
be much of a choice. I don't want Tony
Abbott as PM so the only alternative
that I can see is Julia Gillard.

Belly >>>ah rechtub you seem to have an insight into blind Freddy's movements, a close relation by any chance?

What's this, no 'labor by increased majority' this time.

What's up old mate, lost your confidence!

Foxy

It is not about the leaders. The machine men and media would have it that way because images/stereotypes are easier to mount or demolish. It is about the most suitable team and policies to govern.

Objectively, I would find it hard to make a business case for swapping the team at the top at the present time. The biggest problem, the GFC, was handled well and that was resource intensive for all of the management group (ie ministers). Then there was the deliberate blocking, obstructionism and general time wasting by the Senate. The government should be given another term to adjust and implement its program - not only because of the GFC, but realistically, what government can actually get much of what its platform on the ground in one term?

My other argument is that the opposition's team of shadow ministers is not yet anywhere near adequate to the task of taking over and they could drop the ball. That set-back would be very unfortunate at the present time when the GFC is not yet over and Australia has other balls in the air. Just put some of the shadow ministers into their portfolios for a test, for example, Joe Hockey. That is a joke, right?

There are criticisms of the government's performance and fair enough too, although it did get some blame that was more down to well-known systemic corruption in the building industry.

However if I was talking about the management team for a major enterprise I would be very firm that the present team achieved their most critical task admirably well and no doubt learned from their lesser, mainly administrative, mistakes.

Should I shelve all of that expertise and hard-won learning for a completely different, untried team? Hell no, that just doesn't make sense. I'd probably be ushering off the opposing team with an admonition to turn their attention to developing a realistic alternative, not just a cobbled together mish-mash of old and new hopefuls who haven't really done anything to present a viable option.

Dear Cornflower,

I fully agree with everything you've said.
You've said it much better than I could have.
The current government certainly deserves
another term in office. No argument from me.

That is quite persuasive cornflower.

But I cant resist penalising the government. I have a new policy of voting out all governments after 1 term. I think it's the only way we as a populace can gain some respect.

Also, you may not live in NSW, but I feel federal Labor are showing the signs that NSW voters are kicking themselves they didn't see in NSW Labor before it's too late. You really have to nip these shenanigans in the bud.

I think, regardless of the alternitive, and the waste, Federal Labor needs a term on the sidelines.

The depth of talent in the two parties is at a low, and the only way to build depth is to give all the players more match time. Otherwise you will have another arrogant incumbent government and shambles opposition for 10 years like we did when the rodent was in power.

Dear Houellie,

Why not have mini-nations instead of states; a
continent without federal parliament, without
social welfare, public health or education, without
any co-ordination of trade or economic policies.
Give business the right to get whatever it wants.
After all that's the New Right vision for a future
Australia. It sounds like that's what you believe.

I don't. Neither, thankfully, does the current PM.

'It sounds like that's what you believe'

How did you get that? I'm intrigued.

Dear Houellie,

From your previous post.
I simply took a page out of your
book. If you can't dazzle them
with brilliance, baffle them with BS!

So do we now have the 'fake' Kevin Rudd, or the 'real one'.

Remember, the real one got the chop!

Or was that the 'fake' one? I'm confussed!

I really think JG and the labor party have lost the plot and they should be counting thier lucky stars that the libs don't have a leader in the likes of John Howard or Peter Costello, as it would simply be 'game over'!

As I say, labor are odds on to loose the un-loosable.

Dear rehctub,

What's so winnable about the Libs?
They're trying to win on "More slogans,
less ideas!" And who but the numb nuts
are going to buy into that.

Do you really know what Tony Abbott stands for?
He's said so many things in the past and now
he's done an about face on all of them.
Who's the real Tony Abbott? And as for John
Howard's legacy? Please... Racist with dignity!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10661

Foxy,

Well said in context of current thread.

Personally, I wonder at the 'numb nuts' mentality to not being able to recognise that the "real JG" was in a both a metaphorical sense and a declaration to be straight forward (i.e. more simplistic).

I think it is a indictment of Australian society that a significant number numb nut either use this prefabricated banal argument to avoid real discussion on substance.

These same numb nuts are lead by the media who thrive on sensation and extremes are saying this is a dull election , devoid of differences. The notion is preposterous, an excuse to avoid actual effort. And they call themselves patriots... what a joke.
Self-centred, lazy probably, but true blue Aussies good grief

Dear Examinator,

It is rather disheartening, especially
when I read the local newspapers.
I can't believe that the issue of the
"boat people," has become an election issue.

In 2000-01, several conservative politicians
used the issue of the "boat people" (many of whom
are Muslim) to advance their political fortune.
This issue was widely debated and discussed, and the
Federal Government, sensing the unease within the
Australian community about "boat people" and "asylum
seekers," followed a hardline policy.

This, despite the fact that the refugee problem
Australia faces is very small compared with that of
other developed countries. According to statistics
issued by the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) the total number of
people arriving in Australia was negligible. Yet
in the rhetoric over the "boat people", they were
demonised as "queue jumpers" (there is no queue) or
as potential terrorists, and in the most bizarre
case were even accused of throwing their children
into the sea (children overboard - scandal - which
turned out to be a lie). The fuelling of hatred against
these boat people continues even today and is believed
in certain sections of the Australian community.

And, that's only one issue that troubles me.
The others are - the Liberals are using this campaign
to prey on people's fears and to redeem the name of
John Howard's legacy and the "injustice" perpetrated
upon him at the last election. Nothing will help us all
if these people get elected. Even the prominent
former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, has made
it quite clear that the current Liberal Party, if elected
would be a major disaster for the nation.

Do we want a George W. Bush clone, who follows
the dictates of the Vatican, to be PM of this country?

Ah but Foxy,

Your Joooolia is dog whistling better than the Rodent ever could on boat people. She's all but endorsed the rodents offshore processing policies too by virtue of her own policies.

'the Liberals are using this campaign
to prey on people's fears'
Quelle horror! Both parties are, and every other party in election mode over the last 1000 years. You really are the most one-eyed Labor supporter I have ever seen.

Hey what football team do you support. I bet your team is robbed by the ref every week.

'Malcolm Fraser, has made
it quite clear that the current Liberal Party, if elected
would be a major disaster for the nation.'

What was the quote Foxy, Come'on. 'Major disaster'? Really?

"Read my book." was the quote that stuck with me. Shameless little self-promoter.

Dear Houellie,

Here's the entire article of what
Malcolm Fraser actually said and why.
Taken in context, he wasn't promoting his book
as you imply. He's actually made those comments
previously in other articles, prior to his book
being published.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/.../liberals-not-ready-to-govern-malcolm-fraser.../story-fn59niix-1225902025333

I'm sorry Foxy, I still cant find the words 'Major Disaster'.

Dear Houellie,

Oh dear, cherry-picking on semantics.
Re-read the article, use google,
and your comprehension skills, and
eventually, hopefully you'll get
what Malcolm Fraser is trying to say,
and why.

I only cherry-pick dishonest hyperbole Foxy.

BTW What do you think of Joooolia's boat people strategy?

PS: When it comes to the motivation, I put Malcolm Fraser in the same basket as Mark Latham.

I must say you're in fine form today, Houllie.

...and in the interests of keeping the thread on track, I'll comment on Julia's boat people strategy...What is Julia's boat people strategy? I haven't followed it since East Timor decided not to come to the party.

That was the fake Julia's policy.

I've forgotten everything that's happened before the Real Julia started speaking. I'm moving forward.

Dear Houellie,

You only cherry-pick dishonest hyperbole?
Do tell.
Coming from you that's funny.

There are a lot of Clayton's policies being flung about at the moment - it is hard to know when the next version will surface based on spin-meister's perceptions of public perceptions.

Abbott's various parental leave permutations leave one worrying about his reactive policy strategy as well, it seems to be infectious and not a lot of leading with the nose. Who will win the prize for the most pork barrelling - so far Abbott's overly generous parental leave wins hands down but Julia's kowtowing to the Christian lobby on school chaplaincy has to come a close second.

At least mental health might finally get a look in now that it has been deemed important enough to throw into the mix, however past experiences show promises don't always mean policies.

Perhaps governments should enter into 'Electoral Agreements' when they put forward policies to ensure under a democratic system they adhere to the voters wishes which also includes not introducing new policies not presented to the electorate pre-election unless of course it relates to changing global pressures such as threat of war, financial crises etc.

Abbott's parental leave policy is purely an instrument for Abbott to try to repair his image with female voters. He doesn't believe in it nor does his party, but they accept his tactic for now.

If they were to get elected it will be watered down to within an inch of it's life, or the ol' we didn't know the state of the books excuse will be used to drop it.

The nationals are especially spewing as they like the woman at home on the farm, who gets jack sh1t compared to the city career woman.

The nationals are especially spewing as they like the woman at home on the farm, who gets jack sh1t compared to the city career woman.[Houellebecq]

Really? Strange and ridiculous statement Houellebecq. The Nationals 'liking' a woman at home on the farm, who gets jack crap compared to the city career woman? All the women I associate with on farms [both large and small hobby farms] work in town travelling up to an hour, to support their families and self. Keep stirring the pot; I rest my point in token feminism LOL!

Nationals MP Darren Chester says there should be more support for stay-at-home mums.

"I believe we need to be doing a lot more to recognise the important role that mothers who chose to stay at home do, and the debate around paid parental leave runs the risk of alienating them," said the MP for the Victorian seat of Gippsland. "It's critical that we recognise the shortage of childcare places in regional areas . . . My support for the Coalition scheme will be contingent upon specific programs for regional mums, including those who stay at home."

How many farm moms are on $150k a year in order to get the $75000?

So because you know women on farms that don't stay home with their kids there are no stay at home mums in regional areas?

Back to the topic of this thread...

Did anyone see Julia Gillard on "Q and A,"
last night?

There were so many positive comments about
the PM and her responses to the tough questions
asked, both from the mixed audience, and on
Twitter, during the program.

Tony Abbott will appear on the program next week.
It should be interesting to see how he responds.

You are a wonderful propagandist Foxy. I cant praise you enough.

What exactly is a 'mixed audience'? Mix of different races?

Did Julia answer any questions about her far-right boat people policies. Has she learned the difference between Nauru and East Timor for instance, and is she determined to consult the East Timorese government in future before making commitments on their behalf?

Why, when Nauru is by all reports very interested in being an offshore processing centre is she bullying a reluctant East Timor? How does she see her policy as any better than John Winston Howards policy that her party criticised?

Dear Houellie,

I must apologise if I appear to be
coming across as a "propagandist"
for Labor. I'm actually simply
anti - the current Liberal Leadership
and its Front Bench.

My family, by the
way has voted Liberal for most of their
lives. I'm the "black sheep" in the
family.

You ask -
What's a "mixed audience?"
That's a term that Tony Jones (moderator of "Q and A")
used, meaning an audience of various political
persuasions. A mixture of pro Libs, and pro Labs.

To answer your other question,
Julia did explain her reasons for not choosing
Nauru - at present.
They're not a signatory to the
Refugee Convention, and she also stated that if
they were willing to become a signatory, which
apparently takes time to do, she would consider
them. Apparently Timor, is only one possibility
that's being looked at. Nauru is also a possible
future option.

It's a shame that you didn't see the program. Julia
answered all the questions, rather fairly and squarely,
I thought. And as I wrote in my previous post, it will
be interesting to see how Tony Abbott will respond next
week. Who knows, he may surprise us all?
We'll have to wait and see. I'm actually looking forward
to it!