Suze

I agree that Abbott seems to have problems with abortion and stem-sell research and that this seems to reflect his religious beliefs, rather than his gender.

I have-not noticed any rudeness towards female interviewers, but I might, now that you have pointed out that this perception exists. He just seems to be a very intense guy, who might have trouble letting others take their turn when he has something to say.

Having finished Graham's survey, earlier today, and now watching the 7.30 Report, I'm congratulating myself on my foresight. My comment on this thread on the 2nd cut no mustard, predictably--an indication, actually, that I'm right on the money--but I see the ABC is in-tune.

Squeers, I didn't see the 730 report tonight, but having looked back on the comment you gave on the 2nd, I remember thinking that Howard certainly got his way with various acts of parliament, such as the marriage act, when he was Prime Minister.

I see no point in having a Prime Minister if it is not eventually up to them to have the last say on most issues?
I realise that most discussions and disputes would have to be decided by a vote from the members of parliament, but surely any Prime Minister would be able to sway things his/her way if need be, given that the majority of their party voted them into that position?

I am honestly worried that a bloke like Abbott would try extremely hard at least to get his own way. I would rather have almost anyone else as Prime Minister...

squeers:"more the Labor electorate"

oh, you lilltle elitist you. "If only they could see as clearly as me".

LOL

As to the "accomplishments", what has any of it to do with the actions of the Gillard govt, even if I accept any of them as accomplishments worth the name in the first place? What have any of them achieved for the well-being of people who don't work in either government or mining?

In the last quarter, 100,000 people got jobs in either health and social services or education. Few of them were either doctors or teachers. Nearly all were women.

At the same time, nearly 30000 people lost their jobs in manufacturing and construction. Nearly all were men.

This Government has made a big effort to encourage the streaming of boys into trades, to do jobs that simply disappear. At the same time, it has made a major effort to encourage the streaming of girls into tertiary study, and it turns out that the only jobs they can do have to be funded by govt.

Frankly, this mob couldn;t run the local CWA cake stall.

suzeonline,
I agree that Abbott would be about the worst choice as leader, but I don't thinker the leaders of party's have much say unless they have a commanding position in the poles. Even then, there first consideration is the next election, especially with three year terms, and they tailor their policy-gruel according to the findings of their research wings. This is why there's no qualitative distinction between the major parties, and that's what 7.30 was on about last night.

Anti,
I'm just as critical of Labor as I am of the traditional conservatives. Ideologically I'm a Socialist/Labor voter. That Labor party is extinct.
The rest of your post is just more of what looks like your usual misogyny. Even if you could establish that men are losing their jobs while women keep theirs, you surely don't think it's deliberate, or that there's a government plot to overthrow the male order (I'd vote for that!)?

Whoever wins we're going to get more of the same populist policies.

squeers:"you surely don't think it's deliberate"

No, it's an obvious problem that is being ignored because of a blind adherence to ideology, along with the pragmatic wish to increase GDP through taxing work that wasn't previously taxable.

It nevertheless exists. Do you think that every failure of Government policy has to be deliberate to be regarded as bad? How peculiar.

Tell me, what is good about a social arrangement in which the women go to work and the men stay home?