Foxy how effective Gillard was at pushing her agenda vs the treatment she received being unprecedented or somehow out of what is a pretty horrible ordinary are very different things.

Clearly we disagree strongly on the latter and I suspect some disagreement on how much we liked some of that agenda.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Perhaps the following links may help:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-03/dunlop-the-imagined-failings-of-gillard/3985592

And -

http://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-hits-back-at-a-long-history-of-sexism-in-parliament-10071

And -

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-gender-agenda-gillard-and-the-politics-of-sexism-20120225-1tv7n.html

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australian-women

For some perspective of the Gillard (and Labor vs Coalition generally) economic performance, consider this comparison -

1983 – The Coalition under Malcolm Fraser with John Howard as Treasurer hand over to Labor an economy ranked 20th in the world

1984 – Paul Keating wins Euromoney’s Finance Minister of the Year
1996 – Paul Keating and Labor hand over to the Coalition an economy now ranked 6th in the world

2007 – John Howard and the Coalition hand back an economy to Labor that had slipped down to 9th place in the world

2011 – Wayne Swan wins Euromoney’s Finance Minister of the Year
2013 – Labor under Rudd/Gillard hand over to the Coalition the best performing economy in the world, boasting AAA credit ratings after navigating Australia through the GFC.

2017 – The Coalition under Turnbull/Abbott have presided over an economy that slipped back down to 18th in the world, although I think we've since crept back up to about 11th, mainly due to additional infrastructure spending because of increased population growth.

Hi Foxy,
Thanks for posting the links in your last comment.
I saw your earlier comment on this thread on Saturday, 7 July 2018 3:15:14 PM but choose not to respond at that time, but now that I see where you got your info to base your comments / arguments I will.

I looked at the first 2 links, came to the conclusion it wasn't news but the opinions of idiots; here's why:

1. They are both opinion pieces; not news do you realise the difference?
2. You quoted this earlier - "Anyone who brought up his "non-core promises", his selling of the Iraq War on the basis of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, his and his ministers' knowledge of matters to do with the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein, or his appalling behaviour regarding the children overboard affair, was liable to be treated to chapter and verse about about how such complaints were the sort of thing that only concerned 'Howard haters'."

Just want to point something out
'Selling of the Iraq war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction...'
- So Saddam was a good guy? Then this;
'his and his ministers' knowledge of matters to do with the AWB's dealings with the same Hussein...'
So Saddam's a bad guy now?

These two issues are incongruent; they don't fit together...
Putting them together in the same sentence makes me imagine a person with Downe Syndrome uncontrollably headbutting a brick wall.
Senseless.

3. Next article, Cheryl Kernot.
Same stupid retards logic.
"Thus we get no reference to unbridled Lady Macbeth ambition when Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews pull a leadership challenge on Malcolm Turnbull (defeating him by one vote), or Kevin Rudd on Kim Beazley, or Paul Keating on Bob Hawke (a sitting Prime Minister), or Alexander Downer on John Hewson. That’s just political business as usual. No problem with legitimacy in any of these examples."

??

She's saying there's no equality because nobody called those blokes 'unbridled Lady MacBeth'?

None of those males are ladies.
Cheryl's not making any sense...

[Cont.]
She adds:

"In 2012 this coincides with the anonymity of social media, which unchallenged gives permission to use abusive terms such as “lying scrag” and “old cow” more widely. No male Prime Minister has had this level of deeply personal abuse aimed at him."

The left are so full of it.
Just because they say it doesn't make it true, they are just counting on those gullible enough to believe it, and mostly it's all bs.
I thought I'd test her argument, so I googled 'Turnbulls a f---wit' then 'Abbotts a c---'.
Well anyways you might wanna check that out, we've got Facebook groups and songs dedicated to that, so Cheryl's full of it.

These people have (by their own logic) advertised themselves as complete idiots.
But for you; (no offense') but these are the 'opinions' you turn to for your info?

I hope you don't mistaken my comments today as personal Foxy, because they aren't.
I just have to call out stupid bs wherever I see it.

I disliked Julia Gillard at first because she stabbed Rudd in the back.
I didn't like him either; but it just wasn't a good look - a disunited party; and someone taking the leadership by stabbing one of their colleagues in the back.

But I hated Julia Gillard for one reason and one reason only.
- She was a lying sack of crap -

She said there wasn't going to be a Carbox Tax, and then she went and did EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

So she lies to the entire nation and stabs her own people in the back, and you girls want to think it was all about sexism?