Julia Gillard PM, and sexism

Stephanie Peatling has written an article appropriately titled: PM’s timely swipe at sexist treatment.

The article by Ms. Peatling summarises some of the ways in which our Prime Minister is treated differently; because she is a woman. This attitude I believe, originates with Tony Abbott’s original statement that Julia Gillard, Prime Minister would deliberately use her gender as a woman to some sort of advantage. The opposite has been so.

Did Tony expect Ms. Gillard to lift up her petticoats and squeal when challenged?

As events came about, it ended up being Tony himself with the petticoats and squealing.

It is not necessarily overt references to the inferiority of Ms. Gillard’s gender, but rather it is subtle put-downs. Sarcasm, which is a put down is often used as a tool in order further lower the status of any female (or indeed any person), who might dare to complain.

Stephanie Peatling calls attention to this in her article:

I’m pretty sure enduring cartoons making fun of the size of your bottom, remarks about your marital status and smutty innuendoes about ”getting into bed” with people constitute sexual harassment in the workplace.

Unless your workplace is politics.

At one stage I lost count of the number of times which Tony Abbott addressed Ms. Gillard, and managed to insert the phrase, “getting into bed with”. There is also our Café Whisper’s “favourite”, that Tony Abbott appears to choke on the words Prime Minister Gillard, or even Ms. Gillard – to Mr. Abbott, she is The She.

I fully appreciate that this might be difficult for a person of the non-female gender to completely understand. For a majority of women it has been a life long event, from the time one was told that girls aren’t welcome.

Although many women have been accused of being “precious” about girlie calendars and risqué jokes, women know for a certainty that these calendars and jokes would not be presented in the same put-down manner to one’s sister or daughters.

Then there is the backlash, would it be worth the effort to complain when the attitude is likely to be that the female is accused of being: 1. too precious, 2. cannot take a joke, 3. trying to cause trouble and 4. is likely to be ostracised and/or subjected to even worse treatment.

It’s all about undermining the person, and the attempt to take away their credibility.

For this reason alone, this tactic is being used by Abbott’s Liberals.

In attempting to discern whether the treatment of Ms. Gillard is sexist in its intent, I pose a question: Can a politician, either male or female use sexist comments against another man? The clear answer is No, he or she cannot. Could for example, Julie Bishop call X politician a gay, cross-dressing tart? J. Bishop may indeed like to, but of course such sexist comments are taboo; unless that is, your intended victim is a woman.

Stephanie Peatling concludes her article with:

Is this the start of Ms Gillard calling out sexist behaviour? I doubt it. She can’t, and won’t, play the victim. But it was good to see her do it just for once.

Sexism has been a powerful political tactic, it’s intent being to undermine. Let’s hope for future female politicians that their policies will come under more scrutiny than their hair, dress sense and the size of their derrière. Nor that male politicians will think it all fair game to use a woman’s gender as method of attack.

I would now ask Tony Abbott to explain his original statement that there is a political advantage in being a woman.

263 comments on “Julia Gillard PM, and sexism

  1. Conversely Abbott has no hesitation in using his “maleness” and faux macho image in an attempt t further his image politically, but heaven help a woman just being female and in politics.

  2. Mobius, precisely..by way of comparison. 🙄

    Since when has being a real man equated with guffaws with sexual connotations.

  3. I disagree with the Stephanie Peatling’s conclusion:
    “Is this the start of Ms Gillard calling out sexist behaviour? I doubt it. She can’t, and won’t, play the victim. But it was good to see her do it just for once.”

    I disagree with the premise of Stephanie Peatling that the PM at any time used the word victim. In fact,PM Gillard at no time today played the victim! She was articulate in saying the Australian had defamed her and had issued an apology. She articulated that she had been the subject of a smear campaign
    “Prime Minister Julia Gillard: ‘‘For many months now I have been the subject of a very sexist smear campaign.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-claims-shes-victim-of-very-sexist-smear-campaign-20120823-24o31.html#ixzz24MDhNsXO

    PM Gillard is not a victim.

  4. As a male I disown Abbott as a member of my sex. He is not worthy of carrying the title ‘human being male’. As it is so obsessed with its former rodent boss, Abbott is rat filth, a title deserving of one who spends most of its time operating from gutter level. You disgust me.

  5. Sue, I’m glad that you brought that one up. That was in the first draft of my article..something didn’t feel quite right about Peatling equating reporting sexist behaviour as “playing the victim”.

    I did a couple of re-writes, firstly following one of my favourite law lecturer’s suggestions that if you are not certain whether something is discrimination (gender, disability or race), then replace one word for the other.

    This is one time when it reads rather weirdly, and I would appreciate it if someone can help me work out why it doesn’t work. Here it is:

    The statement is:

    Is this the start of Ms Gillard calling out sexist behaviour? I doubt it. She can’t, and won’t, play the victim. But it was good to see her do it just for once.

    Fine, have that. Now replace the word sexist for disability (as per my law lecturer’s suggestion in dealing with discrimination):

    It becomes:

    Is this the start of Ms Gillard calling out disability behaviour? I doubt it. She can’t, and won’t, play the victim. But it was good to see her do it just for once.

    See what happens. A person who is disabled who won’t play the victim, and it becomes a positive statement. Weird…

    It’s probably just me having (another) Asperger’s moment. 😉

  6. I do not believe the PM played the victim today. I believe the opposite, more so, she showed us women how to do it.

    One of the reason I was glad to see Rudd go, as it was becoming obvious that he could not deal with the negative media.

    I have always believed that the PM would eventually take control of the media and more so do it on her own terms.

    It has taken two years, but at no time has she backed down to the media, She has just rolled with the punches, getting on with the job.

    As far as I know she had one visit with Murdoch in her first visit to the USA.

    I have not heard that this PM, for the first time in living memory, does not seem to have any personal relationships with the media, in any way. We do not hear of her picking the phone up or having coffee with editors.

    I believe that the press have learnt to respect this PM. Not necessary like, but respect.

    There was little talking down to her today at that PC that ran for one hour and seven minutes. The questions were non stop.

  7. I watched the whole (or whatever the ABC had) Gillard press conference. And, not to overstate things, she was brilliant.

    I wonder whether Abbott will demand a right of reply. 🙂

  8. It was not only brilliant. It was one of the best PC I have seen. I would say, it shut up the Opposition during question time.

    There was so much information, that I think the media is going to take a week to sort out what she said.

    The answers were well and truly there. If I was ever in trouble, the PM is the lawyer I would want on my side.. If it was Bishop or Brandis on the other side, I would not need her.

  9. The PM asked one reporter his age. He said either 23 or 25. The PM told him, he might know a lot more by the time he is 50. I think he might have been stupid enough to ask questions along the line of “have you learnt anything or would you have done it different..

    I know Bolt and co are still going, but surely he has at least one friend that tells him it is over.

  10. Can I predict a the headlines in the Australian tomorrow:

    “Gillard TRIES to clear the air”

    “Still questions UNANSWERED.”

  11. And Jessica Wright has picked up on the issue as well..

    Which is perfectly correct, the title applied to Ms. Gillard’s former partner of 17 years ago is the “boyfriend”. When have you ever heard a PM’s ex referred to as “the girlfriend”.

    Ms Gillard told reporters: ‘‘For many months now I have been the subject of a very sexist smear campaign.’’

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-claims-shes-victim-of-very-sexist-smear-campaign-20120823-24o31.html#ixzz24MPfZYib

  12. I particularly like this comment she made at today’s PC.
    ” But she reserved her particular anger for bloggers who spread harmful suggestions and what she referred to as the ”Americanisation” of political debate drawing in ”the lunar right”.

    ”There is nothing a person of reason can do to deal with it,” she said.

    ”There is nothing to do but ignore it because I suspect if you give it any attention you give them some satisfaction.”

    You go to any right wing blog and that is what u c

  13. This is ridiculous in attempting to protect the right wing attacks against Gillard. Uhlmann is saying the “leaks” about Gillard’s time at Slater and Gordon came from within the Labor Party.

    Not withstanding that this same story has been raised against Gillard several times now over the last decade or so, the claim by Uhlmann is obviously a diversion to get attention away from the media’s role in this smear.

  14. Hopefully this is the “real Julia Gillard” that was promised during the last election campaign. Basically, sitting there and taking one for the team doesn’t win public confidence (or elections). Calling out the crap as and when it happens shows that there are two sides to the story and the other guy really does have to demonstrate that what he says has a factual basis.

    Up until last night, I thought he was going to get to the election campaign with no accounting for his multiple positions of some issues (depending on the weather, what side of bed he got out of or what was seen to give him the most advantage).

    Of course Gillard needs to call out sexist behaviour against her, if not only to demonstrate that such behaviour is no acceptable in Australia in 2012 (regardless of the personal reasons). She also needs to call out crap as she sees it – if she makes it “exciting” enough, she might have the media following her around to see how carbon pricing and mining taxes benefit the community (and skipping Abbott’s latest horror story where the $10000 power increase a quarter really translates into one or two cents a unit).

  15. Mobius Ecko,

    I keep thinking WTF. This story has had endless re-runs over the past couple of years and yet the msm are treating it as if it were part of the book of revelations.

    I recall you saying that whenever there is a Tabboot stuff up let’s watch for the next smear against Gillard or failing that a leadership speculation. Your prediction, spot on mate.

  16. This is the sort of pathetic effort that you get from the right wing blogs,

    Playing the “it’s because I’m a woman” card is a cop-out and couldn’t be further from the truth.

    It’s because she has a track record in deceitful behaviour, broken promises and broken commitments.

    It’s a disgrace!”

    Shrill isn’t it.

  17. Projection at its finest AntonyG.

    They know hands down that Abbott is deceitful, breaks promises and commitments so of course it must be Gillard doing it.

    Anything to take attention away from their dud Abbott’s considerable failings. They know they’ve backed a real dud but being conservative can never admit they screwed up so throw that back onto everyone else who isn’t as hard core right wing as they are.

    And yes you can predict the polls and actions of the right wing by the shrillness and viciousness of their attacks.

    Polls improving for Labor and Gillard then out come the smear and baseless allegations.

    Abbott screws up and out come the malicious attacks on Gillard.

  18. Here’s what I want to know. Why has Limited News pursued a 17 year old “news” item with far more vim & vigour than they did a very new-at the time-story about the way Howard used tax-payers dollars to give a *very* generous bailout to the employees of his *brother’s* textile mill? No-one questioned the legitimacy of such a sweetheart deal, nor were any questions asked about exactly what Stan Howard did with his workers entitlements. Similarly there was no pursuit of the whole Manildra Affair, the issue with secret phone calls-to vested interests close to the Liberal Party-just prior to announcing an energy policy big on nuclear power, or even a proper investigation of just how much Howard, Downer & Vaile knew about the AWB bribery scandal. That said, I wonder if this is more about the “born to rule” mentality than it is to do with sexism ;-).

  19. “It’s because she has a track record in deceitful behaviour, broken promises and broken commitments.”

    Oh yes, unlike John “Core & Non-Core Promise” Howard. Mr “GST Never Ever”. Mr. “Children Overboard”, Mr “No $250,000 fees for degrees”, Mr. “No further changes to Industrial Relations”, Mr “AWB Bribery Scandal”. Mr “National Textiles & Manildra Group”, Mr “Iron Clad guarantee on the Medicare Safety Net”. Howard wrote the book on deceit, broken promises & broken commitments, yet I don’t recall the press treating him even remotely as harshly as Gillard is!

  20. Does anyone remember the name of the guy Howard called before he announced his big nuclear policy? I can’t recall offhand, but I seem to remember that the guy had a lot to gain from such a policy. Yet still the press didn’t linger on the issue. It was in the newspapers for a day or two, then quietly forgotten. Yet this matter with Gillard has kept getting hashed & rehashed every so often for the past 17 years!

  21. Migs and,

    I prefer Julia Gillard’s derrière of Joe Hockey’s any day.

    I was somehow hoping that this would be your choice…..

  22. Does anyone remember the name of the guy Howard called before he announced his big nuclear policy?

    Was it that nuclear physicist former head honcho of Telstra with the funny name?

  23. Yes, Min, it was around then. Around 2006 I think. The person in question was head of a group with serious money sunk into nuclear power-& a big contributro to the Liberal Party (much like Dick Hoonan 😉 ).

  24. Marcus, ah yes the nuclear reactors. Then it was revealed that these things need one hell of a lot of water and that the only possible locations in Australia (we being the dried brown plains) were where there was sea water. This therefore meant, a nuclear reactor coming to a seaside location near YOU. The idea unsurprisingly has gone onto the backburner..so to speak…

  25. Oh, & whilst we’re on the subject of decietful behaviour, how about the way Howard dropped the Code of Ministerial conduct the minute it looked like taking out one of his mates-like Parer, Reith or Wooldridge?

  26. I prefer Julia Gillard’s derrière of Joe Hockey’s any day.

    I think we’d all prefer anybody’s, derriere to Sloppy’s, migs.,

  27. Could any of you English grads out there explain to me what Migs is trying to say here….. ” I prefer Julia Gillard’s derrière of Joe Hockey’s any day.” ….. ‘of’…… 😕
    ones Jools’ arse the others an arse-of-black-hole….. { derrière of Joe Hockey} :- oops selective edited’n…… sounds like an elitist dish.. 😀

  28. Min

    In attempting to discern whether the treatment of Ms. Gillard is sexist in its intent, I pose a question: Can a politician, either male or female use sexist comments against another man? The clear answer is No, he or she cannot. Could for example, Julie Bishop call X politician a gay, cross-dressing tart? J. Bishop may indeed like to, but of course such sexist comments are taboo; unless that is, your intended victim is a woman.

    You are mistaken on several levels but I’ll start with the way that Tony Abbott is constantly criticised or mocked for his masculine physicality (all of the talk and imagery about budgie smugglers ect ) Further the way that Christopher Pyne described as a “poodle*” is innately sexist because it questions his sexuality and consistency to the the male stereotype this has nothing at all to do with the arguments put by either man and everything to do with the apparent expression of their sexuality. Abbott is criticised for being too manly and Pyne is criticised for not being manly enough. This is essentially no different to commenting on Gillard’s appearance or demeanour.

  29. What a week. Some must be amazed that the PM is still standing. as many were predicting her demise.

    I suspect it will take more than malicious rumours and innuendo to bring her down.

    Some people perform better when pushed into a corner. The PM is among them.

    Her greatest strength is that she is not into unthinking reactions. The PM bides her time, and takes action when it is most prudent to do so. The PM waits to see what opponents have, giving them enough rope to hang themselves before striking back.

    When the PM does strike, if is effective, from a position of strength, not weakness.

  30. This is probably the most ignorantly self-aware article I have seen shanana do to date, which is really saying something

    JULIA Gillard is right – she will never satisfy the nuts and conspiracists lurking in the blogosphere about her suitability to be Prime Minister.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/frankly-delay-only-undermines-trust/story-e6frg75f-1226457000564

    That could well have been written 17 years ago.

    The article then goes on to outline just what the oo has ‘exposed’ in their frenzy in this last week. And what did we find out? Nothing at all that was not known 17 years ago/ Gillards story remains the same, no new evidence, charges or allegations were even made this week. Simply rehashing 17 year old news in what simply looks like an attempt to satisfy the nuts and conspiracists lurking in the oo. He finishes with this beauty

    and could have been dealt with expediently days, weeks or even years ago

    shanana appears to forget that it was dealt with years ago, except for the nuts and conspiracists.

    It is all gloating over there this morning. I wonder though, do any of them realise that they have just been humiliated by the very person they were trying to fling mud at all week (all year)? Do they realise that they may well in fact be these ”misogynist nut jobs” referred to?

  31. Yep the media in this country are doozies alright.

    You see the whole kerfuffle over the last week or so over something that had happened 17 years ago and was settled then was all Gillard’s fault according to ABC radio this morning also quoting other media sources.

    She apparently should have answered questions days ago instead of waiting until yesterday to engage in a marathon press conference.

    Not forgetting the fact she had answered questions days ago and was ignored and the false allegations still let loose, it would have made no difference and the media would still have beat it up until it ran out of legs, just as it has every other time they have bought this up to smear. And that folks is what it’s all about smear, a thing the Right engage in all the time as they can never get ahead on talent and credibility.

    The job is done and the smear out here with many new wingnuts still putting out the mantra she’s a crook and the dog whistle cementing more of the core.

    Then Fran Kelly ends with, “The opposition spokesman Christopher Pyne says…” Oh for fuck sake ABC will you stop referring to the opposition on every single piece of political snippet that comes your way. “The opposition says,” “opposition such and such says” and “Tony Abbott says” is all getting rather ridiculous now as few give a flying fuck what the opposition says about anything because they make it up and say the same type thing each and every time. Everyone listening knows what they are going to say, it will 100% be negative and it will either be an outright lie or an exaggeration on a twisted fact.

    By the way Pyne is saying Gillard has still not cleared herself as she MUST make a statement in parliament. He overlooks the fact that Gillard has also answered that bit of nonsense and Abbott flopped around like a mullet on land when asked by Sales just what is the statement Gillard is supposed to make in parliament.

  32. lol ME. shanana doesn’t think much of the opposition does he

    she will never satisfy the nuts and conspiracists lurking in the blogosphere about her suitability to be Prime Minister.

    and today, we have

    The Opposition says Prime Minister Julia Gillard still needs to answer questions about her time as a lawyer in the 1990s – but will not say what those questions are.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-24/opposition-wants-more-answers-over-gillard-accusations/4219342

    ROFL

    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

  33. I wish I had have kept the link for it has now disappeared, for yesterday when writing about the Abbott trapeze act on the 7:30 Report Malcolm Farr quickly deflected it by saying “but the real issue is BHP blah blah blah”.

    It’s somehow sweet that ‘Farr’ and ‘blah’ rhyme.

  34. Lucky for Tabbott he didn’t go into the building trade…one week on a building site and he would’ve been “sorted out”………youbetcha!

  35. You’ve got it soo wrong, lain..Abbotts parading of his physique is “faux manly”, as it demonstrates an internal insecurity overcome by blatant exhibitionism…Chrissy Pyne is a weedy ponce and nothing more…..what his sexual idiosyncracies are is his own concern…..but that incessant baying!!!???

  36. Iain, I think in part what Min might have been alluding to was Abbott’s disrespect for the PM in the manner he addresses her or refers to her as she/her instead of her rightful title. Julia Gillard doesn’t reciprocate. She’s above that.

  37. You have to be kidding me Tom.

    After an explanation, clarification and document the Tele still manages to twist it around as an assertion against Gillard.

    The Murdoch media in this country really does need to be heeled.

  38. One thing for sure, the boyfriend was the loser. He is now a part time cook, in a club of believe, in some country town. She is the PM of the country.

  39. I also love the way they use ‘slush fund’ to indicate it is something unsavoury, rather than a common term used within the unions to represent a fund used for re-election purposes. It is never clarified in the stories, or the context of when she mentioned (which I cannot find, although I read it the other day), it is just left to fester. Which is remarkable considering what I posted earlier on media watch XIX, journos lamenting this very fact, although they reckon it only happens on the interwebs. Then, the very next day, the media are back at it again.

    you can run with half a fact.

    https://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/media-watch-xix/#comment-102208

    Clarke and Dawe portray it beautifully 😉

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3574510.htm

  40. Sailors used to have a guffle fund, Min’s son maybe able to answer if they still do, though it would be harder to have one with electronic payments.

    So are the media going to hunt down every sailor still alive going back I don’t know how long for having a guffle fund. It would cause many heated arguments in marriages.

  41. In relation to this latest News Ltd and online led attack on our PM:

    we are so starved of quality

    Jaycee,
    part of the problem lies with the culture and approaches of the media organs…they mix the work of columnists/reporters with integrity who put in the hard yards and accumulate corroborated statements, essential facts and bonafide evidence with the grubby articles that use innuendo, exaggeration, hype, distortion, political spin and ‘gotya’ tabloid hook-ins…as well as infotainment…which serves to undermine the organs’ attempts to be taken seriously…fails the public interest test…and inevitably damages the reputation of the paper/site…and all of those who contribute.

    A case in point being the lazy or deceitful journalism that led to the OZ being forced to retract yesterday (if you can call it that) and the offering up of an apology to the PM.

    What disturbs me about this entire issue is why the mainstream media have decided to vet our PM so long after the election? An intense vetting process apparently took place prior to the 2010 election…or so we were led to believe.

    If information was deliberately held back by News Ltd are any other news organisation it could be seen as a crafty method of keeping material up one’s sleeve in order to possibly:

    (1) Blackmail a PM into pursuing policies and regulatory changes that could benefit the news organisation.

    (2) For political and/or profiteering reasons using a story at a particular time to attempt to gain advantage…whether it to be to wedge, destabilise a sitting PM and her govt…and/or create a buzz to increase readership.

    (3) To add evidence to an existing story…but in this case I find it hard to believe that a billion dollar news organisation couldn’t afford to pay for appropriate investigations prior to the election knowing Gillard was a potential replacement for Rudd and highly influential…

    which brings to mind:

    (4) That in fact News Ltd did have a more complete story drawn from investigations by paid private eyes, phone and computer hacking etc…but were reluctant to go down that avenue due to the consequences of such activities in the UK.

    Hmmm…

    It seems once again that News Ltd is looking like it has failed the public interest test…and has further damaged its reputation.

    N’

  42. <iYet Gillard told Gordon that “it’s a common practice, indeed every union has what it refers to as a ­
    re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign”.

    “It is not proper to use union resources for election campaigns so you need to finance them yourself. Some of them, you know, they can cost $10,000, $20,000 – they’re not cheap.

    “So the usual mechanism people use to amass that amount of money is that they require the officials who are on their ticket to enter payroll deduction schemes where money each week or fortnight goes from their pay into a bank account which is used for re-election purposes from time to time.

    “They also have different fundraisers, dinners and raffles and so on to amass the necessary amount of money to mount their re-election campaign.”

    Gillard’s use of the term “slush fund” is particularly unfortunate.

    http://www.afr.com/p/national/it_question_of_judgment_for_gillard_Club8EQ3qPbSrnurSxiL2I

    Gillard’s use of the term “slush fund” is particularly unfortunate because it means that the media (who reckon ‘the interwebs’ are the ones that run with half a fact) can make it mean what they want. Even thought it doesn’t

    And means that the oo can now ramp up another ‘angel’ to attack from

    Jon Faine reveals what Labor lawyers do – set up slush funds and make them look legal

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/jon-faine-reveals-what-labor-lawyers-do-set-up-slush-funds-and-make-them-look-legal/story-fn72xczz-1226456978405

    I have to admit, I cannot find the actual interview that cut and paste is referring to? And the oo don’t like people to go to the source. I also note that uhlmann was trying to pin this all back on Labor last night. Anything to keep the leadershit going I guess.

  43. jaycee @ 9:37 am

    You’ve got it soo wrong, lain..Abbotts parading of his physique is “faux manly”, as it demonstrates an internal insecurity overcome by blatant exhibitionism…

    So how is this claim from you fundamentally different from discussions about the physicality of Gillard? If I had talked about Gillard displaying faux femininity or that the way she dressed proved some inner psychological shortcoming you be screaming about sexism? You obviously think that Sexism is something that only men can exhibit don’t you? The fact is that either gender can think that theirs is the superior sex and deride the other on that basis.

    Chrissy Pyne is a weedy ponce and nothing more…..what his sexual idiosyncrasies are is his own concern…..but that incessant baying!!!???

    ok lets analyse this sentence phrase by phrase to see if you are P C enough 😉

    Chrissy Pyne is a weedy ponce and nothing more… this is nothing but homophobic abuse which suggests that being Gay grounds for derision,

    what his sexual idiosyncrasies are is his own concern… Gee this is as offensive as saying that Gillard is “deliberately barren” If a man were suggesting that a woman was a sexual deviant as you are implying Pyne is wouldn’t you be screaming that it was sexist abuse?

    but that incessant baying!!!

    here you are suggesting that the man is a donkey which is even more personal abuse.

    So rather than address the substance of what I said all you have done is prove how ignorant you are about just what constitutes sexism and that you are unable to address issues without the use of personal abuse.

    Miglo @ 9:46 am

    Iain, I think in part what Min might have been alluding to was Abbott’s disrespect for the PM in the manner he addresses her or refers to her as she/her instead of her rightful title. Julia Gillard doesn’t reciprocate. She’s above that.

    You obviously know Min better than I do but I can only read what the text contains and respond to her text

  44. “here you are suggesting that the man is a donkey which is even more personal abuse.”
    Wow, how like a Right Wing Tony Abbott apologist to draw such a long bow. How like an imbecile such as yourself-Iain-to not know the difference between baying (a deep, prolonged howl) & braying (the loud, harsh cry of a donkey.) Not that it’s even relevant in this case-using an analogy to describe how someone sounds in the manner of their speech is a far cry from calling someone a bitch or a witch-or suggesting they should be thrown out to sea & drowned. Yet another pathetic attempt by you, Iain, to defend the indefensible. Personally, I’ve seen more intelligent talking points coming from a lettuce leaf!

  45. Can’t see that calling someone a poodle questions their sexuality. There are girl & boy poodles. That’s how it works.

  46. ” this is nothing but homophobic abuse which suggests that being Gay grounds for derision”

    Yet another long bow from the imbecilic Iain. I’ve got tons of gay friends-& I’d never describe them as “weedy” or a “ponce”. I’ve known plenty of straight people-though-who are either weedy, ponces or both-& Pyne definitely fits the description. Seriously, Iain, why don’t you just PO back to your pathetic, Right Wing Blog site, & not actually come back until you have a *real* argument to back your apologia for the misogynists who infest your side of politics!

  47. Don’t worry, BSA Bob. Methinks Iain can’t see for the dunce cap sitting over his eyes. Every new post he places here merely further confirms what a complete & utter moron he is!

  48. why don’t you just PO back to your pathetic, Right Wing Blog site

    why don’t you just PONCE back to your pathetic, Right Wing Blog site

    Fixed it for ya Marcus 😉

    Oops, is that being sexists now?

  49. Hall troll of course is so besotted with Abbott and Pyne it conveniently sidesteps Pynes association with the self disclosed gay Slipper accuser, Ashby. Meetings late at night for drinkies???????? Yea right.
    Pyne by his every physical mince invites derision, seemingly much of it purposely paraded in public like a dolled up show pony. If he is gay, he should come out and say so otherwise he invites derision by his displays.
    Your half hearted attempt to defend the misogynist Abbott is not worthy of him, he is much worse than that

  50. No surprise that Ian writes exactly like Bolt. Paste a quote the write an inane comment.Prissy Pinoclean need to get a grip on reality and actually ask the PM a question or jump out of the closet. His inane rants like, Ian are like being thrashed with a warm cabbage.

  51. Oh for fuck sake even Crikey is doing it.

    Gillard uses her luck to confront smear campaign

    So it was Gillard’s luck, nothing to do with her stoicism, intelligence and the fact she is innocence. As one commenter posted she made her own luck whereas Abbott has to rely entirely on the fourth estate and others to just scrape by.

    Why is it so hard for reporters and journalists to get it right about Gillard and that they can never ever give her kudos for anything she achieves or does.

  52. August 24, 2012: After a 17-year silence, the Prime Minister addressed a packed press conference yesterday denying any wrong-doing during her time at law firm Slater & Gordon. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott joined TODAY.

    Abbott lies upon lies. He would have been much better off just saying he lied on the 7:30 Report as he’s admitted he’s a liar in the past on ABC and he would have been done with it.

    Now caught out in a lie he’s doing what many liars do, compound it by piling on more lies.

  53. Marcus @ 12:44 pm

    “here you are suggesting that the man is a donkey which is even more personal abuse.”
    Wow, how like a Right Wing Tony Abbott apologist to draw such a long bow. How like an imbecile such as yourself-Iain-to not know the difference between baying (a deep, prolonged howl) & braying (the loud, harsh cry of a donkey.) Not that it’s even relevant in this case-using an analogy to describe how someone sounds in the manner of their speech is a far cry from calling someone a bitch or a witch-or suggesting they should be thrown out to sea & drowned.

    Ok Marcus I’ll concede the Baying/braying difference but that does not negate may criticism of Jaycee resorting to derisive abuse instead of insightful commentary.

    Yet another pathetic attempt by you, Iain, to defend the indefensible. Personally, I’ve seen more intelligent talking points coming from a lettuce leaf!

    So all you have to refute what I said in my last comment is one minor quibble about a minor mis reading of one word… Must mean that you can’t counter the rest of my argument

    BSA Bob @ 12:47 pm

    Can’t see that calling someone a poodle questions their sexuality. There are girl & boy poodles. That’s how it works.

    I actually know a thing or two about poodles and if there is any breed that is considered gay its the poodle, the truth is however that they are the most intelligent and loyal breed of dogs there is. Further its not the dogs that are stereotypically Gay its their owners. (disclaimer I have owned and/or raised poodles for twenty years)

    Marcus @ 12:47 pm

    ” this is nothing but homophobic abuse which suggests that being Gay grounds for derision”

    Yet another long bow from the imbecilic Iain. I’ve got tons of gay friends-& I’d never describe them as “weedy” or a “ponce”. I’ve known plenty of straight people-though-who are either weedy, ponces or both-& Pyne definitely fits the description.

    It does not matter if Pyne “fits the description”to question his manliness is sexist abuse just as much as questioning Gillard’s femininity would be.

    Seriously, Iain, why don’t you just PO back to your pathetic, Right Wing Blog site, & not actually come back until you have a *real* argument to back your apologia for the misogynists who infest your side of politics!

    You really don’t get that sexism works both way now do you Marcus?

    Marcus @ 12:48 pm

    Don’t worry, BSA Bob. Methinks Iain can’t see for the dunce cap sitting over his eyes. Every new post he places here merely further confirms what a complete & utter moron he is!

    And every new post proves what a hate fuelled fool you are Marcus
    Tom R @ 12:49 pm

    Oops, is that being sexists now?

    Yep and homophobic as well 😉
    dafid @ 1:18 pm

    Hall troll of course is so besotted with Abbott and Pyne it conveniently sidesteps Pynes association with the self disclosed gay Slipper accuser, Ashby. Meetings late at night for drinkies???????? Yea right.

    I love the way that you minions of the Politically correct left show your true colours when you try to abuse politions from the right. Here we have dafid suggesting that because Ashby is Gay then the only reason that Pyne would want to have anything to do with him is for some sort of assignation,the hypocrisy is astounding because if someone was to suggest that the only reason someone wished to meet with say Sarah Hanson Young was for a quick leg-over they would be quickly howled down as “sexist”

    Pyne by his every physical mince invites derision, seemingly much of it purposely paraded in public like a dolled up show pony. If he is gay, he should come out and say so otherwise he invites derision by his displays.

    Why does being Gay invite derisiondafid? is being Gay bad in and of itself?

    Your half hearted attempt to defend the misogynist Abbott is not worthy of him, he is much worse than that

    No you are clearly to thick to appreciate that if a woman can be tough in politics (as Gillard clearly can)then its not at all just or appropriate to maintain a double standard where you become outraged if a woman is harshly criticised because of the perceived characteristics of her gender and sexuality when you yourself offer criticisms of men based upon the demeaning of them on the basis of their gender and sexuality.

    Ricky @ 1:41 pm

    No surprise that Ian writes exactly like Bolt. Paste a quote the write an inane comment.Prissy Pinoclean need to get a grip on reality and actually ask the PM a question or jump out of the closet. His inane rants like, Ian are like being thrashed with a warm cabbage.

    Oh I see you too think that Gay + Bad then eh Ricky?

  54. I just ponced over to the ABC site, and saw that Cassidy is actually make sense (again). He’s done it a fewtimes recently. Let’s hope the trend continues.

    As a result of that legitimate reporting, we now have the Prime Minister on the record accepting some key points:

    She should have opened a file on the work she did for the union, though she claimed that routinely files were not opened on small matters when fees were not charged.
    There had been growing tension and friction among the partnership just before she resigned.
    She knew the association she helped set up would be used as a fund to re-elect union officials, though she now wished she hadn’t referred to it a “slush” fund because of the overtone that carried.

    Speers was also right to say, “These may not be serious matters.”

    And that goes to the heart of the coverage in The Australian. Of course the newspaper did well to gain fresh information. But the newspaper grossly exaggerated the value of that information and the worth of the story.

    Nobody is suggesting the newspaper should not have pursued the issue. It’s a question of prominence.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-24/cassidy-gillard-abbott-hours-of-maddness/4220582

    If it had been a liberal politician, or even a male Labor one, would they have chased this down like they did, all to find out….

    As shown previously, they appear to ignore all of tabots ‘errors of judgement’, but for Gillard, it is a witch hunt

  55. I wish some would show some sympathy for senator Wong in the Upper House, They have upped the abuse towards this minister.

    The team that is led by Bernardi and Cormann, assisted by Abetz and Brandis od in one word, disgraceful.

  56. In the senate, the chair next to the chair is occupied. The man has sat through Senator Wong being abused, with a straight face.

    Senator Wong decided to let the Opposition have it. This visitor had a grin a mile wide. I took it to mean, about time.

    This is something the Senator rarely does.

  57. Iain, the truth is that you may see nothing wrong in the behaviour described.

    The truth is that many more do not agree with you. Many take offence.

    Maybe you can enlighten us, why it is necessary.

  58. Iain Hall
    Poodles are intelligent & loyal & for that reason it may not have been a good idea to link Christopher Pyne’s name to the breed. But I think Gillard was just making a lighthearted point, you know the sort of thing- “Bob Brown’s bitch” being another canine association that comes to mind.

  59. C U

    Iain, the truth is that you may see nothing wrong in the behaviour described.

    The truth is that many more do not agree with you. Many take offence.

    Those who know me personally appreciate that I don’t endorse bad manners and personal abuse so for you to claim that I see “nothing wrong” in it would be wrong, My argument has always been that many those who whine about Gillard being harshly treated are often very quick to hurl abuse themselves

    Maybe you can enlighten us, why it is necessary.

    Its not necessary CU but that won’t make our politics any kinder or more gentle
    BSA Bob @ 3:25 pm

    Iain Hall
    Poodles are intelligent & loyal & for that reason it may not have been a good idea to link Christopher Pyne’s name to the breed. But I think Gillard was just making a lighthearted point, you know the sort of thing- “Bob Brown’s bitch” being another canine association that comes to mind.

    So you are saying that both are just horses for courses then? Ok if that is what you are saying then we are in agreement!

  60. Senator Wong decided to let the Opposition have it. This visitor had a grin a mile wide. I took it to mean, about time.

    —–

    Cu,
    good for her…they really are a foul bunch…the ones who treat Abbott like he’s Moses come down from the mountain rather than a bat outa hell.

    N’

  61. As I said, if one wants to hear the real experts at sexist and all other abuse, tune into the senate QT and listen to Bernardi and Cormann for starters..

  62. The Liberal party has an entrenched culture of backward looking grotesqueness.

    If it wasn’t for the support of shock jocks and News Ltd they’d be forced to change.

    Many of them have this constant mean look…sometimes malicious smiles…sometimes mocking…glares…death stares…remind me of a bunch of misers, scrooges and villians from Dickensian era.

    N’

  63. Iain, many are using the word idiot. I hope that meets with your satisfaction. It was not one word, it was the whole interview that was disastrous.

    Then added to that, his admission, that he said “no” to a question he was not asked.

    He did not hear or ignored the question about whether he had read the BHP statement. He added, he was , answering a question that was in his own mind.

    Common habit of Abbott, ignore question and rave on with his prepared slogans.

  64. “Those who know me personally appreciate that I don’t endorse bad manners and personal abuse so…”

    How many believe this statement is true. Maybe someone needs to go back and read their own comments.

  65. C U
    why are you criticising Abbot for doing what every pollie. including your beloved Julia, does all of the time?

    The only time any of them tend to be entirely candid is when they have retired and they can’t get in trouble for being too frank.

  66. “Maybe you can enlighten us, why it is necessary.

    Its not necessary CU but that won’t make our politics any kinder or more gentle”

    Why not, I see no need for the abuse. I

  67. Abbott’s interview on the Today show this morning, He cannot even get it right here, and Iain you want this person to our next pm, give us a reason as to why he should be our next PM.

  68. What could have Mr. Abbott that was more important than that PC yesterday.

    Still not answering questions that he is asked.

    What is clear from his answer, he can only deal with one thing at a time.

  69. CU I don’t think he can even handle that, they are not hard questions to answer, he just sticks to his usual responses and planned comments.

  70. Tom R @7.45am, more a case of they haven’t got any questions, but have to say something derogatory.

    And @2.57pm, exactly. The msm have conveniently ignored Liealot’s role in setting up the slush fund to get rid of Hanson. Perhaps we should draw Jon Faine’s attention to it.

    Mind you, their pursuit of Lionel Murphy to his death bed was beyond disgusting and another example of the gutter politics they revel in.

    Nas’ @4.08pm, you’d think that by now they’d have learned not to mess with Senator Wong. Oh well, I imagine they were the ones who had to repeat Grades 1 & 2.

  71. jane, maybe the libs need to wear a T-shirt like the one I was given once, it read:

    ‘!st grade was the best four years of my life!’ 🙂

  72. Graham finishes his piece on a high note for the Prime Minister. Or as high note as she could hope for.

    Given that she never operated the fund and left the relationship as soon as she knew something was very wrong in the way the funds were being administered, the serious allegations now fall pretty flat. I have criticised her reluctance to answer questions but I am more than satisfied with her response. I will speak and write no more on this affair.

    You asked why she did not answer the question before and to Paul. Well because it would have been questions and answers supplied by one person. So easy to spin that as saying the wrong questions were asked as already is being done. Instead she face a gallery of journalists. Not just one. And answered all the questions. And exhausted their questions.

    And by doing so, she has satisfied you and many others. Not only that, she came out looking much better for it and a Prime Minister and ordinary person all at once. Her wit cut the tensions that may have been in the room after 40 minutes of questions. You could hear it. And she confronted the ‘young and naive’ comment with a smile and wink in her eye that had me swooning with admiration. The question was rather nastily delivered. Or so I thought watching it. But she handled it with aplomb

    JOURNALIST: It might seem a bit odd for you to rely on that defence for people, you know. It wasn’t like you were off the first train from Adelaide for instance.

    JULIA GILLARD: Well, I can – how old are you? How old are you?

    JOURNALIST: Thirty-two.

    JULIA GILLARD: Right. Let me assure you you’ll know a lot more by the time you’re 50 than you do now. (Laughter from members of the press).

    The Prime Minister virtually concluded this marathon press conference, walked down a few halls, and entered parliament where it was a very foolish coalition MP that dared to ask her a questions. She absolutely demolished the opposition. And not just their leader, but the entire front bench have fallen with him. Abbot’s own fraying at the ends of his own woven mantra got caught in a chair as he was grilled by Leigh Sales that afternoon and it was further eroded by self harm he did to himself on the TODAY show. A show where he finishes talking sport. Today he appeared inept in even this frivolous activity for the prospective leader of a nation.

    How much damage Abbott has done to the self knitted hand made scarf is yet to be determined, but it raises serious questions about any who would consider tapping Abbott on the shoulder. You see, they have firmly hitched their wagons to the Abbott horse. The did not mind when it seemed to run like the wind over any surface. But it appears the horse is tired. And tending to run off the track taking the wagon perilously close to the edge of a canyon with him. Facts have slowed down the momentum the coalition seemed to have. And the natural state of things that enter stagnation is to succumb to decline………..

    http://ashghebranious.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/graham-richardson-qandas-himself-without-realising/#comments

  73. When Abbott was challenged on that, and asked whether he had even read the BHP report, he said, “No.”

    Then the next day he said he had read the report and when he said “no” he was responding to something else. If that is true, then he has a serious problem with concentration and comprehension.

    But he wasn’t the only one to slip up during that 18 hours of madness…….

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-24/cassidy-gillard-abbott-hours-of-maddness/4220582

  74. SPEERS: I’m just asking you whether this …

    EMERSON: You’ve got plenty of footage. You’ve got 40 minutes of footage.

    SPEERS: … I’m just asking you if this was a legitimate line for the media – given the criticism that you’ve just made of the media.

    EMERSON: I repeat … Well, look, the media should not be so precious that when a Minister engages in the mildest possible criticism to just point out a couple of facts – now you’re acting all wounded; that the media is being criticised. We get criticised all the time. We understand that. We accept it, whether we think it’s fair or not. I’ve just engaged in the mildest possible comment on the media. Now you’re saying ‘given your criticism of the media’. I couldn’t have been more moderate. And as far as we are concerned, that matter is now settled.

    http://www.trademinister.gov.au/transcripts/2012/ce_tr_120823.html

  75. Not exactly a latte drinker or rabbit left-winger.

    ITA Buttrose says much of the public criticism of PM Julia Gillard and mining magnate Gina Rinehart is motivated by sexism.

    RECOMMENDED COVERAGE
    Gillard ‘paid for my work’: builder
    Deceived PM dumped slush-fund lover

    Today she called on the 900 business women at a Docklands breakfast to speak out against the ongoing unreasonable “personal criticisms” of Ms Gillard and other high-profile women.

    Ms Buttrose, 70, said it was unacceptable for Ms Gillard’s body shape, eating habits, fashion and reproductive choices to be open for public comment and scrutiny.

    She said male politicians have never had to put up with remarks about the size of their bottom or their choice of jacket.

    “Enough is enough,” Ms Buttrose told an audience of women, including Dannii Minogue, at the Business Chicks corporate breakfast today.

    “If we are going to believe in equality then we must believe in it for all women regardless of whether she’s in the top office in the land.

    “There should be no personal criticisms of women.”

    Ms Buttrose said Ms Gillard has been mocked about everything from the colour of her hair, to the lack of fruit in her fruit bowl.

    “Who cares what sort of jackets she wears? She ……….

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ita-buttrose-slams-sexist-criticism-of-julia-gillard-and-gina-rinehart/story-e6frf7jo-1226457255225

  76. Really Iain, so u think TA will get over his Faux pas, interesting to read that most Media organisation seem to disagree with.

  77. Troll you are as naive as you are thick. But you don’t fool anyone. If you are trying to convince us that the Poodle went to drinkies with Ashby merely for that purpose alone, close to midnight, you really are the dummy you appear to be. Back you go to Enid Blyton troll.

  78. Iain “Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.” I think she was actually trying not to laugh.

  79. Sorry, she was mild and moderate, considering he was not answering the questions he was asked.

    It is OK, I just heard Mr. Abbott say in Queensland that he has had a good week. Must be true, as Tony said so..

    After a few slogans, laced with lies, he answered a question or two, giving answers that had little to do with the question..

    When he finished his spiel, he once again walked off. No answering questions, until the journalist have finish for him.

  80. When the likes of Hugh Rimington and other Channel 10 journalists/reporters are canning not only Abbott’s last couple of interviews, highlighting his lie on lie on lie, but openly stating his time has probably run its course then it must be close to calling it.

    He’s a one trick three word pony and over the last two days he broke a leg and needs to be put out to pasture. When the compliant media that has been his crutch starts to say it’s about time he walks on his own, then unless he can do some sort of miracle personality transformation, maybe Pell can help, there’s little left for Abbott.

    The most telling point is the myriad of jokes, funny characterisations, cartoons, lampoons and satire on Abbott that has sprung up over the last two days. Once you become the butt of lots of jokes some of their memes tend to stick and it becomes very difficult to overcome the stigma that attaches to you.

  81. I believe that NSW members are getting individual phone calls begging for their vote. I also believe they are being told to get lost.

    Health Services Union national secretary Kathy Jackson says she won’t be resigning her role, despite moves to force her out.

    The union is expected to begin the process of removing Ms Jackson from the top position next week, after senior officials repeatedly suggested she voluntarily step down.

    Ms Jackson, who helped blow the whistle on the misuse of union members’ funds, leading to two Fair Work Australia investigations, is the subject of several complaints.

    She has confirmed Victorian police have received a complaint in relation to her, but says she understands they have yet to take any action in relation to the complaint from former HSU East acting general secretary, Peter Mylan.

    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Politics/2012/08/24/Jackson_to_resist_HSU_sack_move_787414.html

  82. Tony once again rejecting the advice of experts. This is what his daily stunt in Queensland was about Today. Oppositional Disorder in full plight. Why would one expect anything else.

    Environment Minister Tony Burke has rubbished opposition claims there was not enough scientific research behind the federal government’s planned marine park network.

    Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he will back legislation that would force the government to reassess its planned marine reserves, which will cover one-third of Australian waters including the Coral Sea and the southwest coast of Western Australia.

    Mr Abbott said on Friday the coalition didn’t oppose the idea of reserves but objected to how they were created, claiming it was not the result of rigorous scientific analysis or adequate industry and community consultation.

    That triggered a scathing response from Mr Burke, who accused the opposition leader of ignoring the facts.

    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Politics/2012/08/24/Abbott_has_ignored_research_on_park_787413.html

  83. Yep going back on Liberal policy on yet another occasion just to say NO!

    Good thing is that he has said NO once too often and even those who propped him up are getting jack of it.

  84. paulwello @ 6:08 pm

    Really Iain, so u think TA will get over his Faux pas, interesting to read that most Media organisation seem to disagree with.

    It is a matter of no consequence especially when you compare it to Gillard’s Clangers.
    dafid @ 6:08 pm

    Troll you are as naive as you are thick. But you don’t fool anyone. If you are trying to convince us that the Poodle went to drinkies with Ashby merely for that purpose alone, close to midnight, you really are the dummy you appear to be. Back you go to Enid Blyton troll.

    So had Pyne been meeting a woman you would be certain he was intent on Fucking her as well? Or are you only convinced that he was seeking a tryst with Ashby based on what precisely?
    Hmm You really do seem to have problems with homosexuals don’t you? Or is just conservative homosexuals that you hate?
    I find this attitude of yours terribly amusing when I consider that you have chosen a screen name that brings this character from Matt Lucas to mind:

    paulwello @ 6:11 pm

    Iain “Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.” I think she was actually trying not to laugh.

    Tony was trying to remain a gentleman more like


    Catching up

    Sorry, she was mild and moderate, considering he was not answering the questions he was asked.

    No she was rude and far from even handed

  85. Been out all day and just read lain’s comments, am now flushing the evidence of them down the dunny! Let’s see…We have Abbott making a goose of himself..that’s alright, I believe there are some geese who like it both ways!..As for the Ashby/Pyne drinking team..I wouldn’t doubt at least ONE of them will sooner or later (as the joke goes) get done for “acting the goat”….too much drink and all that!
    Me!..sexist!!?…How can I be sexist when I am writing about the same gender as myself?….Oh!..but that’s right!!..lain still thinks that “I am a Layhdee”. “Oh lain!..you’re naughty..but I like you!”

  86. As long as LOTO leads from the front as the main offender, nothing will change until he is dumped. He is evil personified, Disgusting

  87. Iain “It is a matter of no consequence especially when you compare it to Gillard’s Clangers.”

    What clangers are those Iain.

    Tony was trying to remain a gentleman more like 😆 😆 😆 😆

  88. Iain from your own site : did not see the 7.30 program last night but I accept that Abbott did not perform well, even so I think that it will hardly register on the political pendulum.

    You were so wrong Iain.

  89. “Iain “Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.” I think she was actually trying not to laugh.”

    We all know how easily Abbott and his mob are offended. Something that most bullies share.

  90. Mobius, very true.

    Mr. Abbott is no Julia Gillard.

    He is unable to roll with the punches, as she seems to do.

    Mr. Abbott is inclined to run instead, Trouble is there are no longer any hiding places.

  91. Now Iain, if this was TA on a good day, or week, we can only imagine what he would be like on a bad day or week.

  92. Trouble is that most of the PM’s alleged clangers are in the feverish minds of Abbott and his followers.

    None stand up to scrutiny.

    Abbott’s are real.

  93. More on the Marine parks. Coalition wants marine parks reassessed

    “Mr Abbott said the coalition was not opposed to the idea of marine parks but disapproved of how they were created.

    “The Gillard government’s recent announcements regarding new, additional marine protected areas are not the result of rigorous scientific analysis that has been made publicly available or extensive industry and community consultation,” he said.

    The legislation, introduced by Liberal National Party MP George Christensen, requires the minister to obtain scientific advice, as well as undertake community and industry consultation before making a declaration.

    The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) said the opposition was contradicting the stance it took during its previous stint in government, when it created 11 marine parks.”

    So the coalition are against there own policy.

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coalition-wants-marine-parks-reassessed-20120824-24qnj.html

  94. he
    jaycee @ 6:39 pm

    Me!..sexist!!?…How can I be sexist when I am writing about the same gender as myself?….Oh!..but that’s right!!..lain still thinks that “I am a Layhdee”. “Oh lain!..you’re naughty..but I like you!”

    methinks the lady doth protest too much
    dafid @ 6:41 pm

    As long as LOTO leads from the front as the main offender, nothing will change until he is dumped. He is evil personified, Disgusting

    😆 do I detect that you have anger management issues dafid????

    paulwello @ 6:46 pm

    What clangers are those Iain.

    Strewth mate the list is so long 🙄
    Just off the top of my head

    It was Gillard who knifed Rudd and caused Labor’s fortunes to go from a thumping great majority to minority government that was a clanger
    Then you have her “Timor solution” Clanger
    then her citizens council to seek consensus on climate change a whopper that Hungry jacks can’t match,
    Not to forget the biggest Clanger of all “there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead” it has poisoned her leadership ever since she broke her word to get into the lodge.
    Add to that her “real Julia-Fake Julia” change of style during the last election campaign,
    Picking Tim Flannery as “Climate Commissioner” was another beauty
    The list just goes on and on but you must surely get the drift here 🙂


    paulwello @ 6:49 pm

    Iain from your own site : did not see the 7.30 program last night but I accept that Abbott did not perform well, even so I think that it will hardly register on the political pendulum.

    You were so wrong Iain.

    Yes Paul I was wrong in that opinion, at that time as you will see me pointing out to Ray in my subsequent comment where I said this:

    Actually Ray I’ve just watched the piece in question and I think that Abbott did not perform that badly at all and what Andrew Bolt says in his blog has merit:

    Catching up @ 6:51 pm

    “Iain “Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.” I think she was actually trying not to laugh.”

    We all know how easily Abbott and his mob are offended. Something that most bullies share.

    Oh CU how do you function with such serious confirmation bias? It was Leigh Sales who was playing the aggressive bully in that interview as Andrew Bolt points out:

    7.30 host Leigh Sales sure makes clear her contempt for Tony Abbott with her sighs, eye rolling, exasperated tone and hand-waving. But the increasingly shrill tone seems to suggest her anger is not with his bad answers but with his good ones, because they fail to confirm her startlingly obvious prejudices.

    Watch at the link and marvel.

    Tell me, has Sales ever treated Julia Gillard or a warmist with such manifest disrespect?

    Let’s just take one of the issues on which Sales berated Abbott – a recent in-house obsession of a small coterie of ABC Leftists:

    LEIGH SALES: Why have you referred repeatedly to illegal asylum boats coming to Australia? Do you accept that that’s illegal and that seeking asylum by any means is legal?

    This wasn’t just a question, mind, but an accusation from the ideologically and linguistically outraged:

    LEIGH SALES: But I don’t believe that it’s actually illegal to pass through countries on your way to somewhere where you want to have asylum.

    And again – on this same point:

     

    LEIGH SALES: Do you think that the nature of politics allows politicians to be a little bit free with the facts in their statements just as part of the game of politics?

    Sales’ outrage seems untethered to many facts. First, she’s assuming that boat people arriving are genuine asylum seekers, when they’ve clearly passed through many lands offering safety before they get to us. Second, there is nothing factually incorrect about what Abbott says.

    Note, for instance, that the Department of Immigration itself refers to “illegal boat arrivals”:


    Fact Sheet 75 – Processing Unlawful Boat Arrivals

    … Against the background of high numbers of illegal boat arrivals, the Federal Government passed a series of laws…

    Or from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, which again makes clear that the mode of entry remains illegal, even if those arriving are genuine asylum seekers who should nevertheless escape penalty:

    UNHCR REVISED GUIDELINES ON APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS RELATING TO THE DETENTION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

    2. Of key significance to the issue of detention is Article 31 of the 1951 Convention2. Article 31 exempts refugees coming directly from a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence….

    According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to seek and enjoy asylum is recognised as a basic human right. In exercising this right asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive at, or enter, a territory illegally… This element, as well as the fact that asylum-seekers have often had traumatic experiences, should be taken into account in determining any restrictions on freedom of movement based on illegal entry or presence

    It should not be used as a punitive or disciplinary measure for illegal entry or presence in the country…

    The increasing use of detention as a restriction on the freedom of movement of asylum seekers on the grounds of their illegal entry is a matter of major concern to UNHCR, NGOs, other agencies as well as Governments… Detention as a mechanism which seeks to address the particular concerns of States related to illegal entry requires the exercise of great caution in its use to ensure that it does not serve to undermine the fundamental principles upon which the regime of international protection is based.

    Sales’ outrage is not that Abbott is wrong in fact at all. but that his attitude seems different to hers. To accuse him of being “free with the facts” for simply not agreeing with her is arrogant and unfair. A bit free with the facts, I might add.

    UPDATE

    I must say, though, Abbott was not well briefed on BHP, and too crude in his linkage of the mining tax to the Olympic Dam deferral. His apparent admission (misstatement, he said later) that he had not read the BHP Billiton announcement yesterday of the reasons for the deferral was damaging.

  95. You know I always like a good laugh, Iain provides it hands down.

    Yes Paul I was wrong in that opinion, at that time as you will see me pointing out to Ray in my subsequent comment where I said this:

    Yes Iain I read that, another good laugh, you having an each way bet again are we or are you just trying to emulate your hero TA
    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

  96. The conclusion: “The broader political impact of this saga goes to trust in the Prime Minister. Following her broken carbon tax promise and other backflips, it is an area of acute political vulnerability, and the way she has avoided transparency on this issue has not helped”, leaves little doubt about The Australian’s attitude to our PM, and that it will be after her again, given half a chance. The final sentence is a very small concession: “Still, at the end of a difficult week the Prime Minister and her party look to be in their strongest position for well over a year. There can be no doubt she did the right thing facing her questioners.” ..

    and

    The Australian, still struggling to justify News Limited’s foray once more into this ancient matter, is going to say all the things it has in its set pieces and its editorial. It will step back a while, trawl some more, set Thomas, its ‘forensic, determined and dispassionate award-winning journalist’ on the scent with the hope he can unearth even a smidgen of ‘dirt’, mud that it can hurl at the PM at a propitious moment when it can do most harm. Make no mistake News Limited is vicious and determined. It will never give up, no matter how distant and irrelevant the S&G story becomes.

    It has already been prosecutor, judge and jury, and has found our PM guilty; now it awaits the opportunity to be executioner.

    http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2012/08/24/Our-Media-Prosecutor-Judge-Jury-and-Executioner.aspx

  97. Abbott’s hada good week he reckons – when even Channel 9’s Today Show can trip him up he’s actually had a shocker.

    Pretty to watch – isn’t it 😆

  98. Iain “there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead” that has proved to be false. It is not a carbon tax but a price on carbon leading to an ETS.

    The list just goes on and on but you must surely get the drift here, actually I don’t Ian, just like TA gaffs. and the hits they just keep on coming, By the way Iain, why would TA make a better PM

  99. paul just so as I get this right or left preferably, the troll wrote on his own worthless site… : “did not see the 7.30 program last night but I accept that Abbott did not perform well, even so I think that it will hardly register on the political pendulum.”
    Yet today August 24, 2012 @ 6:04 pm he wrote
    “CU
    I saw the interview and I disagree with your view of his performance, Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.”

    Which was it. Or is it like Abbotts no didnt read it but yes I did, but no I wasnt saying no to not reading it. FFS troll, hand your card in son, you are a mess

  100. Iain, I think that it is you who who may be protesting to much mate. Don’t use Bolt as evidence for your defence of “I’ll slip in under the radar” Abbott. That’s just ridiculas to anyone with tuppence worth of brains. He got caught out as a mendacious, lazy, unprepared fool. You defending him is pretty pathetic mate. He fucked up…twice in 24 hours and will be gone by the end of the year. He had a chance to get rid of Gillard and the CT but…the Lady’s not for turning. Run off before you make a real twit of yourself. The CT is here to stay, the LOTO is not.

  101. By the way Iain, Leigh Sales was not rude or objectionable (unless your definition of the term is showing up someone for what he really is – a fool). She asked a number of questions that Abbott couldn’t answer and when he tried to go back to his script – she reminded him of the reality.

  102. Sales wasn’t aggressive or even robust in her interview, Abbott was unprepared and was expecting his usual free run. Sorry Tony, business and finance don’t need you anymore, you failed. The CT is in and you wont be remembered for anything but being the leader of the Coalition at their worst.

  103. Abbott’s trouble is that he does not listens to questions, All he is interested in, is getting his spiel across.

    It is a long time since he took the trouble to listen and answer anyone’s questions. The “no”, was to the question he made up in his tiny brain, and set out to answer..

    I think when one comes across this in children, it is described as selective hearing.

    He has perfected the process so well, that he only hears what he wants to and has disappeared inside his own parallel universe.

  104. Anytime Abbott is asked a question, he and his supporters find it rude or objectionable

    Remember the outcry of how badly he was treated after the Mark Riley episode,

  105. “Abbott is a serial liar. Abbott’s public life is littered with lies.
    When Rudd was elected Labor leader and we learnt that he attended church regularly … Abbott said that Rudd didn’t attend church and was pretending to be religious. That was a blatant Abbott lie.
    And when it was revealled that Rudd’s father died when Kevin was 10 and the family had to move from their farm, Abbott said that Rudd was looking for sympathy and it was a lie.
    Abbott knew nothing of Rudd’s history and blatantly lied again.
    And Abbott’s famous interview on Lateline when he `didn’t remember” meeting Archbishop Pell, only to suddenly remember the meeting once the facts were presented to him.
    He is immature and dishonest. That may make him a fine Liberal leader, but he can’t represent all of us.”

    I liked this one!

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/is-abbott-on-thin-ice-absolutely-20120823-24oyz.html#ixzz24Sel8HoR

  106. I agree with the person, somewhere, who made the point that all we saw here was what an interview should be, an interviewer asking questions. All credit to Leigh Sales for doing what she did in this current climate, but it was just a bloody interview, made memorable by Abbott’s pathetic performance. An interview, for example, nowhere near as intense as Sales’ partner Chris regularly inflicts on Labor figures.

  107. The one on nine was just as good, or maybe we should say bad. The interviewer suggest that he was doing harm, talking the economy down.

  108. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says it’s now up to the public to ‘mull over’ Julia Gillard’s defence of allegations about her time as an industrial lawyer.

    The prime minister held an hour-long media conference on Thursday to counter claims about her role as a solicitor 17 years ago in giving legal advice to Australian Workers Union officials about setting up a body that was later allegedly used for private purposes by union officials.

    Police did not proceed to any charges and an internal inquiry by the law firm found no misconduct by Ms Gillard.

    Mr Abbott told reporters in Brisbane on Friday that Ms Gillard must have held the media conference because she felt she had questions to answer.

    But he said he had no interest in what she did as a lawyer almost two decades ago..

    http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/08/24/Public_must_mull_over_PMs_defence_787347.html

    Abbott is wonderful telling the PM and public what they should so. Maybe he should rake some of his own advice.

  109. Catching up @ 7:41 pm

    It is interesting, that there is no opinion polling in the NT elections.

    What will be interesting is the result CU …

    dafid @ 7:42 pm

    Troll do stop watching the mad abbotts tea party, makes you go blind

    Can I just watch it until I need glasses then?

    2353 @ 7:50 pm

    Abbott’s hada good week he reckons – when even Channel 9′s Today Show can trip him up he’s actually had a shocker.

    Pretty to watch – isn’t it 😆

    the thing is my numerical friend only the Labor tragics think that it is of major importance that Tony Abbott was less that elegant in an interview, the ordinary votors just can’t wait to throw Gillard out

    paulwello @ 7:56 pm

    Iain “there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead” that has proved to be false. It is not a carbon tax but a price on carbon leading to an ETS.

    🙄 Paul even if one was to accept that semantic argument Gillard’s performance on that issue still constitutes “a clanger” because of the way that she handled the change of mind

    The list just goes on and on but you must surely get the drift here, actually I don’t Ian, just like TA gaffs. and the hits they just keep on coming, By the way Iain, why would TA make a better PM

    When you rely on a bait and switch response I know taht I have won the point, so its a win to me there I think. 🙂

    dafid @ 8:00 pm

    paul just so as I get this right or left preferably, the troll wrote on his own worthless site… : “did not see the 7.30 program last night but I accept that Abbott did not perform well, even so I think that it will hardly register on the political pendulum.”
    Yet today August 24, 2012 @ 6:04 pm he wrote
    “CU
    I saw the interview and I disagree with your view of his performance, Leigh Sales was rude and rather objectionable.”

    Which was it. Or is it like Abbotts no didnt read it but yes I did, but no I wasnt saying no to not reading it. FFS troll, hand your card in son, you are a mess

    Its simple I do not watch broadcast TV in the evenings and I don’t get the ABC when I do watch TV so when I responded to my friend’s comment I told him what I thought and THEN I found a link to a clip of the interview, watched it and revised my opinion accordingly. Nothing mysterious or even at all problematic just the way that we grown ups do things.

    Kitkat @ 8:04 pm

    Iain, I think that it is you who who may be protesting to much mate. Don’t use Bolt as evidence for your defence of “I’ll slip in under the radar” Abbott. That’s just ridiculous to anyone with tuppence worth of brains. He got caught out as a mendacious, lazy, unprepared fool. You defending him is pretty pathetic mate. He fucked up…twice in 24 hours and will be gone by the end of the year. He had a chance to get rid of Gillard and the CT but…the Lady’s not for turning. Run off before you make a real twit of yourself. The CT is here to stay, the LOTO is not.

    When Andrew Bolt has the facts he is as good as any other source if you ask me 😉

    As any one will tell you two swallows do not a summer make Gillard has passed the point of no return and no amount of straw grasping from Labor Tragics is going to change that fact. So Abbot is less than sparkling in an interview? Well that will fade to utter insignificance when the average voter gets his next rise in his energy bill of his sporting club has to limit its activities because of the Carbon tax, or when the cost of your takeaways goes up. When they read about more Boats arriving its not Abbott’s interview that they will think about its Gillard’s ineptitude in Government.

    2353 @ 8:05 pm

    By the way Iain, Leigh Sales was not rude or objectionable (unless your definition of the term is showing up someone for what he really is – a fool). She asked a number of questions that Abbott couldn’t answer and when he tried to go back to his script – she reminded him of the reality.

    Her tone and demeanour was confrontational and the questions themselves were loaded with leftist political memes, and rather than engaging with the answers that Abbott gave she just reiterated the same question again, the whole thing had more of a police interview of a criminal suspect feel to it than an interview about politics. As my quote from Andrew bolt demonstrates the answers that Abbott gave were in fact correct when it comes to the legal status of so called asylum seekers

    paulwello @ 8:14 pm

    dafid, that’s right he contradict’s himself

    There is no contradiction in changing one’s mind Paul

    Kitkat @ 8:25 pm

    Sales wasn’t aggressive or even robust in her interview, Abbott was unprepared and was expecting his usual free run. Sorry Tony, business and finance don’t need you anymore, you failed. The CT is in and you wont be remembered for anything but being the leader of the Coalition at their worst.

    Now you are being insincere and downright untruthful any consideration of that interview would notice Leigh Sales tone and demeanour was as both aggressive and rude. Just look at her body language and teh way that she is leaning forward in her chair every time she repeats her questions, the way that she does not even consider the answers that she gets from abbot because it is not the one one that she was seeking. Her entire performance as dripping with aggression.


    jaycee @ 8:28 pm

    “…unlawful boat entries”..The boats may be “unlawful”, but the passengers are not!

    Actually its unlawful to enter this country (as a non citizen)without a valid visa.

    Catching up @ 8:42 pm

    Abbott’s trouble is that he does not listens to questions, All he is interested in, is getting his spiel across.

    Show me a Labor MP who does not do this Please!

    BSA Bob @ 11:07 pm

    I agree with the person, somewhere, who made the point that all we saw here was what an interview should be, an interviewer asking questions. All credit to Leigh Sales for doing what she did in this current climate, but it was just a bloody interview, made memorable by Abbott’s pathetic performance. An interview, for example, nowhere near as intense as Sales’ partner Chris regularly inflicts on Labor figures.

    It should be pointed out that when Chris Uhlman gives Labor members a hard time then the chorus here wails and moans about “their ABC” or other claims of media bias but when Sales does the same thing to Abbott you lot applaud, Hmm is that confirmation bias or what !

    paulwello @ 1:33 am

    Iain when quoting from articles it is advisable to quote the whole article, not take bits from the article to make your case. here is the article in full.

    When one is well over the material in question (as I am having covered the asylum seeker issue for as long as I have been blogging)then you don’t need to rush to re-read all of the links in Andrew Bolts piece.

    paulwello 1:36 am

    Iain, by the way I actually stayed up and read these articles, 😎 😎 😎

    That you belatedly had to swat up on the issue is nothing to boast about Paul 🙄

  110. Iain, a problem for Abbott is that it has been a one man band. With Abbott increasingly coming under scrutiny, there is simply no one to come forward to take some of the heat off him..but of course, you reap what you sew..don’t you Tony.

  111. The preoccupation with discipline extends to the Abbott office’s control over the frontbench. Some shadow ministers rail about the constraints they are under, with the leader’s staff vetting and restricting their media engagements.

    Yes Min a one man band that micro controls the party that has a considerable amount of resentment towards Abbott bubbling away in the background waiting to boil over.

  112. Iain :There is no contradiction in changing one’s mind Paul”. Thank you Iain. Game Set Match. I am glad you agree Iain. I also notice you actually do the same thing on your site, cut and paste to your desire.

    Andrew Bolt, that other great keeper of the faith. Fell out of my chair on that one mate. 😆 😆 😆 😆

  113. Möbius, that must have been a worry for Abbott’s backbench at the last election when he stated that his current team would be the one he would take to the next election…and by gum he meant it. Can’t have any of that pesky promotion thing happening on Team Abbott…

  114. Min @ 7:44 am

    Iain, a problem for Abbott is that it has been a one man band. With Abbott increasingly coming under scrutiny, there is simply no one to come forward to take some of the heat off him..but of course, you reap what you sew..don’t you Tony.

    I don’t want to needle you Min but you metaphor does not quite work when you try to sew it together with the wrong stitches
    OK
    enough of my nitpicking, I just don’t accept your argument that Abbott is a “one man band” all of his front bench have been doing well to deliver the party message to the people.

    Möbius Ecko @ 7:57 am

    The preoccupation with discipline extends to the Abbott office’s control over the frontbench. Some shadow ministers rail about the constraints they are under, with the leader’s staff vetting and restricting their media engagements.

    And this is a bad thing?
    Party discipline is a very good thing for consistency if you ask me , especially when you face a generally hostile media who are, like Ms Sales very keen to play the Gotcha! rather than to really explore the issues

    Yes Min a one man band that micro controls the party that has a considerable amount of resentment towards Abbott bubbling away in the background waiting to boil over.

    And Gillard does not try to make sure that the resentments in her party delivers a knife to her pointy end first?

    paulwello @ 8:00 am

    Iain :There is no contradiction in changing one’s mind Paul”. Thank you Iain. Game Set Match. I am glad you agree Iain. I also notice you actually do the same thing on your site, cut and paste to your desire.

    WTF?????

    Oh are you referring to Gillard by any chance?
    Well if you are perhaps you need to understand that there is a difference between changing one’s mind and breaking a promise and then using a complex semantic argument to insist that what was said before was still true even though the outcome was its antithesis.

    Andrew Bolt, that other great keeper of the faith. Fell out of my chair on that one mate.

    Even the most unlikely people can deliver the necessary truth

  115. When Andrew Bolt has the facts he is as good as any other source if you ask me

    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

    In other words, never 😉

  116. then using a complex semantic argument

    The ‘complex semantic argument’ was how the media managed to spin a fixed price period (which had always been mooted under Rudds ETS, and never referred to as a Carbon Tax back then) into somehow being ‘tax like’, and therefore, able to be called a ‘Carbon Tax’.

    Prior to the election, a Carbon Tax had always referred to a ‘tax’ on energy CONSUMPTION, whereas a price, an ETS, was one on PRODUCTION.

    After the election, the media, using semantics as loosely as they could, and decided that a Carbon Tax could also be applied to a mechanism on PRODUCTION as well as CONSUMPTION. They changed the definition, after the election, and Gillard, to her detriment, allowed them to, even saying, ‘you can call it a tax if you want (she never said it was a Carbon Tax).

    It doesn’t change the fact that, prior to the election, as the oo’s headline stated, Gillard made a pledge to try and introduce a market based mechanism for pricing carbon, and it is precisely what she has done. Her big ‘lie’, is that it came in earlier than she wanted.

    And somehow you think it is the Governmnet playing ‘semantics’, even when the Prime Minister Gillard allowed this re-definition of the term precisely because she refused to play that game.

    What a bizarre twisting of recent history you possess

  117. I posted this yesterday

    JULIA Gillard is right – she will never satisfy the nuts and conspiracists lurking in the blogosphere about her suitability to be Prime Minister.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/frankly-delay-only-undermines-trust/story-e6frg75f-1226457000564

    I guess even shanana underestimated the dummy spit his paper would take

    Media’s shameful silence

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/opinion/medias-shameful-silence/story-e6frg99o-1226457713761

    I guess that standing in front of all journo’s (a large representation from the oo too if the comments at the time were correct) still isn’t good enough. Apparently, only ONE is good enough to ask the right question (whatever that might be)

    It appears that the nuts and conspiracists lurking in the blogosphere were onto this one early. Or perhaps thomas gets his material from there ❓

    I suspect that the ones ranting about it were not in the room. Was Hedley Thomas there???

    It does take some knowledge on the subject to ask the right questions.

    http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/im-the-victim-of-a-sexist-smear-campaign/#comment-5481

    Typical, just blame the HATE MEDIA 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

    The nuts were even claiming “Gillard Lied” about why other stories were pulled. They really is no end to the nuttery!

  118. Great piece Min. The only thing I would disagree with is when you say that men might find this sexism hard to understand. We may not be able to empathise, but a blind person could see the way women are judged one different criteria to men in the political world. It’s not fair and (unfortunately) it doesn’t look like changing any time soon.

  119. Luke, certain men your good self and our other wonderful empathetic blokes, as represented by the vast majority on this blog, excluded.

  120. So Iain, you rely on Bolt for your information. 😈 😈 😈

    Well if you are perhaps you need to understand that there is a difference between changing one’s mind and breaking a promise, So Iain, Abbott doesn’t change his mind or break promises.

  121. By the Iain, you still have not answered the one question we all seem to ask, Why would Tony Abbott make a better PM.

    by you non response, I am assuming that he would not make a better PM, especially after this weeks display on being Interviewed over what were relatively easy questions.

  122. “…over what were relatively easy questions.”

    Not relatively easy questions but just standard media 101 questions that journalists should always ask but up until now haven’t with Abbott.

    The Right in their usual tizzy of outrage when one of their heroes well and truly screws it, which is often, are attempting to make out Sales was forceful and tricky but nothing could be further from the truth.

    It’s their warped view of reality that’s also exemplified by woeful Uhlmann interviews with Labor pollies where they say Uhlmann was too soft and didn’t ask hard enough questions whilst the Labor pollie didn’t answer.

    Something that hasn’t been mentioned in the now famous for infamous reasons 7:30 Report interview was Abbott’s classic projection.

    He had a false go at Gillard in saying she avoided answering questions and barged through them and then he spent the next five minutes not answering questions and barging through them.

  123. Tony Abbott the liar said he hadn’t watched the PM because it occurred about a half hour before QT.
    The PM took questions for over 50 minutes and still had 10 minutes to spare before QT.
    Abbott is expecting the voters to believe that NO ONE in his office watched the PM NOR did they alert him to what was happening.
    Abbott the liar also expects voters to believe that Credlin or another would not have given him some FACTs of what occurred,especially as he was heading into QT. If the PM had performed badly Abbott would have peppered her with questions. So stop the BS Abbott! The truth is what you saw shook you to the core and it took a few hours for you spin team to come up with the pathetic lines you have pushed ever since.
    “I will let the public digest ……
    There are still some questions……….
    It is not blah blah lawyer, it is blah blah Pm..”

    Well that is about it, isn’t it? The PM can stand and take questions you Abbott run and hide. The PM gets on with running the country among all the smear and muck and Abbott unable to speak of other than 3 word slogans walks off camera at his own stunts when any question is off his list of answers.

  124. “:It should be pointed out that when Chris Uhlman gives Labor members a hard time then the chorus here wails and moans about “their ABC” or other claims of media bias but when Sales does the same thing to Abbott you lot applaud, Hmm is that confirmation bias or what !

    Maybe you are right, but they do not make fools of themselves, giving the wrong answer. Most can do more t

    If that interviewer was rude and aggressive, god help the man when he comes up against someone that is.

    I just hope it is not a representive, from another country, while he is negotiating important matters on behalf of the nation.

    One trick Tony comes to mind.

  125. Interesting things happening. Even Channel 9 news here in Adelaide gave Abbott a serve last night, & a well prepared dish it was. A pinch too much of the “they’re as bad as each other” for my liking, but we have to accept that & the meat portion was Tones.
    Saying Abbott “couldn’t find time for this” & showing him admitting he hadn’t read the BHP reports or Gillard’s presser. Then “but he could find time for this” with footage of him hobnobbing with owners at a boat show.
    What interested me is that Abbott would’ve done the boat thing in the expectation of it being being presented positively & that mums & dads in front of the screen would’ve said “look kiddies, there’s that wonderful Mr Abbott, who’s going to be Prime Minister real soon. ‘Aint he grand?!”. And he was instead portrayed as a slacker spending his time hanging around with rich bastards & their toys.
    Maybe, just maybe…

  126. In fairness to 9, which I whinge about a lot, it hasn’t been too keen to harass Gillard over S&G & has in fact taken the odd swipe at Abbott lately.

    One too many “being”s in the previous post but I’m sure you get the drift.

  127. Bob, Abbott’s priorities of course. I get the feeling that he intends to run the country via his charm and good looks. 🙄

  128. Lying. breaking promises. Seems o be the big thing when it comes to the PM. As I see it, there is only one document broken promise or lie.

    The PM bought in the CEF a fixed price on carbon emissions, that evolves in to a market based cost.

    Now many have twisted this into a lie, or broken promised.

    The PM also made another promised, in the same interview it seems, that she would be dealing with climate change by introducing a cost on emission, that would be marker based.

    Mr. Abbott had come out previously for a carbon tax, instead of a market based cost on emissions. Abbott acknowledged that their was a difference tweenies the two proposals.

    Yes, the PM was stupid for not insisting there was a difference when she introduced the bills. Yes, she allow the misconception to continue, as she did not want to get bogged down in a debate over meanings of words.

    The PM was silly, it appears, for believing the public would work it out for themselves.

  129. So the troll lives up to its title and is the cut and paste deceiver. Thats dishonest troll, bit like a certain Opposition leader, the serial liar well known for fiddling the truth, you fiddle the news to assist your torie agenda. Stick to appealing to your own kind troll, you are caught out yet again here.

  130. I forgot, they say the PM is a serial liar. Could someone compile a list of what they believe those lies are.

    Yes, why would Abbott make a better PM.

  131. Dot Parker even better than usual at Loon Pond.
    Can’t do links despite others trying to show me, sorry. But worth the trip.

  132. Iain – when Abbott actually answered one of Sales questions, she moved on. Abbott seemingly doesn’t have Gillard’s ability to stand there for 49 minutes unscripted and give reasonable and concise answers to all comers so it’s nor Leigh Sales fault that she had to ask the same question a few times until she got an answer to the question she asked – not something close from Abbott’s script.

    paulwello – the aspirations are quickly forgotten once in power by spurious claims that “things are much worse” generated by dodgy reports complied by political mates on some ridiculous daily retainer (or the State Treasurer of the LNP as in the case of the Minister for Public Works in Queensland).

  133. Excellent summary of what ‘really happened’.Sue. Not the crap and lies version Abbott would have the public believe happened. I questioned his rubbish on another blog and not one word from libturds in defence of the nutter He is now lying about so many topics daily, he is falling into the trap all liars find themselves in, can’t remember what lie when, where, to whom and what about. By the look of him he is heading for a complete breakdown, self inflicted.

  134. Iain :”When one is well over the material in question (as I am having covered the asylum seeker issue for as long as I have been blogging)then you don’t need to rush to re-read all of the links in Andrew Bolts piece.”

    Iain, I actually went to the UNHCR web site for my information, you went to Bolt. Do not have to say any more.

  135. As Abbott has seen fit to abuse and attack the PM over an unproved, no proof of incident over 19yrs ago when she was a young lawyer. Lets have a look at the same Abbot when he was a Minister of the Crown, a member of Cabinet, under his papa Rodent Howard. Do a legitimate cut and paste thats not used out of context as in a troll.
    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s932651.htm

  136. Surely this is another plus for the PM. Yes, I know, some might not be getting the profits they expect.

    Read about it in the AFR today. Summary here:
    Housing is the most affordable it has been in almost a decade but consumers remain negative. Writing in the Weekend Financial Review, Rismark and Yellow Brick Road director Christopher Joye says negativity in the media distorts a more nuanced view put forward by the Reserve Bank of Australia and leads to an unnecessary level of pessimism among consumers. Mr Joye argues that housing affordability is at its best in years.
    http://www.blogotariat.com/node/537732

  137. Arthur Sinodinos. He is working hard. Getting up at four to write speech. Cycling and running around the country. He works very hard. Did not sound convinced.

    Suggestion. Forgo the daylight bike rides. Forgo travelling around the country for a two minute photo opt and stunt.

    Just stop running might help. Take time to address the important matters.

    If I was Abbott on Thursday. I would have been glued to that TV screen. Everyone in my office would have been told to record every error the PM makes, and be ready to attack when she finished.

    The PM did challenge him to ask questions in the following QT. Not one question asked.

    Maybe, because the PM did not misspeak or make errors. There were no questions left to ask.

  138. A funny thought entered my head this morning. Some would say all my thoughts are funny, but we will let that go.

    We have the PM forced to open up Nauru and Manus Island, The UNHCR has said they will not be a party to this action.

    At the same time, we have the Malaysia Solution, postponed, which the UNHCR supported,

    Where is the morality or commonsense.

    The PM will have to work hard to get a better deal with Malaysia and one hopes Indonesia.

    It is good that the numbers have been put up. It is good that the extra money is being provided.

    The problem is that there needs to be a regional solution for everything to work.

    Nauru and Manus Island are only seen as a circuit breaker and stop gap measure. It can never be anymore than this.

    The PM will continue to have problems in the polls, until all the propositions are put in place. Pressure needs to be kept up on Abbott for this to happen.

    The reality is that any sent to the Islands cannot be left there for long. That is not feasible. It is also not feasible to bring them to Australia.

    I hope that options can be found for them within the regional solution. Women alone with young children, might see the islands as an option. A place that offers education for their children, while they wait.

    I am sure that Bowen and the PM are fully conscious of the work that needs to be done. What we have, is only the beginning.

  139. LOL Iain, if you keep up with those contortions, you’ll do your back in. You call me “hate filled”, simply for stating how moronic you appear based on your posts to this site, yet bend yourself out of shape defending the frequently hate-filled utterances of your beloved Abbott & Pyne. You do this by deliberately ignoring the difference between an *analogy* (like baying) & an outright insult (calling a woman a bitch). You also employ the usual stereotypes about homosexuals to make a claim that *others* are being homophobic by calling Pyne poncey & weedy. Well guess what, Iain, I consider myself masculine, yet I would describe myself as “weedy”. I also have a lot of straight friends who are weedy, & a lot of gay friends who are incredibly buff. By the same token, I know plenty of straight guys who are, quite frankly, poncy in their mannerisms & gait-but I certainly don’t assume they’re gay, so why do you assume the word means that, unless *you* think homosexuals are poncy & weedy. Your claims regarding femininity also expose more about your stereotypes, than they do about the people at this group.
    Oh, but I do have to laugh at how some straight white males can be so extremely sensitive about *perceived* sexism or racism directed against them-whilst being the loudest in calling for a removal of laws that protect minorities, & the less powerful in our society, from vilification (as Iain has been guilty of many a time). Wanting to defend these people from abuse-especially abuse based on lies & unrealistic stereotypes-isn’t being PC, it’s just being a decent person-something which you’re clearly unfamiliar with Iain!

  140. ” consider myself masculine, yet I would describe myself as “weedy””

    Marcus, agree one hundred percent. My maternal grandfather was 5’4′ Most of his life, he kept the weight he carried as a pony jockey in his young days. He was the biggest man I have ever known. He was admired by all who knew him, all his life.

    No he did not make a fortune. Made his living in small business. The last ended in bankruptcy, keeping people fed during the depression. Yes, he was a great man.,

  141. Tony Abbott (Liar) says carbon tax introduction not catastrophic. (my emphasis)

    He just can’t help himself can he. Even when he knows it’s a gross exaggeration and the carbon price is not going anywhere near to 2050 he still takes a piece of modelling out of context and lies about it.

    LIAR, and far worse than any other pollie, even Howard, because Abbott Liar continues to lie even when the lie is pointed out to him, and then he lies about lies and lies about lying.

    If there was ever a pollie who deserved the LIAR label as part of his name it is Abbott, so from now on departing from my norm of using just surnames I am calling Abbott, Abbott Liar.

  142. One can hope so. Cannot really see any reason why it won’t.

    IS Julia Gillard gathering momentum? That is the question intriguing all sides of politics as the Prime Minister tries valiantly to lift her electoral stocks and put Labor on a competitive footing going into an election year.

    There are early signs that through all the fog of carbon tax resentment, voter dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s personality, continuing leadership speculation within the ALP, the Coalition’s steady election-winning lead in the polls and Tony Abbott’s unrelenting competition, the Gillard government and Gillard herself may be on the cusp of a recovery.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/gillard-looks-to-summer-of-love/story-e6frg6z6-1226457707073

  143. Ms Gillard rejected calls from business leaders for industrial relations reform, saying they were wrong to believe it was the “magic bullet” to improve the economy and productivity.

    “But there’s something that is far more powerful and transformative: education and training,” she said.

    “The future belongs to well-trained workers in well-managed firms using the latest technology and supported by high-quality enterprise agreements.”

    Ms Gillard said she would launch an Industry and Innovation Statement in coming months and promised she would make sure “Victoria will not be left behind”

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/prime-minister-julia-gillard-slams-baillieu-government-for-cutting-tafe-funding-in-victoria/story-e6frf7kx-1226457652235

  144. On The Pulse blog this week Katharine Murphy posted a ”poll of polls”, aggregating the two-party vote from Newspoll, Age/Nielsen, Essential Media, Morgan and Galaxy. The trend is tiny, but from about budget time there has been a slight movement up by Labor, with the corresponding slight move down by the Coalition. There is still a huge gap. But at the moment the Gillard strategists are more cheerful than before. They report that in the focus groups people laugh when Tony Abbott’s name comes up.
    Make of that what you will.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-proves-a-tough-nut-to-crack-in-rough-week-20120824-24rwj.html#ixzz24XIrjn55

  145. Worth pasting in full. PM building up confidence in the future. Abbott, elsewhere tearing it down We have the builder and demolisher. That is the choice.

    Creating a beautiful garden and building a nation require similar characteristics such as planning and time, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.

    Ms Gillard launched the 25th anniversary season of Open Gardens Australia at the prime minister’s residence, the Lodge, in Canberra on Saturday.

    She said skills such as forethought, planning, much ambition and “some sitting on your nerves” were essential to cultivate a beautiful garden and to build a nation.

    “The gardener must commit him or herself to a task that won’t see any benefit for quite some time,” Ms Gillard told attendees in the Lodge’s gardens.

    Advertisement
    The investments in building a garden, and a nation, sometime paid off, Ms Gillard said.

    “The patience and perseverance that it takes to grow gardens and nations are not always valued in the modern world,” she said.

    Ms Gillard thanked her gardeners at the Lodge for providing a “place of beauty and restfulness”.

    After her speech, the prime minister brought out her cavoodle dog, Reuben.

    Reuben became the attraction as attendees wanted to take a picture of the dog or pat him.

    Ms Gillard walked with members of Open Gardens Australia as her gardeners gave a tour of the Lodge’s spaces.

    Her ease in walking with Reuben around a group of people was another world from her political week.

    This week the prime minister was forced to revisit 17-year-old claims about her integrity.

    Following revived allegations about her time as a young lawyer setting up a “slush fund” for her then partner and Australian Workers Union (AWU) boss Bruce Wilson, Ms Gillard held an hour-long, ask-until-you-drop media conference on Thursday.

    Her performance appeared to satisfy the press gallery.

    Foreign Minister Bob Carr said this weekend the prime minister would probably be thinking about her performance at that press conference.

    “Julia Gillard threw away the script and spoke from the heart,” Senator Carr told Sky News on Saturday.

    “We politicians are probably never more effective than when we do that.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gardens-nations-need-time-planning-pm-20120825-24sy1.html

  146. Cu and your quote from the PM,

    “But there’s something that is far more powerful and transformative: education and training,” she said.

    . Well said Julia…

  147. We are seeing a very relaxed and caring person I believe. One that has many facets to her personally.

  148. We have the PM forced to open up Nauru and Manus Island, The UNHCR has said they will not be a party to this action.

    At the same time, we have the Malaysia Solution, postponed, which the UNHCR supported,

    Yes CU, the Greens must be very proud of their ‘negotiating’ techniques 😉

    They almost destroyed the ETS, and now have managed to get Nauru opened again.

    Fantastic negotiating skills there 😯

  149. Paul

    I have signed off with “Cheers Comrades” for years and frankly I can’t remember the first time that I did so. I do recall that it pissed off some Uber-lefties a great deal, heck one even offered dire threats should I continue to sign off that way. As you will notice I stared him down and if anything he spurred me on to make it part of the way that I write at the Sandpit. Anyway as this practice has developed I have come to think that although calling your fellows ‘comrade” has been a hallmark of communists that they do not have, nor do they deserve, a monopoly on the notions of good fellowship and us all being comrades so when I offer cheers to my fellow human beings at the end of every post at my blog it is not to be ironic or to be a smart-arse its because I genuinely mean to wish my fellow travellers on the journey of life well no matter what their political beliefs or affiliations may be. That wish is one of the reasons that I find hate spitting political commentators (of both the left and the right) both incredibly sad and incredibly boring. We can certainly disagree with each other over the best direction for society but what all of us who are interested in politics share is a desire to see a better society and a decent future for our children.

    http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/why-cheers-comrades/

  150. that has to be the longest non answer there is, just like his hero TA, cannot answer a simple question. 😕 😕 😕

  151. Pingback: Blurring the boundaries of sexism: Political correctness gone wrong « theblogicalvoice

  152. “We can certainly disagree with each other over the best direction for society but what all of us who are interested in politics share is a desire to see a better society and a decent future for our children.”

    We can indeed. What one objects to, is having views of others pushed down ones throat.

    I object the the “you are wrong etc.. I would rather see, I do not agree with what is said. Maybe, I see it different.

    This is not what we get from trolls. It always ends with you lot, or you naive. The list goes on and on and on.

    The sad thing is that they cannot see the difference.

    Challenging ideas is enough. No need to challenge people. Let the arguments depend of facts and data, not personality.

    I also have the funny notion, if one enters the debates they should be willing to answer questions. Debates are a two way street.

  153. So Iain, when are you going to give an answer to that all important question, why would Tony abbott make a good PM.

    I’ll answer for you Iain, you do not have an answer as you are to embarrassed to answer because you know he would not make a PM, that is why you are hiding from the answer.

  154. paul, there will be no answer, as the likes of whom you are asking are not here to join in the debate.

    They are here to disrail any discussions that do not fit in with their, I sometimes believe, misguided view of the world.

    Yes, I am attacking trolls personally. I have to do this, because this is the level they take any worthwhile debate to. That means we get nowhere.

  155. Iain, clearly the use of the word comrade is a valid sign off however spoken one can tell the tone of a person’s voice to know whether or not they are being sarcastic….

  156. My goodness, dafid. A politician setting up a slush fund. Julia Gillard is being battered from pillar to post for being a politician who allegedly once set one up before her industrious political career had even kicked off. 😉

  157. CU, I know I will not get an answer from the troll, as we all know that is what they do, not to debate an issue, they are only good at lies and innuendo, they are no good at giving the facts and when they do it is from the likes of jones and bolt, true pushes of rubbish.

  158. http://abc.net.au/

    [This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s932651.htm%5D

    KERRY O’BRIEN: Welcome to the program.

    A political furore has erupted over revelations that one of the Howard Government’s most senior ministers, Tony Abbott, set up a slush fund to pay for legal challenges to Pauline Hanson and her party, One Nation.

    Despite repeated denials back in 1998, Mr Abbott last night acknowledged to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ newspaper he’d raised almost $100,000 in an attempt to fund actions against One Nation.

    While he and his colleagues were refusing to make any comment today, the admission is a setback for the Government.

    It clearly suggests Mr Abbott did not tell the truth in the affair at the time, and has provoked government fears of a backlash from voters responding angrily to Pauline Hanson’s jailing.

    Then, today, Mr Abbott’s stalking horse, One Nation dissident Terry Sharples, claimed that the PM was also aware of the machinations.

    Heather Ewart reports.

    HEATHER EWART: Pauline Hanson is wreaking political havoc once again.

    The severity of her sentence handed down last week raised widespread public debate and was questioned by various politicians across all parties, from the PM down.

    JOHN HOWARD, PM: Like many other people, I find the sentence certainly very long and very severe.

    HEATHER EWART: But how the political wind can shift so quickly.

    Now it’s turned to a desperate bid by the Liberal Party to fob off revelations today that one of John Howard’s most senior Ministers, Tony Abbott, had set up a $100,000 slush fund to ruin Pauline Hanson.

    And the Labor Party is having a field day.

    CRAIG EMERSON, OPPOSITION INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SPOKESMAN: The PM has sought to gain the support of One Nation voters by expressing sympathy for Pauline Hanson and yet his senior minister was up to his neck in raising funds and disbursing funds to ensure that she was prosecuted.

    PETER BEATTIE, QUEENSLAND PREMIER: I think everybody who’s had a hand in this, no matter how high or how low, if you like, should come clean.

    HEATHER EWART: As the Federal Cabinet met in Sydney, Tony Abbott’s colleagues were refusing to buy into it, for obvious reasons.

    REPORTER: What’s your reaction to the news Mr Abbott helped fund the trust fund behind the demise of One Nation?

    PETER COSTELLO: Excuse me.

    REPORTER: Mr Downer, any comment on Mr Abbott’s involvement?

    ALEXANDER DOWNER: I know nothing about it.

    POLITICIAN: I don’t know that it had been organised and I certainly didn’t have anything to do with it.

    HEATHER EWART: And the man himself, Tony Abbott, was keeping an unusually low profile.

    It was left to Justice Minister Chris Ellison to throw a few scraps of legalese.

    SENATOR CHRIS ELLISON, JUSTICE MINISTER: As the matter now is subject to appeal, as Minister for Justice it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of the case or the sentence.

    HEATHER EWART: The fact is the slush fund is now out of the bag, despite Tony Abbott’s previous denials of its existence.

    And his admission last night to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ that he had set it up is damaging for the Government.

    Expressions of surprise at Pauline Hanson’s sentence now look disingenuous to say the least.

    And a senior minister has been caught out not telling the truth.

    At the centre of the furore is this man — Terry Sharples, a One Nation dissident who sought an injunction to block One Nation from receiving public electoral funds.

    Back in 1998, Tony Abbott repeatedly insisted in this ‘Four Corners’ interview that he had not bankrolled Mr Sharples’ court action or indeed that there was any fund.

    REPORTER, ‘FOUR CORNERS’, 1998: So there was never any question of any party funds or other funds from any other source —

    TONY ABBOTT, FEDERAL LIBERAL MP: Absolutely not.

    REPORTER: ..being offered to Terry Sharples?

    TONY ABBOTT: Absolutely not.

    REPORTER: He told us at one point a different story.

    TONY ABBOTT: Really?

    REPORTER: There were never any discussions about money?

    TONY ABBOTT: Look, I was aware that Terry didn’t regard himself as particularly flush with funds.

    REPORTER: Is there any possibility that the Liberal Party actually does have a special fund to push cases like this?

    TONY ABBOTT: Look, if there is — and I doubt that there is — if there is, Tony, you should ask someone else.

    HEATHER EWART: Now it emerges that Tony Abbott was the man to be asking all along.

    He’s told the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ he did raise almost $100,000 for a political fighting fund named Australians for Honest Politics.

    He said the job of Australians for Honest Politics was to fund court cases against One Nation.

    But why the confession now?

    PETER BEATTIE: Don’t think this is done because he’s a wonderful human being.

    There were court documents and it was clear the truth was going to eventually come out and it has.

    CRAIG EMERSON, OPPOSITION INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SPOKESMAN: Tony Abbott needs to answer these questions.

    Where did the money come from?

    Who received the money?

    And who made the decisions on who received the money?

    HEATHER EWART: But those questions were not going to be answered by Tony Abbott today.

    His office did not issue any denial of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ report, but nor did they expand on it.

    What has emerged from a check of the 1998 register of members’ interests is that the other trustees of the fund were Treasurer Peter Costello’s father-in-law, Peter Coleman, and a former Labor minister John Wheeldon.

    And what we do have on the record from Tony Abbott at an impromptu news conference in Melbourne yesterday is this —

    TONY ABBOTT: Everything I did in 1998 I did entirely off my own bat.

    It was all my own work and, like the PM, I was shocked at the sentence she got.

    Don’t forget that the matter that I was trying to promote back in 1998 was a civil action, a civil action to try to stop the payment of $500,000 to Pauline Hanson’s party.

    And, if the Queensland Electoral Commissioner back then hadn’t made that payment, a payment which was subsequently found to be unlawful, well, then, we would never have had the subsequent criminal case.

    HEATHER EWART: And that brings us back to the case of Terry Sharples, who maintained late today that he met Tony Abbott in 1998 about his action against One Nation.

    TERRY SHARPLES, ONE NATION DISSIDENT: The exact words he used were, “Right, we’re going to go ahead with this because we’ve been discussing a possible court action.

    I’m going to put $20,000 into a trust account of a solicitor called Russell.”

    HEATHER EWART: Later that year, Sharples says he struck a hitch.

    TERRY SHARPLES: I started to get phone calls from a solicitor who purported to be acting for Abbott, purportedly offering to try and settle everything for $10,000, which was a nonsense because the court costs at that stage that had been awarded against me were significantly higher than that.

    HEATHER EWART: According to today’s report, Mr Abbott admitted to the $10,000 figure as a commitment to Mr Sharples’ case.

    Unhappy with that offer, Mr Sharples says he took his claim to the top, complaining twice in letters to the PM in September 1999.

    TERRY SHARPLES: John Howard, through his private secretary Tony Nutt, wrote to me and indicated he regarded the matter between Tony and myself as a private matter.

    But by that stage everyone was running for cover.

    HEATHER EWART: That would appear to indicate that John Howard or his office were by no means out of the loop.

    The focus for now, though, has been on Tony Abbott.

    Perhaps no-one should be surprised that one political party would want to bring down another.

    But, once again, this whole affair raises questions about political standards and truthfulness in public life.

    And there’s no doubt that in both major political parties there’s sensitivity about an electoral backlash from those voters sympathetic to Pauline Hanson.

  159. Sorry, it is so long, but I believe essential reading. I love the web. Instant recovery. All is needed is a couple of words.

  160. The truth is that Tony is a equal opportunity hater and it extends to to hating the Labor and, and the Labor woman.

    Tony needs to be told, you are the chief of staff. You are her boss.
    Insiders.

    Sad that they all use the word hate.

  161. I am not certain that equality of opportunity crosses the mind of Tony Abbott – flexibility in the workplace suggests negotiating skills and opportunities, rarely available to unskilled or semi skilled labour.

  162. CU

    do you think there should be calls for Abbott to make a statement to parliament about the Hanson Slush Fund. I am sure the Labor party would allow Mr Abbott the opportunity to tell parliament about the Slush fund. The parliament is where the whole truth should be told and if he doesn’t declare the whole truth then there can be repercussions. The parliament is much more important than talking to some journalist.

    Abbott lets have a truth telling day about your slush fund, afyerall there is such a nasty inference about lawyers slush funds and the power of the liberal party. Also while you are there in the parliament talking about the liberals, lawyers and slush funds can you also declare if the former PM John Howard was aware of your actions in setting up the slush fund.

    Actually Miglo, that whole extract would make a great post “Tony Abbott and the Slush Fund”, maybe we could name the lawyers complicit with Tony Abbott and the setting up of the slush fund. The lawyers may enjoy the publicity, they can let us know if a file was raised or even if the work was pro-bono.

  163. ‘Mugged by the truth’: Labor goes for Abbott on carbon tax

    I nearly fell out of my chair on reading this:

    Liberal MP Bruce Billson described his leader as a “very gifted and intelligent person” and probably the most academically qualified economic mind in federal parliament.

    Then why Bilson is he such an absolute dunce on economics, unable to get his head around taxes?

    Then I had a good chuckle over this with Bilson not putting out enough bullshit on his first statement he follows up:

    “He’s also a journalist and you would know the discipline in your profession of taking complex ideas, analysing them, understanding them and then being able to communicate them to people that might not be as involved in the policy debate as we are,” Mr Billson told Sky News.

    “That’s a great gift.”

    So now the Liberals believe anserine brain farts and bumbling three word slogans repeated over and over are taking complex ideas, analysing them, understanding them and communicating them to the people.

    If that’s the case then Abbott has taken the once great Liberal party down far further than I thought was the case.

  164. Möbius, I didn’t know that Billson was so adept at comedy…at least we now know that he an extremely vivid imagination.

  165. Mo that really sums up the desperate plight of the Opposition that they make such absurdly ludicrous rubbish comments and expect reasonable intelligent people to believe such crap. Not even the great troll would have the audacity to support such a statement and it has supported some outlandish Abbott crap here.
    I have written to Billson requesting he attend his nearest realist advisor and get help.

  166. The comedy gold from the Right keeps coming, this time from one of Abbott Liar’s favoured groups, the ACL.

    “Labor brand damage among Christians in rural seats partly to blame for NT election”

    Won’t link to the ACL website but they contend that Labor did badly in the bush because of it’s support of gays. They put it this way:

    :…heavily Christian indigenous communities would reject the Labor brand when it is so tainted with its association with the Greens and their faith-offensive policies.”

    I won’t get into a hate of mine in Christian ministries going out and brain washing converting other cultures.

  167. Möbius, faith offensive policies as compared with religion based nut jobs…

    Lordy Lordy, it’s a miracle little Aubergine Walllace has been blind since birth. Hallelujah and praise the Lord, I can see again…and here’s your 50 bucks Aub..

  168. I believe that Howard had no time for universities. Would not cross the threshold of the one in Canberra.

    It appears they are to return to caps be

    Labor increases education spending. All Liberals governments cut back.

    Emerson reckons the born to rule, like to keep the rip rap out.

  169. Nothing, just the usual rubbish that he puts here. only a few people visit his blog and comment.

    BORES VILLE really and he’s a bit twisted I think 😈 😈 😈

  170. paulwello@ 11:59 am

    Iain you still have not answered our question here.

    I and sure that I have given you a really clear answer to the question you asked about the way I sign off my posts

    paulwello @ 12:08 pm

    that has to be the longest non answer there is, just like his hero TA, cannot answer a simple question. 😕 😕 😕

    What do you want Paul a witnessed confession signed in blood?

    Catching up @ 1:08 pm

    “We can certainly disagree with each other over the best direction for society but what all of us who are interested in politics share is a desire to see a better society and a decent future for our children.”

    We can indeed. What one objects to, is having views of others pushed down ones throat.

    That is the very last thing that I seek to do when I comment here CU

    I object the the “you are wrong etc.. I would rather see, I do not agree with what is said. Maybe, I see it different.

    So if I am obsequious enough you will be nice to me in the comments? 🙄 I though that the collective here was up for robust debate!

    This is not what we get from trolls. It always ends with you lot, or you naive. The list goes on and on and on.

    Don’t take it so personally CU! I resist the temptation to respond with the same sort of agro that some direct at me for the sin of not being a lefty.

    The sad thing is that they cannot see the difference.

    Challenging ideas is enough. No need to challenge people. Let the arguments depend of facts and data, not personality.

    Please pass that on to those on your side of the divide who don’t know how to play nice

    I also have the funny notion, if one enters the debates they should be willing to answer questions. Debates are a two way street.

    I always answer question CU but I can’t be blamed if you don’t like the answers
    paulwello @ 1:09 pm

    So Iain, when are you going to give an answer to that all important question, why would Tony Abbott make a good PM.

    Because if he becomes PM it will mean that Labor have been thrown out, What more can be said but

    I’ll answer for you Iain, you do not have an answer as you are to embarrassed to answer because you know he would not make a PM, that is why you are hiding from the answer.

    Don’t put words into my mouth thank you very much 😉

    Catching up @ 1:14 pm

    paul, there will be no answer, as the likes of whom you are asking are not here to join in the debate.

    They are here to disrail any discussions that do not fit in with their, I sometimes believe, misguided view of the world.

    No CU there has been a delay because the land-line and my internet connection has been out for a couple of days

    Yes, I am attacking trolls personally. I have to do this, because this is the level they take any worthwhile debate to. That means we get nowhere.

    Hmm I think that you are not actually up to real debate with someone who does not share you political beliefs

    Min @ 1:29 pm

    Iain, clearly the use of the word comrade is a valid sign off however spoken one can tell the tone of a person’s voice to know whether or not they are being sarcastic….

    Like a lot of things the way that something like my sign off can be read in a number of ways and to be honest I don’t think about it very much these days. Its just the way that I finish a post I sign off with “Cheers Comrades” or a variation there of and some sort of picture which is intended to set the tone of the piece as well.

    paulwello @ 1:33 pm

    CU, I know I will not get an answer from the troll, as we all know that is what they do, not to debate an issue, they are only good at lies and innuendo, they are no good at giving the facts and when they do it is from the likes of jones and bolt, true pushes of rubbish.

    Maatee the only reason I have kept you hanging on is that I have had no telephone…

  171. Iain comrade, Iain you still have not answered our question here.

    I and sure that I have given you a really clear answer to the question you asked about the way I sign off my posts.

    Iain that is not the question I asked, and you know that, you are avoiding the answer because you know the truth, TA would make a Bad PM.

  172. What is the kid really thinking.

    TONY Abbott – the man who would be Prime Minister – has made a flying visit to Mackay yesterday.

    Before getting to matters mining, Mr Abbott was quick to quash comments by former Prime Minister John Howard about industrial relations reform and that poison chalice known as Work Choices.

    “John Howard was two prime ministers ago,” Mr Abbott said.

    “John Howard is three Liberal leaders ago. That was then, this is now, there is no going back to the past.”

    Introducing his leader, Member for Dawson George

    http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2012/08/28/tony-abbott-keen-to-disregard-john-howard-era/

  173. paulwello @ 5:33 pm

    Iain comrade, Iain you still have not answered our question here.

    […]

    Iain that is not the question I asked, and you know that, you are avoiding the answer because you know the truth, TA would make a Bad PM.

    Paul I have answered that question as well, several times in fact, the fact that you find my reasons unconvincing does not negate the fact that I have answered the question.
    Catching up@ 5:37 pm

    I do not take myself as seriously as you do. It was nice to have the break.

    I play hard at the debating game CU, you know, no quarter asked, or given, But If you like I’ll go easy on you in future 😉

  174. Iain you have not answered the question, you keep running away from it, Why would TA make a better PM?

  175. Paulwello,

    The only answer that a right winger has ever given me is an embarrassed stare and an argument about how they don’t really like Tony but, but and but. In other words, I don’t know.

  176. He keeps stating he has given an answer, but I haven’t seen it. I suppose in his little mind he has.

  177. Paul
    Answer Below:
    I think that Labor have done a terrible job and most of their so called reforms , like the carbon tax are utterly woeful, in fact all Tony has to do in the eyes of many voters (myself included) is repeal that dogs breakfast and he will have done more good that Rudd and Gillard have done together since 2007.
    Further any PM who does not dance to the tune called by the Greens or the independents has to be more decisive and effective,
    Thirdly Abbott will be a PM without the blood of a very popular leader of his own party on his hands as Gillard does which means we will be spared the constant leadership speculation that Labor have given us over the last two years.

    End of answer.

  178. Ho hum, so he drops the carbon price and brings in his own direct action policy, which just about every economist has said will not work and cost the tax payers on average $1300 every year without any compensation.

    Tony will have to work with the greens and Independents if he wants to get his policies passed in the Senate.

    Thirdly Abbott will always have leadership speculation on his hands as MT is favoured over TA as preferred leader.

  179. paulwello @ 7:54 pm

    Ho hum, so he drops the carbon price and brings in his own direct action policy, which just about every economist has said will not work and cost the tax payers on average $1300 every year without any compensation.

    Well I have said before that I hope that he will drop the whole thing and do nothing. Thereby saving the country a motza

    Tony will have to work with the greens and Independents if he wants to get his policies passed in the Senate.

    Don’t think so because he will go to a DD if they block his legislation and do you really think that Labor will want two thrashings in such a short period of time? I don’t and I predict that Labor will do deals to get the sad and sorry Rudd/Gillard years behind them.

    Thirdly Abbott will always have leadership speculation on his hands as MT is favoured over TA as preferred leader.

    Turnbull may be the darling of those outside of his party like you, but within the party he is as popular as a pork-chop in a Mosque.

    Finally are you going to admit that I have answered your question?

  180. Jeez what a bludy toffee nosed big noter yu are troll, you are a sickening wanker..the lies and nonsense you talk pathetic. If it was my blog you would be gone, you defy all the rules of honest blogging, your smart arse underhand picking on CU gutter type.

  181. Iain even if TA goes to a DD election it would not be held until 2015 here is why, from Antony Green.

    One other point to make is that if the Labor government makes it through to the end of its term in the second half of 2013 and the Coalition won that election, then the Coalition would probably find it impossible to hold a double dissolution until the first half of 2015.

    A full term Gillard government would go to a normal House and Half Senate election between 3 August and 30 November 2013. New Senators elected at the election would begin their terms on 1 July 2014.

    While it is not explicit in the Constitution, I believe it is implicit in the fixed terms of the Senate that a double dissolution trigger can only apply to legislation first blocked by a Senate in place after 1 July 2014. The Constitution states the Senators take their place on the 1 July after their election. Any double dissolution triggers attempted before new Senators take their seats would not allow the new Senators to vote on the legislation.

    An attempt to create a double dissolution trigger before the new Senators took their seats would attempt to terminate the terms of 108 Senators rather than the 72 implied by the Constitution.

    Adding all this together, a double dissolution in the current term of the House must be held by 27 March 2013, but it seems this is highly unlikely unless the Coalition can form government before the middle of 2012. If the current government fell before its term, it would be in the Coalition’s interest to come to office after a separate House election, giving itself an electoral mandate with which to threaten the Senate, and also allowing a double dissolution to be put off until early 2014 at a time when a separate half-Senate election would already need to be held.

    If the Gillard government last its three years until the second half of 2013, any new Coalition government would find itself struggling to do anything about a double dissolution election until 2015.

    And here is the link. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/06/what-chance-a-double-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html

  182. Rather you ignore me. Patronising is worse. It is a shame, you are not as clever as you perceive yourself to be. Might be worthwhile taking up your challenge if you were.

  183. Paul, plus by 2015 Australia would have had a year of (assumed) Tony Abbott PM. A DD election, would Abbott be game enough to try it? My belief is that Abbott is once again just doing his usual..trying to come over all hairy chested about a DD, when it’s a distinct possibility that he will never even attempt it.

  184. Labor doing a bad job, does not explain what Abbott would or could do better.

    Then one of the best economies in the world does not indicate a bad job.

  185. The good news is we have a large source of information on competitive grant programs that have tried to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the same way as the Coalition is proposing. In fact over the past 10 years or so, governments in Australia have allocated over $7 billion to such programs. The bad news is that analysis of these competitive grant programs by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute has found that they have performed very poorly. They found that they take far longer to achieve much less emission reductions than is planned at a much bigger cost than has been budgeted for.

    My bold.

    Damning article on Abbott Liar’s bogus environment policy.

    And the thing is it doesn’t even touch on the other legs of his policy that by any reckoning are worse than the competitive grants leg.

  186. I do not think he would attempt it, by then if the LNP are in government, the people would see TA and the LNP for what they are, a non reforming govt, cutting the public service to the bone, a cutting of infrastructure, an increase in middle class welfare and the cutting of govt subsidies to low income earners.

  187. Will someone tell me what the PM has done, that was not Labor policy.

    Relying on the Greens and Independents, does not mean that it is their policy that gets up, That is unless it is in line with Labor policy,

    Yes, the PM has used them to get legalisation through, in exactly the same way that Howard used the Democrats, and other PM’s the DLP and Harradine.

    The only difference, is that it has to be done in the lower house, as well as the upper house.

    So much rubbish is written about minority governments. What is the difference from doing a deal in the senate than in the lower house. I suggest, none.

  188. Tony will not be around long, even if he reaches his goal. Turnbull is only a red herring. What I would like to know, is who Howard wants.

    There must be some talent there, but it is well hidden.

    Howard does not only want AWA’s and unfair dismissal allowed, he wants to extend the GST.

  189. Pingback: Julia klopper | Gofites

  190. dafid @ 8:17 pm

    Jeez what a bludy toffee nosed big noter yu are troll, you are a sickening wanker..the lies and nonsense you talk pathetic. If it was my blog you would be gone, you defy all the rules of honest blogging, your smart arse underhand picking on CU gutter type.

    C U comments on every post here and is therefore a major player so why on earth would I ignore what she has to say when hers is a major part of the collective argument here? Further why do you think that C U needs protection? Would it be because you think that women are by their very nature the weaker sex?
    paulwello @ 8:19 pm

    Iain even if TA goes to a DD election it would not be held until 2015 here is why, from Antony Green.

    That does not matter because a very electorally chastened Labor party is not going to stand in the way of an enabling legislation

    paulwello @ 8:35 pm

    Iain here is a link on why the Direct Action policy will not work, I do not care if you want one or not, the coalition are going to try and implement one.

    Well have you missed where I have repeatedly said that I think that they should drop that policy?

    Catching up @ 8:39 pm

    Rather you ignore me. Patronising is worse. It is a shame, you are not as clever as you perceive yourself to be. Might be worthwhile taking up your challenge if you were.

    C U I am more than happy to give as good as I get but I will make an effort to address you with respect and less dark sarcasm when I respond to your comments.

    Min @ 8:42 pm

    Paul, plus by 2015 Australia would have had a year of (assumed) Tony Abbott PM. A DD election, would Abbott be game enough to try it? My belief is that Abbott is once again just doing his usual..trying to come over all hairy chested about a DD, when it’s a distinct possibility that he will never even attempt it.

    Have you considered the possibility that he just won’t have to Min?

    Catching up@ 8:42 pm

    Labor doing a bad job, does not explain what Abbott would or could do better.

    But it does CU if Labor are performing badly then the Libs only have to perform adequately to be better don’t they?

    Then one of the best economies in the world does not indicate a bad job.

    that would only be correct if it is appropriate to attribute that good economic performance to government actions, the real question you should ask is how much better would our economy be without the drag of Labor maladministration?

    paulwello @ 8:49 pm

    I do not think he would attempt it, by then if the LNP are in government, the people would see TA and the LNP for what they are, a non reforming govt, cutting the public service to the bone, a cutting of infrastructure, an increase in middle class welfare and the cutting of govt subsidies to low income earners.

    Why do you think that all “reform” is a good thing Paul?
    Was it a good thing to reform the PS1 for example?
    Or was it a good thing to “reform” regulation of building unions?

    Catching up
    August 28, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

    Will someone tell me what the PM has done, that was not Labor policy.

    Relying on the Greens and Independents, does not mean that it is their policy that gets up, That is unless it is in line with Labor policy,

    Yes, the PM has used them to get legalisation through, in exactly the same way that Howard used the Democrats, and other PM’s the DLP and Harradine.

    The only difference, is that it has to be done in the lower house, as well as the upper house.

    So much rubbish is written about minority governments. What is the difference from doing a deal in the senate than in the lower house. I suggest, none.
    Catching up
    August 28, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

    dafid, I have a thick skin. I give as much as I get. It is just that he bores me.
    Catching up
    August 28, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

    Tony will not be around long, even if he reaches his goal. Turnbull is only a red herring. What I would like to know, is who Howard wants.

    There must be some talent there, but it is well hidden.

    Howard does not only want AWA’s and unfair dismissal allowed, he wants to extend the GST.
    dafid @ 11:58 pm

    cheers CU I have had enough of the self opinionated know all, typical Libturd, presumes it is a superior being.

    Actually dafid I am a rather humble man and frankly I doubt that anyone here is any less opinionated than I am. Try chilling out a bit and you will enjoy your life more 😉

  191. Iain, it is a policy they said they are going to implement, it does not matter if you like it or nor\t your a conservative.

  192. Catching up @ 9:55 pm

    Will someone tell me what the PM has done, that was not Labor policy.

    Why does that matter?

    Relying on the Greens and Independents, does not mean that it is their policy that gets up, That is unless it is in line with Labor policy,

    The carbon tax was the Greens policy before the last election and now it is well and truly up

    Yes, the PM has used them to get legalisation through, in exactly the same way that Howard used the Democrats, and other PM’s the DLP and Harradine.

    Its more than that CU the tail has been wagging the Labor dog enough for the poor animal to look like it has Parkinson’s disease.

    The only difference, is that it has to be done in the lower house, as well as the upper house.

    So much rubbish is written about minority governments. What is the difference from doing a deal in the senate than in the lower house. I suggest, none.

    Where as having to do deals in the upper house may improve or moderate the excesses of power having to do so in the lower house as well just makes a government weak and beholden to special interests
    Catching up@ 9:57 pm

    dafid, I have a thick skin. I give as much as I get. It is just that he bores me.

    yep I’m hard to beat CU, but that is what makes me so loveable 😉

    Catching up @ 10:01 pm

    Tony will not be around long, even if he reaches his goal. Turnbull is only a red herring. What I would like to know, is who Howard wants.

    What does that mean?

    There must be some talent there, but it is well hidden.

    there are none so blind as those who will not see!

    Howard does not only want AWA’s and unfair dismissal allowed, he wants to extend the GST.

    Well Howard is not the leader any more so what he wants is of no consequences now.

  193. Paul, do you endorse every single policy of this government and would you defend every policy of the Labor party including the ones that you disagree with?

  194. It is a shame that we have to spend so much time dealing with opinionated trolls, that we cannot point out the many things that we disagree with, concerning this government.

    What is true, they do not frighten us, as Abbott being in power would. Yes, there are things many would like to see done different.

    The PM has used the Greens etc to get passed Labor policy. This seems to be a crime. Do not know why, this is the way the system works. The only difference is, that it is occurring in the lower house, as well as the upper.

    Remember the DLP and Democrats. Exactly the same, as occurs today. Remember the years, that the National/Country Party tail wagged the dog.

    There is no legalisation passed that is against Labor policy.

    After all this government is a little long in the tooth, keep on trying to give the impression it is not legitimate.

    When one says, this government is bad, they are really saying I do not like what they are doing.

    Too bad, but it does not make you the one with all the answers, and the government wrong.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s