Home » Australian Politics » Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties?

Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties?

Sometimes when you put a pot of water on the stove it seems to take no time at all to come to the boil and other times it takes forever. The scandal that is alleged to concern Julia Gillard’s time with and subsequent exit from Slater and Gordon is a definite slow boil situation but those bubbles are rising now and getting a great deal more excited day by day. The skeleton in Julia’s closet is certainly rattling now.

click for source

Of course there is no question of Gillard being prosecuted due to the statute of limitations on such offences but these revelations certainly put the treatment a year ago of Glen Milne and Michael Smith  into a different light after Gillard essentially bullied their employers into sacking them for exploring the issue in the media. Well it seems that subsequent revelations vindicates Milne and Smith.

Of course the question on everyone’s lips is will this stake the Gillard Vampire or will she manage to escape with some minor wounding and limp on to the election with this black mark unnoticeable among the others that she already carries?

The latter I think because Labor are in the unenviable position of being stuck with Gillard until the next election and they have no choice but to try to front it out. A switch back to Rudd is unlikely to cure what ails the party  and as they have no viable  third choice….

Meanwhile my friends form the left are getting terribly excited about a minor Faux pas from Tony Abbott  where he contradicted Kloppers over the reasons for the delay in the expansion of the Olympic dam mine expansion. They take delight in Tony Abbott being quite rightly taken to task over his rhetorical error in last night’s7.30 report. That said its rather sobering to compare the implications of Tony  and Julia’s  media woes. where as the former is of little or no consequence the latter faces rather grave questions about both her judgement and her honesty. Further the way that she bullied the media to silence Milne and Smith  a year ago does her no favours either. Especially when you consider the way that both Labor and the Greens have been complaining about the “hate media” over the last couple of years.

While Tony Abbott will recover from his faux pas I doubt very much that Gillard will recover from the consequences of her naughtiness in the nineties.

Cheers Comrades

 

About these ads

22 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Come off it, Iain, Abbott’s performance on 7.30 last night showed him up for the empty vessel that he is. He was pathetic and was totally rolled by a woman (again), which must really wrankle with him. Maybe he shouldn’t take women so lightly?

    As for Gillard’s activities @ S&G in the 90s it would not surprise me one little bit if she was up to her neck in getting free work done on her property (which seems to be the implication of all this). It would also not surprise me if this issue is being driven internally by those in the party now desperately wanting her out and Rudd in. If that happens, then good.

    Getting back to Abbott, the longer he stays Opposition Leader the closer this next election gets. He’s falling at the hurdles, Iain, well before the race is over.

  2. deknarf says:

    I unserstand that Blewitt has been defrauding people in Indonesia by selling land that he doesn’t own. I’d be rating his credibility at zero at this point in time.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    The Damnation comes form sources other than Blewitt as far as I can see deknarf. Sure it isn’t enough to kill Gillard politically but when you add it to all of her other , err “issues” it won’t help her either.
    Ray I 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.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    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:

    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.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Not really interested in Bolt’s take on it, Iain. Of course he’d defend Abbott, although note how he concentrates almost entirely on the asylum seeker part of the interview, which was not the main point. And even Bolt has had to concede that Abbott f*cked up on the Olympic dam reference, the main thrust of the interview (refer the ‘Update’ you’ve also reproduced):

    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.

    Geez, Iain, if Bolt can admit that why can’t you?

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    Politician Tony Abbott, seems to be in deep shock, with the de-Howardisation of this continent, as he pours scorn on Prime Minister Gillard. Howard to me will always be remembered as a shonky,deceitful,devisive leader through his actions, such as plunging this country into the Iraqi war, AWB, children overboard, and WorkChoices which cost him the election. Abbott call this the “Golden Era” I call this the Nightmare era. Abbott and his cohorts, find the end of the Howard era too much to face up to. I say bring it on if Abbott ever becomes leader—————

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, Iain, I see The Australian has backed down (again) and apologised to Gillard:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/pm-fires-back-as-australian-issues-apology/4218092

    Ms Gillard has been under pressure over allegations in The Australian over her role in helping to set up a so-called union “slush fund”, which was later misused, for her then-boyfriend Bruce Wilson.

    She was fronting the press after The Australian issued a three-line apology over allegations it published today.

    “An article in today’s The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago,” the paper’s apology says.

    This is wrong. The Australian apologises for the error.”

  8. Iain Hall says:

    The fact that is was slush fund rather than a trust fund is actually more damaging if you think about it Ray :)

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Splitting straws, Iain. By her and by the paper. The fact is the paper, for all its efforts (twice now) has tried to bring her down on this, failed and apologised. End of story. Not that I want Gillard to stay but she should be removed on her leadership (or lack thereof), not on malicious gossip.

    Abbott, on the other hand, looks a right royal goose for claiming BHP ditched Olympic due to the carbon & mining taxes when in fact the mining tax doesn’t even apply to Olympic and the company put out a report (the one Abbott didn’t read) saying the carbon tax wasn’t a factor in their decision.

    Nice attempt to divert but there’s more egg sticking to Abbott’s face than Gillard’s this time.

  10. deknarf says:

    Also note that Australian published a retraction to some of what it said. Also not that Slater & Gordon have said publicly that there is no case to answer. Evidence grows that this is just another smear campaign by Australian and NO Coalition acolytes.
    7:30 just showed that Abbot basically a sloganeer. Outside the one liners he’s got — nothing of any substance.

  11. Brian says:

    the treatment a year ago of Glen Milne and Michael Smith into a different light after Gillard essentially bullied their employers into sacking them for exploring the issue in the media.

    Oh Iain, really, that is such baloney. Do you think Gillard’s power is strong enough to influence staffing decisions in The Australian, a newspaper that demonstrates a patent hatred for her? Milne was sacked because he breached protocol by publishing a story without legal authorisation. The Oz admitted as much at the time!

    Really, this entire issue is a beat-up. It’s the work of a few journalists trying to make themselves more relevant and important than they actually are, by pretending to uncover the next Watergate. If it could be proved that she had done something untoward, it would have been done by now.

    As for Abbott, he’s an intellectual lightweight who chants mantras and jeers about the government. But he’s not across complicated areas of policy, something evidenced by his lacklustre effort on the ABC.

  12. GD says:

    the way that she bullied the media to silence Milne and Smith a year ago does her no favours either

    She did indeed bully the media to silence those journos, hoping that the whole affair would go away. Unfortunately it didn’t and others took up the cudgel. Larry Pickering began detailing her transgressions with his blog posts. He did it so well that Joolia was then forced to answer questions.

    Iain, your post is both pertinent and accurate. While the leftards take delight in Abbott’s faux pas, they fail to see the beam in their eye, which is Ms Gillard rorting the system in the 90s and then knifing Rudd in the back in the 2000s. This apparently is ok with leftards.

    Unfortunately it’s not with the majority of the voting public, and it’s the voting public that will throw this rancid lot of charlatans out at the next election.

  13. Richard Ryan says:

    Abbott must answer the question, did he leave the Catholic Seminar, because he refused to join the paedophile club operating there. That should start the ball rolling.

  14. Brian says:

    She did indeed bully the media to silence those journos, hoping that the whole affair would go away. Unfortunately it didn’t and others took up the cudgel. Larry Pickering began detailing her transgressions with his blog posts.

    Yes, Larry Pickering the second-rank cartoonist who made his name drawing calendars featuring famous people with large/small genitalia. Larry Pickering, who claimed to have played VFL football with Richmond, despite there being no evidence of this. Larry Pickering, the director of three failed companies, two of which were involved in extensive frauds. Larry Pickering, who nicked off to live abroad while his, ahem, business activities were being investigated. Larry Pickering, scammer, fraud and bankrupt.

    Pickering is a liar, a crook and a fool. And if you cite him as a credible source, you’re no better than he is. I’m starting to think you dwell on the fringes of reality, “GD”.

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    I agree that Pickering is a real piece of work and all of the above descriptions of him are pretty accurate. But if you go to his website (if you must) and read his latest entry (titled “What a cunning stunt”) there’s a long series of questions addressed to Gillard re the slush fund and the house purchase & renovations. Not wanting to give any credence to any of this but the questions are clever and appear to be written by someone else, not by Pickering. Someone with a legal background, maybe. Someone like McClelland perhaps. Have a read – it’s interesting and clearly part of some kind of plot to oust her:

    http://pickeringpost.com/article/what-a-cunning-stunt/395

  16. GD says:

    I agree, Ray, the questions are clever and well thought out. Pickering isn’t doing this on his own.

  17. GD says:

    Pickering is a liar, a crook and a fool.

    It’s turning out that so is our prime minister, only difference is Pickering’s a bankrupt cartoonist, and she’s the leader of Australia. There’s a slight difference.

    Your opinions of Pickering’s 70s and 80′s political cartoons have no bearing on this discussion. They were very funny, to all involved. Were you even around then? Probably still in short pants at primary school.

    Pickering has obviously garnered enough influential people who agree with him, to mount such a campaign against Gillard. The fact that most of the country agree with him is rather telling. It’s only the dyed-in-the wool lefties who support Joolia’s aberrant behaviour.

    She is on notice to a hiding.

  18. Brian says:

    It’s turning out that so is our prime minister

    No, it’s not turning out like that at all. If Gillard has done anything illegal or unethical, as yet there is no concrete evidence of it. Save for two abortive attempts by the Australian, the rantings of Pickering and his followers on the lunatic Right (like you), nobody is giving this issue any credence. In fact most people recognise it for what it is, a purposeful smear campaign conducted by ladder-climbing journalists and a bloke whose behaviour in the 1990s makes Gillard sound like Mother Theresa.

    Your opinions of Pickering’s 70s and 80′s political cartoons have no bearing on this discussion. They were very funny, to all involved. Were you even around then? Probably still in short pants at primary school.

    Spare me the insults. I’m 67 years old and have been around a long time. Long enough to know how to read, research and use a bit of critical thinking, which going by your Muirhead effort, seems utterly beyond you, Guitar Dude.

  19. Richard Ryan says:

    “Guitar Dude”——that’s a beauty——I pay that one.

  20. [...] Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties? (iainhall.wordpress.com) [...]

  21. [...] Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties? (iainhall.wordpress.com) Share this:DiggEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Australian Politics, Blogging, Federal politics, Gay issues, Gender Issues, God bothering, Leftism, Media Matters, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, The Green religion and tagged Abbott, Australian Greens, Australian Labor Party, Gillard, Julia Gillard, Labor, Same-sex marriage, Tony Abbott by Iain Hall. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

  22. [...] Julia Gillard, Naughty in the nineties? (iainhall.wordpress.com) [...]

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 256 other followers

%d bloggers like this: