Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » From the dustbin of history

From the dustbin of history

I am somewhat amused by the reinvention of public personas  and this is one that  I could not fail to notice. When one of the worst PMs in living memory was indulged to an hour and a half of soft interview on the ABC It was impossible not to notice that those horn rimmed spectacles have mysteriously disappeared. Suggesting to me that they were always an artifice intended to make  Juulia gillard look more serious and to create a feeling of greater intelligence :

art-353-gillard-300x0

Before political execution

After political execution by her own party

After political execution by her own party

Well as she is in definitely into chip wrapper territory now I can’t help wondering how long the feministas will continue to celebrate her frankly deleterious period in power? Its ironic that for all their talk of  gender equality and so forth that those of the feminist tribe seem awfully keen on  judging a woman in politics entirely on the contents of their underpants rather than their ability to do the job with skill or rigour.

Cheers Comrades

m90

Advertisements

47 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    I pretty much agree with you on this one, Iain, although I have no desire to know “the contents of (her) underpants”.

    And how inappropriate was it that Gillard does this interview during the current ALP leadership debate, in fact on the same night that Shorten & Albanese were making their final pitches on Q & A?

    Talk about distraction. Talk about destabilisiing the party. It’s all about her. Other leaders, even Paul Keating, just stayed away from the spotlight for a decent period of time after their loss & retirement in order to let the party heal and reform. Even Howard had a hiatus after 2007 (although not for very long).

    Gillard should just STFU and stay out of the limelight instead of doing stuff like this and attempting to rewrite history.

    Well this is the real history:

    Gillard’s the one who “destabilised” Labor by knifing a popularly elected PM in the back just months before the end of his first term.

    Gillard’s the one who then consequently led the party to almost inglorious defeat after one term, saved only by the support of one Green and three independent MPs.

    Gillard’s the one who had no real mandate to govern but still boasts of pushing through a record amount of legislation.

    Gillard’s the one who instigated and prompted Rudd to challenge her for the leadership and then set about assassinating his character (twice throughout her term).

    Gillard’s the one who achieved record low opinion polling for both the PM and the party.

    And Gillard’s the one who didn’t have the good grace to step down and, instead, hung on until it was too late for Rudd to properly re-establish himself as PM before the recent election.

    In short, Julia Gillard did immense damage to the ALP and cared not about it.

    Yet she still blames Rudd? The cheek, the gall, the arrogance of the woman – it astounds me.

  2. deknarf says:

    Hmmm! Debatable! Rudd’s in with a chance I’d have thought! Silly Billy McMahon would have to be the worst (though non-living) to the present, and I’m eagerly awaiting that WORST PM IN HISTORY epithet being awarded to Tony ‘Jubya’ Abbott after his three disastrous years. Judging by his gauche, thuggish and stammering performance in Indonesia, he’s well on his way! Still, Little Johnny Howard must be in there with a chance? Years and years of this country going nowhere under his leadership must count for something!

  3. James says:

    Last night I also watched the Anne Summers PR chat with Julia Gillard. It wasn’t an interview. It was self-serving fairy floss on ‘Our/Labor’s’ ABC.

    Julia and Summers were at it again, portraying Julia as a ‘victim’.

    For Julia it looked undignified and cringe worthy. It’s not an example I would want for my young daughter.

    There was a lot of denial, white-washing, revision and some pretty bold, bald-faced lies in the attempt to reinvent Julia.

    Julia felt she hadn’t been treated ‘equally’. Quite the contrary. She has been treated as equally equal as any man. That’s just the point.

    But Julia has always felt entitled to being treated more equally to the point of inequality. She reminds me of the pigs in animal farm who are all equal, it’s just that some are more equal than others.

    Anne Summers and Julia have an obsession with Larry Pickerings cartoons of Julia. His portrayals drew a response last night from Julia that she felt ‘murderous rage’.

    Fair bloody dinkum. How thin-skinned can you get?

    Larry’s been drawing politicians, both male and female, in the nuddy since he started his brilliant Jungle Series strip in The Weekend Australian in the 1970s. The series were such a hit they spawned an annual calendar, Pickering’s Political Playmates. Politicans and celebrities were caricatured in all their glory for the world to see, with their personalities (or lack of them) portrayed through their private parts. Australians got the joke in the millions,. The calendar print run of hundreds of thousands always sold out.

    You never heard a whiney word from our local female (or male) politicians of the time or from world leaders and celebs – including Margaret Thatcher, the Queen, Martina Navratilova, Indira Ghandi etc. Most were chuffed to be drawn, asking for the originals, including Prince Charles whose caricature was presented to him in a fancy gold frame.

    But Julia? Well she wants to be treated more equally; the perennial victim.

    Then there was the ‘misogyny speech’ which Julia claimed last night was a very spontaneous response in the house to Tony Abbott’s accusations of sexism.

    To be precise, Abbott’s team were questioning Julia about her hypocrisy on misogyny.

    Here was a female PM, who regularly claimed the moral high ground on misogyny, yet appointed and supported for her own political survival (shoreing up the weak parliamentary numbers to her benefit) a man who was a known misogynist, Peter Slipper.

    Slipper had texted lewd, disgusting descriptions of female genitalia. The female Attorney General in Gillard’s government, Nicola Roxon, and the PM realised they were in a vulnerable, exposed position. Their defence was to attack.

    Far from spontaneous, the ‘misogyny speech’ was a carefully plotted plan with her then spin doctor, 457 import John McTernan to deflect criticism.

    McTernan said as much, two days after Julia was dumped as leader by her party, in the UK Telegraph (28th June, 2013):

    The other lie propagated by both Ms Summers and Julia, while in victim mode, is that Tony Abbott was a misogynist and sexist. Yet, there are no examples of Abbott hating women. The worst any feminist has ever pointed to is that Abbott is deeply conservative in his views on family, marriage and the church. As the leader of the conservative party, pitching to the conservative voter, why is that a crime, or even a surprise?

    If Abbott held the same views as leftist feminists, he’d most likely have joined a leftist feminist party or organisation. But he didn’t. And now he’s Prime Minister of a country where the majority of voters have embraced his conservative views. Julia Gillard was removed as PM by her own party.

    The misogyny speech resonated with like-minded feminists. Anne Summers likes to pretend that the speech reached millions globally because it was published on the internet. But a classified ad for an old clanger posted on the internet is also ‘global’ and has the potential to be viewed ‘by millions’. So what? It wasn’t a game-changer. After the misogyny speech, polls showed support for Gillard among women declined. As a PM seeking election isn’t the local support, not the ‘potential global’ exposure what counts?

    The fact is that in all the facebook reaction and blog posts the most critical of Julia were women. There was even a facebook page established called ‘I’m A Woman And Julia Gillard Does Not Speak For Me’. Women changed their facebook profiles to a pic of Julia with a cross through her face with those exact words.

    To pretend that Julia’s ‘misogyny speech’ resonated with all women everywhere is a misrepresentation, to say the least.

    Last night’s chat was a powder puff attempt to excuse Julia by her greatest supporter and now prime spin merchant.

    I’m sure that those with a memory saw right through it, a farce of a presentation and another double barrel night for Labor’s TV network with their Q & A program..

    I’ll be interested to hear what other commentators like Tony have to say about it.

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    If the ABC were “Labor’s TV network” they wouldn’t have shown it at all. It does not help Labor to have Gillard going to air, hogging the limelight and keeping the destabilisation matter going, especially while Bill & Anthony were trying to change all that on Q & A. And as for Q & A, Abbott would get just as much time there as Labor does… if only he’d accept their invitations.

  5. James says:

    The Labor TV network, or as we know it the ABC are going over-board with Labor coverage. This Shorten Albasneezy stuff is out of hand.

    This isn’t another National election, it’s a closed shop election, it’s not a general public election it’s a .000 whayever of the population all members of a club.

    Labor should be paying for the air-time. Sure there may be some public interest in who gets the cap, but there are more who are just fed up to the teeth with it.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Well I had to miss Q&A this week, which must mean that the gods are looking kindly upon me.

  7. Ross A. says:

    The commenter Ray Dixon needs some political education.

    Gillard’s the one who “destabilised” Labor by knifing a popularly elected PM in the back just months before the end of his first term.

    Rudd was not “popularly elected”. His party won government because it won a majority of seats in the House of Reps. Gillard did not knife him in the back, she challenged him for the leadership If Rudd was any good, he would have had the numbers. But he didn’t and the majority of Labour MPs wanted him out. I say again, a majority of Labor MPs wanted him out. Dumped, not “knifed”.

    Gillard’s the one who then consequently led the party to almost inglorious defeat after one term, saved only by the support of one Green and three independent MPs.

    According to polls at the time, if Rudd had still been leader, the ALP would have lost the 2010 election.

    Gillard’s the one who had no real mandate to govern but still boasts of pushing through a record amount of legislation.

    The Gillard government did push through a high volume of legislation. Despite not having a majority in its own right. Whether or not she “boasts” about that, the fact is undeniable.

    Gillard’s the one who instigated and prompted Rudd to challenge her for the leadership and then set about assassinating his character (twice throughout her term).

    Gillard scarcely mentioned Rudd when she was PM, other than when he was foreign minister. Your claim that she “assassinated his character” is rubbish. Provide evidence or links that verify this.

    And Gillard’s the one who didn’t have the good grace to step down and, instead, hung on until it was too late for Rudd to properly re-establish himself as PM before the recent election.

    Labor would have lost if Rudd had been PM in 2010 and they would have lost in 2013 regardless of when Rudd returned. Rudd was and is a political dud. The sad part for Labor is that he is still in the parliament and will probably spend the next term playing his silly power game. He is mad and his supporters (like you) and equally mad if you can’t see it.

    Ross

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks for the “education”, Ross, but I think your view on history is more opinion-based than factual. Briefly:

    Rudd was certainly “popularly” elected and rode that wave of exceptionally high popularity to victory in 2007. Do you think his predecessor would have won it? Then he maintained a very high approval rating (ie popularity), in fact a record high level for the next 2 years that only slipped marginally below 50% in the first half of 2010, but still to a level much higher than Gillard’s throughout her entire term.

    And at the time he was “knifed/dumped” (call it what you like) Labor were leading the 2 party preferred by about 52 – 48, a winning position. Gillard took that to 50/50 within 2 months and, as we know, won less seats than the Coaltion. Rudd, in my opinion, would have easily won a majority in his own right in 2010.

    And you must have been living under a rock if you didn’t hear and read about Gillard and her Ministers publically denigrating Rudd’s character and Prime Ministership during both the Feb 2012 & March 2013 ‘challenges’ (such as they wer), both of which were prompted by Gillard. It was certainly designed to damage him. If you want to verify that I suggest Google.

    Whether or not Rudd could have won in 2013 if he’d been returned earlier, we’ll never know, but I doubt it. Although I’d suggest he might have saved a lot more seats than he eventually did. You do realise that he was only reinstated to prevent a wipeout don’t you? And he certainly achieved that. Not bad for a “mad” “political dud”.

    Cheers.

  9. Ross A. says:

    Thanks for the “education”, Ross, but I think your view on history is more opinion-based than factual.

    No. Apart from the last paragraph, everything I have written is fact and can easily be checked.

    Rudd was “popular” but not “popularly elected”. There is a clear difference. The people of Australia elected the ALP, which happened to be led by Kevin Rudd. They did not elect Kevin Rudd in his own right.

    Rudd was challenged in June 2010 because Labor MPs were concerned about his autocratic leadership style, his micromanagement and his unwillingness to collaborate or delegate. Rudd’s performance, coupled with the falling polls, caused him to lose the confidence of the Labor caucus. He did not have the numbers to hold off a challenge and was removed from power.

    You have claimed that Gillard “assassinated Rudd’s character”. It is up to you to provide evidence to this effect. And by evidence, I mean quotes or corroborated statements from Gillard. I suggest you use Google to back up YOUR claims, rather than telling others to use it.

    As for the 2013 election, there is no doubt that Rudd was more popular than Gillard. He was returned simply to save a few seats, particularly in Queensland. But Rudd’s popularity does not negate the fact that he was a failed prime minister who couldn’t even serve a full term without being removed by his own party.

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not writing an exam or under public scrutiny for what I say here, Ross, and I don’t have to jump to your demands that I provide “evidence” that Gillard and her long line of Ministers fronted up one by one to denigrate Rudd’s character as a means of seeing him off during those pre-empted challenges. If you’re not aware of it, you’d be the only one who isn’t. Surely you remember Roxon, Crean, Emerson, Garret, Burke, etc all echoing Gillard about Rudd’s “chaotic & dysfunctional” style? Now that’s a “fact”, but whether he was “chaotic & dysfunctional” is only an opinion. An opinion of those who didn’t want him as leader. And you.

    However, when I get a moment I’ll dig up some old news reports for you. Shouldn’t be hard to find.

    Btw, seeing you claimed “everything I have written is fact and can easily be checked” then, on the same basis, isn’t it up to you to provide evidence of your so-called facts rather than just say it “can easily be checked”? Maybe you should check it – you could start with your claim that “According to polls at the time, if Rudd had still been leader, the ALP would have lost the 2010 election.” I think you’ll find that’s not a “fact” and is, in fact, wrong.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Pity you missed Q & A, Iain. It was certainly one of the better shows. I’m sure if the Libs were doing the same (ie electing their leader via a new party-wide basis) they’d get equal air time and an invitation to state their cases on Q & A too. Although, as we know, Abbott would decline.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Ross, Wikipedia has neatly summed it up. The ciaitions are linked to in the article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2012

    In their initial responses to the announcement, senior ministers launched stinging attacks on Rudd’s legacy as Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan criticised Rudd as “dysfunctional”; Tony Burke said of Rudd’s term in office that “the stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made, they are not stories”; Nicola Roxon declared she could not work with Rudd again; and Stephen Conroy said that Rudd had had “contempt” for his colleagues, the Parliament and the public.[14][15][16][17] Ministers Tanya Plibersek, Stephen Smith, Bill Shorten and Greg Combet were more circumspect, but also declared their support for Gillard.[18][19][20]

    …. Gillard portrayed Rudd’s time as Prime Minister as “chaotic and dysfunctional” and implied that he viewed the ballot process as “an episode of Celebrity Big Brother

    And that’s just the 2012 challenge – the character assassinations (by Gillard etc) were worse and more open in March 2013.

  13. Ross A. says:

    If you’re going to spout claims about how Rudd was hard done by, and the victim of some kind of conspiracy, then yes, the onus is on you to provide proof. So far you’ve done nothing but blame all his woes on Gillard. From what I have seen, heard and read, Rudd’s downfall was 90% his own doing. Only an idiot or a Rudd cheerleader (or both) would deny his leadership was dysfunctional and doomed.

    Maybe you should check it – you could start with your claim that “According to polls at the time, if Rudd had still been leader, the ALP would have lost the 2010 election.” I think you’ll find that’s not a “fact” and is, in fact, wrong.

    From the Sydney Morning Herald, June 7th 2010:

    THE Rudd government would be wiped out if an election were held today with the latest Herald/Nielsen poll showing the Coalition ahead of Labor for the first time in more than four years and disillusioned voters flocking to the Greens and independents.

    The poll shows the Coalition leading Labor on a two-party-preferred basis by 53 per cent to 47 per cent, an increase of 3 percentage points to the Coalition in a month.

    This represents a swing of 5.7 per cent to the Coalition since the last election which, if replicated uniformly at an election, would strip Labor of 29 seats.

    Disturbingly for the government, only 55 per cent of voters now believe it will win the next election, a fall from 71 per cent only two months ago.

  14. Ross A. says:

    Re: Wikipedia, I asked specifically where Gillard (not others) had “assassinated Rudd’s character”. You still haven’t provided any direct evidence of that. I follow politics closely and I know for a fact that Gillard’s public utterances about Kevin Rudd have been very few and far between.

    Anyway, if Rudd was a dysfunctional and unworkable leader – and there is plenty of evidence to that effect – then these criticisms of him are valid and aren’t to be dismissed as “character assassination”. In your little world you seem to think it’s fine to hurl abuse at Abbott and Gillard, but anything said about Kevin Rudd is a dark conspiracy.

  15. GD says:

    isn’t it up to you to provide evidence of your so-called facts rather than just say it “can easily be checked”?

    That’s a bit rich coming from you Ray, after calling me an ‘abo-hater’ and instead of backing it up you reckoned it’s all over this blog yet you couldn’t be bothered finding even one comment that supports that slur.

  16. GD says:

    In your little world you seem to think it’s fine to hurl abuse at Abbott and Gillard, but anything said about Kevin Rudd is a dark conspiracy.

    Ray, have you ever considered that possibly the majority of the Labor caucus were on the mark about Rudd’s chaotic and dysfunctional leadership?

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Ross, do try to be more polite.

    I’m well aware of the ONE opinion poll you quoted but that was out of whack with the others at the time, which are chronicled here at the Fin Review:
    http://www.afr.com/p/national/politics/kevin_rudd_polling_since_HrYcqGKRWwz8IiuTQDP2JK

    * Roy Morgan (June 13, 2010): Coalition – 48.5%, ALP – 51.5%

    * Newspoll (June 18-20, 2010): Coalition – 48%, ALP – 52%

    * Nielsen (June 3-5, 2010): Coalition – 53%, ALP – 47%

    * Galaxy (May 14-16, 2010): Coalition – 50%, ALP – 50%

    * Essential Media (June 13, 2010): Coalition – 49%, ALP – 51%

    Looks fairly positive for Labor & Rudd at that stage (overall).

    And FYI I don’t really care about Rudd’s leadership style as viewed by those in his party who didn’t like him and those outside (like you). The party certainly liked him well enough to reinstate him (eventually), chiefly because the guy was seen as a better leader than Gillard. My point is simply that Labor would have been better off not dumping him for Gillard or, at the very least, reinstating him earlier. Oh and that Gillard should just stay silent while the party attempts to rebuild.

    As for your claim that Gillard did not disparage Rudd to any great degree, did you not read this above?:

    Gillard portrayed Rudd’s time as Prime Minister as “chaotic and dysfunctional” and implied that he viewed the ballot process as “an episode of Celebrity BigBrother

    I’d call that quite a character assassination. And she certainly repeated that (and/or similar statements) on many occassions between the first and second challenges. And obviously her Ministers were all part of it, or do you think they just acted on their own volition?

    Now if you’re going to continue the insults I’m not interested, Ross.

    GD, I didn’t call you an “abo-hater”. The correct term is “abo-basher”. Haven’t you gotten over that yet?

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, GD, you’ve selectively quoted me. This is what I said:

    “Btw, seeing you claimed “everything I have written is fact and can easily be checked” then, on the same basis, isn’t it up to you to provide evidence of your so-called facts rather than just say it “can easily be checked”?

    It was Ross calling for evidence in the first place, not me, and I was merely pointing out his contradiction.

  19. GD says:

    The correct term is “abo-basher”. Haven’t you gotten over that yet?

    As you have no evidence or proof that I’m ‘an ‘abo-basher’, please retract that slur, which you have once again restated.

    Merely disagreeing with your view on Aboriginal policy doesn’t make me an ‘abo-basher’.

    Retract please.

  20. Ross A. says:

    Kindly refrain from giving me lectures about insults and behaviour. Particularly when you’re calling someone else an “abo-basher”.

    As to the polls, the point is that Rudd’s polling had plummeted. Even if you took all the polls and calculated an average, Rudd’s polling had slipped from the very high 50s to about 50. And that was against Abbott, who was considered a much weaker opposition leader than Turnbull. Rudd’s major policy initiatives had stalled by the start of 2010 and the government seemed to be going nowhere. And on top of that, a good number of people in the caucus were fed up with his leadership methods.

    And FYI I don’t really care about Rudd’s leadership style as viewed by those in his party who didn’t like him and those outside (like you). The party certainly liked him well enough to reinstate him (eventually), chiefly because the guy was seen as a better leader than Gillard.

    We are discussing a political party, not the bloody schoolyard. The issue is not about whether MPs “liked” Rudd or not. It’s about them deciding whether he was stable and competent enough to lead their party and the government. Clearly a majority decided that he was not. And clearly many of those same MPs went back to Rudd in 2013 because he was popular with the electorate. They traded their judgement and their principles (if they had any) to save a few seats.

    As for your claim that Gillard did not disparage Rudd to any great degree, did you not read this above?

    I asked you for specific evidence of where Gillard “assassinated Rudd’s character”. This is the third time you have refused or failed to do so. Pointing to a Wikipedia page written by god-knows-who is not good enough. I’m sure you consider it evidence because it matches your own opinion. But it is not evidence.

  21. James says:

    Ray doesn’t have to justify or corroborate anything, he’s above that, it’s just us mere mortals that, in his eyes have to do that.

    Seems he’s a bit like one of those obscure protected endangered species we are always hearing about, you know the ones that you’ve never ever heard about before, that date back to the prehistoric era, and in actual fact, are irrelevant in the main scheme of things in a modern world.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Ross, The Wikipedia page contains citations – it’s verified. And I’m not going to drag up any more Gillard quotes about Rudd – if you doubt it happened (and you’d be the only one) then look them up for yourself. You haven’t done too well in the “evidence” stakes yourself, btw, and most of what you’ve said is just belligerent opinion. I’m not interested in taking this any further with you.

    GD, I’ve told you before, if anyone needs to retract a “slur” around here it’s you, for inferring I spat on returning Vietnam War soldiers, remember? Don’t be pedantic and say it was “just a question”, it was a slur. I can certainly dig up quotes of yours that in my opinion back up my “Abo-bashing” claim, but first of all you need to retract your slur against me – then I’ll do it or, if not, retract.

    James, I’ve “corroborated” more than I needed to (not that I needed to, this is just a place where people write opinions not a white paper). Anyway, what sort of “species” are you like? A rodent perhaps?

  23. Ross A. says:

    The Wikipedia page contains citations – it’s verified. And I’m not going to drag up any more Gillard quotes about Rudd – if you doubt it happened (and you’d be the only one) then look them up for yourself. You haven’t done too well in the “evidence” stakes yourself, btw, and most of what you’ve said is just belligerent opinion. I’m not interested in taking this any further with you.

    The Wikipedia page contains citations to remarks made by Julia Gillard the day before the 2013 leadership spill. They are remarks that explain why she challenged Rudd for the leadership in 2010. They hardly constitute “character assassination” because she did not refer to his character or make any personal comment about Kevin Rudd.

    Do you really believe that any form of criticism, even when made in a measured way, constitutes “character assassination”? Or only when it is directed at your political idols?

    The problem with you Kevin Rudd fan boys is that most of you are utterly blind to his faults and failings. Kevin Rudd is probably the most intelligent politician in the ALP but he is clearly a bad tempered egomaniac who very few people want to work with. After doing what three Labor leaders before him had been unable to do (getting rid of John Howard) it took Kevin Rudd less than a term to jam up the cogs of government and piss off so many people that the majority of them wanted him gone. And your explanation for this? “It was all Julia Gillard’s doing”. Sure it was; Kevin Rudd was an innocent victim and had nothing to do with his own downfall.

    As for your hectoring, I am really not that interested in your instructions. If you don’t want to take it any further, don’t respond.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    “Hectoring” is what you’ve been doing from your first comments, Ross, belligerently labelling me “mad” and an “idiot”. If you can cut the personal snark and snide remarks I’m quite happy to respond thus:

    You can hold your opinion that Julia Gillard was only explaining why she challenged Rudd in 2010 but there’s no doubt (in my opinion) that throughout her term she orchestrated an assassination of Rudd’s character aided & abetted by a dozen or so other senior Labor MPs that she had marshalled to her side. The parade of ex-Rudd Ministers all lining up to take pot shots was no accident. Nor were the spills she called in 2012 and 2013 – she pre-empted those in both cases via Simon Crean going on the attack, the second time under the guise of supporting Rudd. Like hell he did, he hated him.

    And I do not disagree that “Kevin Rudd is probably the most intelligent politician in the ALP but he is clearly a bad tempered egomaniac who very few people want to work with”. So what? Most great leaders are real bastards and the lesser lights simply can’t handle them. Look at Keating & Hawke.

    Rudd certainly had “something to do with his own downfall” – he should have seen it coming and shored up his support. But there’s no doubt that he was ‘out factioned’. He didn’t court the unions, he didn’t court the faction leaders like Farrell & Shorten … and Arbib (remember him, a real piece of work).

    I’m not a ‘fan boy’ of any politician. Politics is a dirty game and don’t try to tell me that Julia Gillard did not ‘seize the moment’ to bring Rudd down and gain her own place in history as our first female PM. But Gillard was more about herself than the party and she proved that by refusing to step down earlier this year when it was blatantly obvious that only Rudd could ‘save the furniture’ (due to his electoral appeal). She didn’t have any leadership and, in my opinion, didn’t (and still doesn’t) care about the party itself, and for that matter the country and the people in it (great performance during the Qld floods, eh? – there’s no Anna Bligh in Julia).

    And she proved all that again by indulging in that Anne Summer interview at the Opera House – for money!

  25. Ross A. says:

    You can hold your opinion that Julia Gillard was only explaining why she challenged Rudd in 2010 but there’s no doubt (in my opinion) that throughout her term she orchestrated an assassination of Rudd’s character aided & abetted by a dozen or so other senior Labor MPs that she had marshalled to her side.

    You can hold that opinion as much as you like. My opinion is that it is irrational and unjustified. You have failed to support your claims with facts or evidence, which makes it nothing more than supposition based on a hatred of Gillard. You’ve still failed to demonstrate where Julia Gillard “assassinated Rudd’s character”. As for the statements or actions of pro-Gillard ministers, so what? Do you really think Gillard was so omnipotent that they were all in thrall to her, or they were coached by Gillard on what to do and say? The simple reality is that most Labor MPs supported Gillard and a minority continued to support Rudd. Gillard’s backers occasionally spoke in support of her. Reading more into it than that is speculation and guesswork.

    Nor were the spills she called in 2012 and 2013 – she pre-empted those in both cases via Simon Crean going on the attack, the second time under the guise of supporting Rudd. Like hell he did, he hated him.

    Again, trying to guess what goes on behind closed doors in the Labor caucus is a fool’s game. From the outside it seemed clear that Gillard called those spills to kill off leadership speculation and party division. As for Crean calling for a spill to undermine Rudd, again that’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory on your part. Where is the evidence for that? There isn’t any. Crean’s statements at the time were quite vague.

    So what? Most great leaders are real bastards and the lesser lights simply can’t handle them. Look at Keating & Hawke.

    Keating and Hawke differed from Rudd in one major respect: they had a track record of getting things done. Rudd’s major policy initiatives (e.g. the ETS, mining tax) had either failed or stalled by 2010. In comparison, the Gillard government got more legislation through a delicately balanced parliament and saw through some important policy reforms like the NDIS. Rudd may have been more popular with the public and more clever than Gillard but in policy terms his prime ministership was a failure.

    As for Gillard, I do agree with you that she should have stepped down earlier than she did. Her prime ministership was also doomed, albeit for different reasons than Rudd’s. But to suggest that Rudd holds the moral high ground while Gillard was self-serving and ignorant of the needs of the ALP is just arrant nonsense. Rudd is an egomaniac, as demonstrated by his 25-minute concession speech. Gillard, in contrast, remained silent for the entire election. She’s only spoken out now and you’re rubbishing her for it. No doubt you’d rather she just shut up and say nothing, however I suspect that’s because of your hatred of her, not for any principled or rational reasons.

  26. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    you are right ross, that kevin rudd is a raving lunatic and a psychopath who was so hated by most of the m.p.s in the labor party that he dumped him. their only mistake was that they replaced him with juliar gillard, the wicked witch of the left. as for ray dixon, of course he knows better. take the advice of my granddad, you will never win an argument with a lunatic because they think their opinion is fact.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Ray is entitled to see the Labor leadership argy-bargy any way he pleases just as you are Tad,he has been consistent in his dislike and disapproval of Julia Gillard in comparison to Rudd. To be entirely Francis I don’t think that we can really judge either until the corpse of the last Labor government has been properly laid to rest and that will not be happening until they chose a new leader before the next sitting of Parliament.

    Ross
    It used to be the case that failed leaders would spend a reasonable time in self imposed exclusion but instead Gillard is surfacing now so that she can do a bit of pre promotion for what will indubitably be a very self-serving book that hopefully will be snapped up by the unreconstructed feminist Luvvies who think her to be some sort of feminist heroine. Anyway the point of my post was to suggest that like so many of her very public image changes the spoectacles were a contrived affectation and that there is still something very fake about the public image taht she is presenting now.

    Welcome to the Sandpit BTW 😉

  28. Tad Vinda (B. Bus) says:

    iain, ross has made some very good points here that demonstrate rudd’s claims to being called a nutter, and ray is in denial about it. also ross is correct that since rudd is still in the parilament, he will get up to his usual tricks and undermine who ever becomes the new a.l.p. leader. he is so arrogant that he will be thinking that he can be p.m. for a third time. the bloke is deluded, so are his supporters (not naming any one in particular…)

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Tad
    No one in the Labor party is going to give Rudd another go in Labor’s big chair, his race is run and even he must realise that. Rudd is to some extent stuck in the parliament because if he were to resign Labor is all but certain to loose the seat in the subsequent by-election and f9or that sin he would be hated even more than he currently is. So his ambitions will mean nothing

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    Ross,

    I do not “hate” Julia Gillard and to suggest my opinion is coloured by some kind of irrational emotion is a pretty poor way of putting an opinion down and mere “specualtion” and “guesswork” on your part. I’ve said a lot about her over the past two or three years but none of it has been laced with hatred or emotion of any kind. I have no emotions about her or about any other politicians – none, whatsoever (possible exception being Sophie Mirabella).

    In my opinion Gillard’s and her Minister’s public statements about Rudd were designed to destroy his credibillity. Obviously there was some basis in truth to them but the same could be said for many politicians – ie they all have flaws and failings. The point is that airing them in public is clearly designed to bring that person down.

    And in my opinion the Ministers who echoed Gillard’s words and backed them up were indeed doing so on her behalf in order to show solidarity and see Rudd off. You can dismiss that as “speculation” and “guesswork” but that’s how politics is played.

    And I certainly did provide “evidence” of those public utterances, you just choose to dismiss it based on your opinion that Rudd was indeed a “chaotic & dysfunctional” Prime Minister. Well, where did you get that opinion from if not from Gillard and her Ministers? They’re the only ones who would really know. The mere fact that you echo her words is proof positive that she said them. Repeatedly.

    While we’re on the subject of “evidence”, I showed you three major opinion polls that put Labor in a winning position just prior to Rudd being dumped as PM in June 2010, whereas you put up one from the SMH that showed otherwise. That SMH poll was completely out of whack with all the major ones such as Galaxy & Morgan – even the pro-Coalition newcomer poll ‘Essential’ showed it was pretty line ball – but you choose to ignore that and still accuse me of not backing up my claims? Pot, kettle ….

    As for Simon Crean, you must have missed the TV press conference he called in March this year where he publically called for Rudd to challenge Gillard. As for what was in his mind in so doing, how can anyone provide “evidence” of that? It is just my opinion that it was designed to force Rudd’s hand at a time when Rudd didn’t have the numbers. Given Crean’s very public attacks on Rudd 12 months earlier it looked pretty clear to me that Simon was not doing Rudd any favours in trying to bring it to a head at that juncture. Yes, he was vague, so vague that it’s reasonable to form the opinion I have that he was not genuinely supporting Rudd. Again, to dismiss my opinion as a “conspiracy theory” is poor argument. We’re talking politics here and it’s a dirty game – they “conspire” and collude with each other all the time (especially over leadership).

    As for Hawke & Keating you’re comparing a 13 year term to one of under 3 years. I agree that Rudd had trouble getting the ETS and the Mining Tax through the Senate – something about the Greens, I believe – but he certainly got the stimulus package through Parliament (twice) and it was certainly effective, according to most major economists.

    In any case, I’m not suggesting he was a better administrator than Gillard, who was clearly a legislation ‘nut’, nor am I suggesting he was anywhere near the leadership levels of Hawke or Keating. My argument is simply that the ALP erred in dumping him in 2010 and then erred again by not reinstating him in sufficient time before the recent election. What’s “nonsense” is to suggest Gillard’s leadership served the party well – um, obviously not. Not according to public opinion.

    And my point about Gillard now is that she should indeed “shut up” and stay out of the spotlight while the party sorts itself out. And no, that’s not based on “hatred” of her. It’s a perfectly reasonable opinion, and in fact it’s what most ex-leaders do.

    Tad, I don’t argue with arseholes so kindly take your insults and shove them, mate.

  31. James says:

    This is a family friendly blog and I find your use of language totally unacceptable and call for appropriate moderation:

    I don’t argue with arseholes so kindly take your insults and shove them, mate.

    If you can’t find something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.

  32. Ray Dixon says:

    James, if Tad keeps lacing his arguments with personal insults and bigotry then I will indeed call him an “arsehole”. And if you have a complaint about moderation, send Iain an email, don’t put it here – it’s not your blog. As for your last statement – that’s rather hypocritical of you.

  33. James says:

    I repeat; “If you don’t have something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all”.

    that’s rather hypocritical of you.

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    Who are you, the blog prefect or something? Do you want me to dig up some of your “nice” words? Grow up.

  35. James says:

    Who are you, the blog prefect or something?

    Well I guess in a word … YES

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    So you’re the self-appointed prefect? The upholder of virtues and morals, who advocates using boat people for target practice? You’re a sort of Peter Costello of the blogosphere? Minus the wit. Yeah, that suits you.

  37. James says:

    So you’re the self-appointed prefect?

    Yep/Strong>

    The upholder of virtues and morals, who advocates using boat people for target practice?

    Yep

    You’re a sort of Peter Costello of the blogosphere?

    Glad you can recognise all the qualities of such a man in me

    BUT there’s one thing I can G & T, thank God, I’m not Ray Dixon, pretending to be half a dozen other people

  38. Ross A. says:

    I do not “hate” Julia Gillard and to suggest my opinion is coloured by some kind of irrational emotion is a pretty poor way of putting an opinion down and mere “specualtion” and “guesswork” on your part.

    I’ve asked you repeatedly to provide examples of where Gillard personally assassinated Rudd’s character. You’ve ignored this every time, claiming that she didn’t do it publicly and/or it was done by her minions. It is clear from your comments that you loathe Gillard. Whether this is because of her gender, her politics or the fact she got rid of your idol Rudd, I don’t know. But it is obvious. You are quite entitled to this opinion, of course, I am just curious as to whether it is based on any factual evidence or just your own hysteria. On what’s been written in this thread so far, I suspect it’s probably the latter.

    In my opinion Gillard’s and her Minister’s public statements about Rudd were designed to destroy his credibillity. Obviously there was some basis in truth to them but the same could be said for many politicians – ie they all have flaws and failings. The point is that airing them in public is clearly designed to bring that person down.

    Many good leaders have been flawed and/or hated by their colleagues. The difference is that they were good leaders, so the majority set aside their personal views in favour of the party or the government. Rudd’s prime ministership was a failure. It started with a flurry of promises and proposed reforms and feel-good gestures, like apologising to the Stolen Generation. And then it achieved… virtually nothing. Hardly the mark of a good leader.

    As for Hawke & Keating you’re comparing a 13 year term to one of under 3 years. I agree that Rudd had trouble getting the ETS and the Mining Tax through the Senate – something about the Greens, I believe – but he certainly got the stimulus package through Parliament (twice) and it was certainly effective, according to most major economists.

    Passing legislation to spend money is hardly an act of genius. Any idiot can pump money into school buildings and write $900 cheques to every taxpayer. That’s not to say it wasn’t the right thing to do, but claiming it as a grand achievement is just laughable. Apart from stimulating the economy, what was Rudd’s other lasting policy legacy? The ETS stalled. The mining tax flopped. His attempt to take over healthcare from the states failed. His talk of education reform was forgotten. Face facts, Kevin Rudd was a failed prime minister who got nothing done because of his unwillingness to negotiate, delegate and concede that he might not be right about everything. And he was dumped by his own party because of it.

    What’s “nonsense” is to suggest Gillard’s leadership served the party well – um, obviously not. Not according to public opinion.

    Public opinion is not the only gauge of a prime minister’s success. I think Gillard’s prime ministership failed too but she achieved a lot more than Rudd did in roughly the same amount of time. History will judge her more kindly than Rudd.

    And my point about Gillard now is that she should indeed “shut up” and stay out of the spotlight while the party sorts itself out.

    I don’t agree. She’s a controversial figure and people want to hear her side of the story. She hasn’t done a Mark Latham and come in swinging at the ALP or people still in the party. For the most part she has simply talked about the decisions she made while PM. The convention as it stands is that ex-PMs don’t involve themselves in issues currently occupying the government. It’s not a blanket ban on speaking or appearing in public. This is a liberal democracy, after all, not a Stalinist state.

  39. Ross A. says:

    It used to be the case that failed leaders would spend a reasonable time in self imposed exclusion but instead Gillard is surfacing now so that she can do a bit of pre promotion for what will indubitably be a very self-serving book that hopefully will be snapped up by the unreconstructed feminist Luvvies who think her to be some sort of feminist heroine. Anyway the point of my post was to suggest that like so many of her very public image changes the spoectacles were a contrived affectation and that there is still something very fake about the public image taht she is presenting now. Welcome to the Sandpit BTW 😉

    Thanks for the welcome Iain.

    I’m not sure you can read too much into someone deciding to wear glasses or not. Perhaps she has taken up contacts. As for ‘promoting a book’, that’s possibly true. Political junkies may be interested in self serving memoirs from ex-leaders but most people are not. My view is that Julia Gillard spent so long presenting a PR-manufactured line and side stepping the truth, that some people are now hoping she will speak openly and honestly. Especially about the internal ructions of the ALP. To what extent she will do this remains to be seen.

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    What the hell does that mean, James? Explain yourself. Are you inferring I’m “pretending” to be others here? That’s a pretty weird accusation, mate. Then again, you’re pretty weird.

  41. James says:

    That’s a pretty weird accusation

    Bit of the case of the pot calling the kettle black from you there.

    Maybe you’ve just got ‘Dissociative identity disorder’.

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    James, why don’t you just stop beating around the bush? Are you implying I am posing as other identities here? If so, which ones? I know who sounds the weirdest.

  43. Ray Dixon says:

    It is clear from your comments that you loathe Gillard.

    Well you’re wrong and, by your own admission you are just making assumptions. It is not a valid argument to suggest my opinions are based on “hysteria” when I’ve done nothing but express reasonable opinion. What have I “written in this thread so far” that leads you to conclude “hysteria”? Where? Give an example – there aren’t any. There’s not much point arguing with some one who argues so obstinately and someone who (I suggest) seems to have a little axe to grind for some reason or another. We’re about done here, Ross. You can carry on if you like but the reality is it’s just your opinion on Gillard & Rudd v. mine.

  44. Iain Hall says:

    Ross

    For the majority of her time in the parliament Gillard never wore spectacles, as it is reasonable to assume that her need for vision correction is not something new (from personal experience and observation of my fellow 4 eyes) given her age it is also reasonable to assume that she has previously used contacts. This speculation on my part could be entirely wrong but as one fascinated by the public image devised and presented by those in high office I just can’t help but notice the changes wrought during the course of a political career and suggest that their elements are not entirely the result of accident. In some senses male politicians are more likely to settle on one “look” and essentially to stick to that during their whole life women on the other hand tend to be more concerned about varying their style form time to time with sometimes horrible “fashion disasters” like Gillard’s horrible tight jackets .

  45. James says:

    And Ross as we all know, Ray is infallible, Ray is never wrong, Ray never says the things that other people have been reading in his ramblings over some period of time.

    It’s also obvious, and Rays proven it above and on a number of occasions now that, he tends to forget what he has written from day to day, not unusual for people with DID’s. They also tend to forget which identity they use to say what and who they are, hence they ask others to explain to them just who they are from time to time.

  46. Ross A. says:

    Ray, you’re entitled to your opinion. I have no “axe to grind” and no hard feelings. I just found your first comment on this post to be a fairly poisonous attack on Gillard and I thought I’d challenge you for some evidence to support the things you’ve said. In my view you’ve been unwilling and/or unable to provide this evidence. You’ve also been unable to respond to my question about what Rudd achieved as PM, other than stimulus measures. You can’t explain why the party dumped him as PM, other than to blame Gillard. You’re quite entitled to support Rudd and demonise Gillard as a conspiratorial traitor. I just see no evidence for most of the claims you have made, so I am entitled to call your claims as BS.

    Iain, you may be right about the glasses being a PR ploy. She said during the Ann Summers interview that she had her make up professionally done every day. Personally I don’t think it makes an iota of difference to her electoral appeal. Wearing glasses may make her look smarter to a few dullards, both most people think nothing of it. Re: male politicians, John Howard underwent something of a makeover in the 1980s, he started wearing tailored suits, had his comb over removed and his bushy eyebrows trimmed. So Gillard is no the first or only one to do it.

  47. Ray Dixon says:

    I am entitled to call your claims as BS

    Likewise, Ross.

    They also tend to forget which identity they use to say what and who they are, hence they ask others to explain to them just who they are from time to time.

    This might invoke your ‘prefect’ mode, James, but what you have just said is f*cking idiotic. Now, why don’t you stop beating around the bush and please explain just what the f*ck it is you are inferring?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: