The Greens leader, Christine Milne, has suggested Tony Abbott is not fit for leadership because of his stance on climate change, but she is preparing a Democrats-style “keep the bastards honest” election campaign to stop Abbott’s “excesses” in the Senate, on the assumption he will be prime minister.

In an interview with Guardian Australia, Milne said the Liberal leader’s personal politics were threatening the planet. “Tony Abbott has been so irresponsible in terms of addressing global warming,” she said. “He has chosen to jeopardise the future of children, of generations henceforth, of species, by putting his own political perspective ahead of actually addressing global warming.

“I would argue nobody is fit for leadership if they choose to politically exploit an issue which jeopardises the wellbeing of the whole community and the environment into the future,” she added. “That is something for which they have to take personal responsibility.”

The Greens will appeal to voters to deliver them the balance of power in the Senate as a check on an Abbott government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/greens-leader-abbott-jeopardises-children

I have the feeling that Mr Murdoch has taken on a challenge like one of my mates in the 1950s who once bet he could make a wheelbarrow fly... Yes, I believe Uncle Rupe had been spurred by comments to the effects that "Tony Abbott was unelectable"... "We'll see about that" thought Mr M to himself... 
I have done many things in my life... In the early 1950s, I was building model aeroplanes for fun amongst many other things... Some of the club members were more interested in making V1 small scale reproductions with miniature working pulse-reactors. The modern drones have nothing on these little babies. Well, apart from modern drones being far quieter, more accurate and designed to be deadly. Ours were designed to fly... and fly they did... Quite dangerous mind you, with thingster less than a metre long flying at more than 400 km/h... One need a large country field to play. I may have exaggerated on the speed but they seemed to go that fast... We used kero (kerosine, kerosene) primed with alcohol. Even the small two strokes piston engines would burn a mixture of petrol, oil and alcohol with sometimes a touch of ether... The smell was edifying...
I was more interested in rubber power. I believe that elastic bands for model planes have improve somewhat since those days but then it worked well-enough... One had to crank the layered rubber-bands with a hand drill from the nose of the model craft, until the rubber had knotted up to three layers. After this it would have been silly to twist more out of the rubber as the whole fuselage could have caved in under the very powerful tension. It happened, though, when something was out of alignment or when one wanted that extra power to win a competition.  
One of the model planes I made was in the Wakefield glider class, with a one-blade propeller counterbalanced with a lead weight at the end of a thin metal stick... The idea was that once all the elastic band had unwound and the propeller had stopped, it would fold back along the fuselage. The plane would glide for the nominated time, then a slow burning wick at the tail end of the plane would burn an elastic band used to hold the stabilisers in place. The stabilisers would pop up at 45 degrees and the plane would thus come down like a heavy feather. Calculating the length of the wick was tricky, too short it would cut the flight before time and if too long one could lose the plane to a thermal.
You may ask why one blade instead of two or three?... Earlier on I thought it was to make things annoying for the glider enthusiasts but I soon discovered that one LARGE blade was more efficient than 2 smaller blades at the speed the rubber power would unwind for a glider of a certain weight...
There were the radio-command enthusiasts... Since the early 1920s, radio was making great stride... My father built his own radio sets in the 1920s and one of my brethren made several radio command units of which one was used to control a model U-boat. These radios were very hard to tune as springs of various length were supposed to amplify a certain wavelength and transmit a command by locking onto a relay. For model boats, this was hairy enough. For model planes this was seat of the pants stuff... Crashes at some stage or another were inevitable... 
All this rambling to say that one of my friends was challenged to do the impossible: make a wheelbarrow fly... Of course it was a model wheelbarrow then, but on a larger scale, one can make anything fly if one has enough power. So my friend built this small wheelbarrow, about 75 centimetres from nose to the end of the handles, placed an engine at the front and a flap at the back and the rest is hilarious history anchored in my memory: a flying wheelbarrow... no crash!!!...
So Uncle Rupe decided to make Tony fly... It's hard work, but if you repeat often enough that Tony is an angel, like uncle rupe and his lackeys do daily in his papers — and hide the fact he is a dorky daggy dangerous unelectable little shit as everyone knew before — pigs fly... The public is dazzled...
Making a flying wheelbarrow is a piece of cake. Making Tony Abbott fly is hard work, but Uncle Rupe is an expert at making pigs fly.
Gus Leonisky

Julia Gillard remains resolute, determined to lead the government into the September election despite voter sentiment portending an electoral bloodbath, and despite a flurry of speculation both inside the caucus and in the media, that she will be forced aside.
Attempting to stare down the third siege on her leadership, this one in the very shadow of the election itself, Gillard's customary strength under fire has again been evident.
That strength – others might call it stubbornness – means she is not likely to yield to the extreme and publicly applied pressure to fall on her sword.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labors-electoral-fortunes-rest-on-a-turn-20130611-2o1a7.html#ixzz2VsLt3IC5

-----------------------------------
Whether it's the ABC, Fairfax or Murdoch, the media is desperately resolute in getting what it wants... The media does not want Gillard for a plethora of reasons, none of which make sense, but the media is gunning harder and harder to destabilise her leadership... One thing is for sure, behind all this, is a powerful religious lobby... The catholic hierarchy in Australia. Sure, they are not forward in overt claims in this affair, but they are in force behind the political scene. The hunt is on...
Either way, the catholics in both major parties want "one of" their men selected to run this country. Whether it's Rudd or Abbott they don't care. Rudd is supported by the catholics in the Labor Party and the catholics plus all the other abominable denominations are supporting the abominable Abbott in the Liberal gangster party. They would have to know that Abbott is a loose cannon — a firebrand neocon, but behind him are many more loose cannons: Hockey, Bishop x2, Mirabella, Robb, Minchin, Pyne, Truss, Brandis, Morrison, just to name a few. All are bitter people who have shown time and time again they have no clue about running this country or to use the quote by Mark Latham are "pure evil"... 
For example, Brandis and Julie Bishop are completely blind to the constitutional reality... They have shown time and time again this by trying many stupid tricks, including Julie claiming that since the election had been announced, the government was in caretaker mode, thus no new policy could be passed... What a lot of bullshit codswallop.
One problem here is like it or hate it, the Gillard government survives and strives by the grace of the independents and should Julia Gillard be rolled, then Labor is in more trouble than it could ever be. 
The second thing here is that the media and the opposition (110 per cent supported by the media) is worried sick that Julia could pull it off....They are getting tired of having to wait for another 100 days or whatever in which labor will pass more legislation and a time during which the opposition is likely to show more of its loopy hypocrisy. The opposition is worried its dark "soul" and its stupidity will come to the surface. Thus the media, the opposition, the catholics (who are taking a beating in the courts with the Royal Commission on sex abuses) all want Julia — the ATHEIST — to die... Some other people may think that Rudd is a "fairy tale in the making" but trust Latham on this one: Rudd is "pure (political) evil"...
Meanwhile we have this other opinionator with zero credibility, Gerard Henderson, who tries to bury Malcolm Fraser because the good man  — who was a moderate rat bag in the Liberals (conservatives) until he left in disgust at this party being led by an ultra-rite wing unworthy little shit neocon — has now become a voice for the Greens... Good one, Mr Fraser. Gerard should die of shame for writing his crap.
I'll say to Bill Shorten — a brave man who is going under the gun from the stupid riff-raff — to hold his position steady... There is far more dignity is staying the present course than trying to save the deck chairs and veer right into the wall at the same time... 
Remember the position of South Sydney Rabbitohs (a bastion of "catholic" Labor supporters), who were under the gun from various direction... As they were being sunk by criterias, possibly devised to sink them, as money were poured by Mr Murdoch to promote other teams that were more than broke — say Cronulla to only mention one of them — ahead of the "Rabbits", while Eddie Obeid was trying to force the Rabbits to merge with Cronulla so he could make some dosh with a "redevelopment"... and Alan Jones wanted the Rabbits to merge with Canberra for whatever reason which I don't remember here, one man stood fast against all. It was survive alone or die moment... The Rabbits survived by beating Mr Murdoch in the courts and are now top of the ladder, though the game has changed somewhat...
Gus.
See also: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/gillard-polls-porkies-and-popularity/

A commercial radio presenter in Perth has been suspended after asking the Prime Minister whether her partner Tim Mathieson is gay.

Fairfax Radio host Howard Sattler asked the question during an interview with Julia Gillard on Thursday, in which he challenged her to answer a series of myths, rumours, and innuendos.

During the exchange Ms Gillard said the questioning was absurd and "bordering" a line.

She accused Mr Sattler of making generalisations about male hairdressers.

"You know, to all the hairdressers out there, including the men who are listening, I don't think in life one can actually look at a whole profession full of different human beings and say 'Gee we know something about every one of those human beings', I mean, it's absurd isn't it?" she said.

Sattler then continued to ask: "You can confirm that he's not?".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-13/prime-minister-questioned-whether-partner-is-gay/4752998

 

BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS : WHY ARE AUSSIES COMPLETELY MAD, CRAZY, IDIOTIC, STUPID?

AUSTRALIA IS NOT just a success story — it is an anthology of success stories. Ascendancy in so many areas — all at the same time.

Europeans wish they had these narratives. They would dance in the streets. (Actually, Europeans still dance in the streets, despite everything.) As for Americans and Canadians, they would lap up every word.

But here’s the thing. In Australia these stories are seldom, if ever, told. Not a hint from a Hartcher, not a mention from a Mitchell, not a suggestion from a Sales and not a clue from a Crabb.

Historians will ponder and explore these 15 accomplishments with wonder and delight.

1. The Government of Michael Joseph Savage in New Zealand (1935-40) was recently eclipsed by the Government of Julia Eileen Gillard in Australia for the lowest rate of ministerial sackings due to incompetence or corruption in the Westminster world. Since 1820 anyway. What led to this? Minority government? What else do Michael Joseph and Julia Eileen have in common?

2. Why is Australia now being urged to lead the free world? Australia has been voted to chair the Pacific Islands Forum. Plus next year’s G20 group of the world’s 20 major economies. That’s on top of a seat on the UN Security Council. Everyone wants to sit next to Australia.

3. Why was Prime Minister Gillard given that standing ovation after addressing the US Congress? Traditionally, that honour is reserved for deputy sheriffs who follow Uncle Sam into battle. How has this government managed to strengthen the alliance without supporting a single invasion? What singular advantage has Australia thereby gained?

4. What precisely transformed relations with Indonesia? Australia is no longer the target for embassy killings, nightclub bombings, presidential invective and diplomatic insults. Who was the man who accomplished this? Or was it a woman?

5. How has Australia dealt with the wanton cruelty inflicted upon live sheep and cattle exported to Asia and the Middle East? With what outcomes? And why are bulls being tortured in television reports always named Billy or Bobby and not Brutus or Bozo?

6. Australia now ranks higher than ever before on the economic freedom index published by Washington’s Heritage Foundation. [Mission: “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”] Australia’s score is now the highest in the 34-nation OECD. A Labor government? Holy handguns! How did this happen?

7. Australia is one of four countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to have unemployment below 5.5% and job participation above 75%. Which are the others? What else distinguishes them?

8. Australia is one of only three nations in the OECD and G20 economies with interest rates in the optimum range between 1.75% and 4.75%. Only Australia has maintained this through the global financial crisis. How? What can Australia do now that was never possible before?

9. Australia is the only developed country to have had continuous economic growth for 22 years. Australia and Poland alone among OECD nations avoided recession in 2009. Why just these two? Which other nation is the most envious, and why?

10. Labor productivity is a tricky concept to define and even trickier to get right. It measures the costs of labour and other inputs used to produce things. Low productivity has bedevilled the world for decades, including Australia’s. Until 2011, that is. Suddenly it surged in Australia, rising dramatically for a record seven consecutive quarters. Seven. Wow! What generated this amazing surge? And what will trigger a sudden reversal?

11. Australia has zoomed to the top of the table of well-managed economies. That’s based on all the key variables. Not just in the world now, but anywhere, any time. How? Was it abundant minerals, critical decisions by Treasury, or the sound work of Peter Costello?

12. Speaking of whom, why does Australia always rise up through the ranks during Labor regimes and tumble down during Coalition periods? From 19th in 1983 up to 6th during the Hawke/Keating years, then down to 12th in 2007 under Howard and Costello, then to the very pinnacle in 2010. Who benefits from this cycle?

13. Best economy in the world is creditable enough. Best the world has ever seen is more impressive still. But achieved during the worst global economic crisis since the 1930s? How is this conceivable?

14. Remember when national strikes routinely disrupted train and air travel? Petrol rationing, supermarkets running out of milk and garbage piled in the streets? City intersections clogged most Fridays with demonstrations against the war or the US alliance or the government?

Ah, sweet memories. What brought about this cultural change in Australia – almost alone in the Western world – to have such disruption and discord diminish?

15. Finally, what’s with Canberra’s extraordinary dishonesty differential? A journalist was recently assigned the task of counting all the blatant lies – as distinct from unfulfilled promises – by Australia’s four federal party leaders. He found twelve. That’s a lot for just four leaders. He also found they were all by the one leader. Which one? Why was the research not published?

There. Fifteen stories. Would you like to read one of them? Well, you can’t. Sorry. It has been decided by those who know what you want better than you do that you want three topics only:

(1) How appalling the Government is;

(2) how disastrously it is doing in the opinion polls; and

(3) how the only hope for the future is a leadership challenge.

If the latter eventuates, well, that proves how appalling the Government is, as will be demonstrated in this week’s opinion poll, which will apply further pressure for another leadership challenge. If this doesn’t happen, well that just shows how appalling the Government is, which next week’s opinion poll will highlight …

Ah, you crazy Australians!

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/media-2/fifteen-fabulous-success-stories-australians-must-never-be-told/

Electorally stricken, Gillard is now, apparently, fair game. Nobody ever aimed such insults at Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard or Kevin Rudd. Nor has what goes on behind the bedroom door in The Lodge been considered an appropriate subject for discussion.

But, nine days short of the third anniversary of being sworn in as prime minister, Gillard is like a woman being stoned to death in an ancient ritual. Indignities have been heaped on her by an Australia where men behaving badly suddenly seems to have been exposed as the secret default position of many.

Nothing signified it more than the Perth broadcaster Howard Sattler asking the Prime Minister to her face in a radio interview if her partner, Tim Mathieson, was gay. The outrage was immediate.

Veteran feminist Eva Cox thinks something broke in Australian public life this week.

''What happened to all the legislation, the education programs? Civil discourse has been swept aside in a brutal race to be the most repugnant,'' she says.
''A few days ago, it was racism. Now it's women. It's almost as if they're saying 'we can do and say what we like - try and stop us'.
''Seriously, it looks like we've learnt very little. The level of abuse is worse than it was 10 years ago. Just join the dots.''

Years of effort to bring equality into the Australian Defence Force appear to have come to nought, with high-ranking army officers accused of distributing footage of soldiers engaged in sex after a long investigation by NSW police.
In the sports world, Osieck's remark came hard on the heels of Eddie McGuire's racist comments about Sydney Swans champion Adam Goodes.

Osieck was caught at a Socceroos post-victory news conference telling a male Football Federation Australia official he was pushing him around like a woman, telling him where to sit. Classically educated, the German made a comment in Latin and then translated it for the sporting media.

''Women should shut up in public … I say it to my wife at home, it is a private one, OK,'' he told the Melbourne news conference. ''And you record that one as well? I am going to be the darling of all Australian wives.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/men-behaving-badly-20130614-2o9mt.html#ixzz2WERpyVLT
See too at top...

 

Apparently according to a news item at the ABC:

The Age newspaper has taken the unusual step of calling for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to stand aside "for the good of the nation".

The editorial says the leadership debate is preventing Labor's message about its future policies and vision for Australia getting through to the public.

-------------------------------------------

This of course smacks of hypocritical chauvinism with a lack of balls... Why don't you editorialise for Rudd to shut up and then your papers can stop being a filter stopping "Labor's message about its future policies and vision for Australia getting through to the public."?... Of course you have no time for proper news as you are more interested in the grubby politics promoted by the ratty Rudd camp, awaiting a silly political event THAT ALL THE MEDIA is wishing for, for stupid reasons...

Come on, Andrew, be a proper newspaper man, ignore the "speculations" and REPORT properly UPON Labor's future policies and vision for Australia "for the good of the nation"  TOO SIMPLE? YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING ...

--------------------------------

Andrew Holden

As tectonic plates shift beneath the Australian media landscape, The Age has appointed an editor-in-chief with a reputation forged, literally, on shifting ground.

Fairfax Media management today announced Andrew Holden, editor of Christchurch's The Press, would be returning to Melbourne from New Zealand to take the reins at The Age.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/andrew-holden-to-take-reins-at-the-age-20120626-20zfk.html#ixzz2WusDImAo

 

 

 

Transcript

LEIGH SALESPERSON, PRESENTER: One of the Prime Minister’s most loyal supporters is the Minister for trade and tertiary education, Craig Emerson. He joined me from Canberra.

Craig Emerson, when I interviewed you in March after the last round of Labor leadership you said it was at an end. Why then, in June, is there still this chatter about leadership?

CRAIG EMERSON, TRADE MINISTER: Kevin has actually subsequently said that there are no circumstances in which he’ll become Prime Minister of Australia, so I accept that. Obviously there will be people who are chattering. We know that. There’s obviously a lot of media interest in all of this. I think sometimes journalists don’t want to miss out on a story so they’ll grasp at any straws, but the fact is the issue is settled.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: If the matter is settled then why I am still asking you questions about it.

CRAIG EMERSON: Good question. Lack of imagination? Obsessive compulsive disorder? Some form of monomania? Bias? It’s hard to be sure.

LEIGH SALES-PERSON: With that message you want to get out, a little over a week ago Rod Someone, the experienced former Labor pollster and now Kevin Rudd PR consultant, told this program: “Julia Gillard is a hideous reptilian monster; fairly or unfairly, the electorate is terrified of her and want to stab her to death with pitchforks and then burn her.”

Why then, is the party, determined to go to the election with a leader in that position?

CRAIG EMERSON: Well I guess it just highlights what I’ve been saying, that if we spend all our time having opinion polls, going through opinion polls, commenting on opinion polls then we won’t be putting in front of the Australian people the real contrast between the middle-of-the-road party and a fascist right-wing party.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: I think what Rod Someone’s getting to is that the message you want to get out about your policies can’t get out because your front person, your chief sales person, is an evil dragon creature.

CRAIG EMERSON: My own view ‒ and that of just about every other person in Australia ‒ is that there is far too much emphasis in the media about opinion polls.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: I’m not talking about polls, I’m talking about a pollster talking about polls. There is a subtle yet entirely irrelevant difference.

CRAIG EMERSON: Yes, you’re talking about a pollster and talking about Julia Gillard’s standing in polls. There are polls out now every day, and those that actually show an improvement in Labor’s position aren’t given any publicity because it is actually not a good story to say that Labor is improving according to some polls, not improving according to other polls. The Australian people would be pretty sick of this, I reckon.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: If you had a leader who wasn’t seen by voters as a horrifying bloodthirsty Tyrannosaurus rampaging through the countryside, wouldn’t you be having more success in the polls?

CRAIG EMERSON: Again, I think we shouldn’t be obsessing about opinion polls. I think when we draw that contrast with Tony Abbott — people realise he is a risk, that he will cut their living standards because of a drive to increase profits for Gina and Rupert and that, moreover, he’s clearly as mad as a bag of black snakes.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: Speaking of Tony Abbott, in a speech last week the Prime Minister said that under an Abbott Government, women voices would be banished from political life. Why did she speak about Tony in that horrid and beastly fashion?

CRAIG EMERSON: Well I think it’s pretty clear that Tony Abbott, because he is an misogynist, bully and a thug, who has punched walls on the side of women’s heads and even faced charges of sexual assault, has created a certain amount of anxiety amongst women in our society.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: Well, how exactly has that created anxiety?

CRAIG EMERSON: You really don’t have much when we get off leadership, do you?

LEIGH SALESPERSON: Speaking of leadership…

CRAIG EMERSON: [Groans]

LEIGH SALESPERSON: … yesterday your colleague Greg Combet said if Kevin Rudd has the support that’s suggested it’s available to him to make a challenge for the leadership. Should he?

CRAIG EMERSON: No, he shouldn’t. Can we talk about policy please, there been several key reforms during this term of Parliament, including pricing carbon, the NDIS, Gonski, the NBN…

LEIGH SALESPERSON: [Interrupts] Minister, isn’t the problem that it’s going to be very, very hard for you to sell your policies as long as I doggedly persist in asking you the some dopey question about leadership in 16 different ways?

CRAIG EMERSON: And I think you just made my point and that’s why I say I don’t want to be rude about this, but I was talking about some of the really big issues, the huge education reforms, National Disability Insurance Scheme all going through the parliament and you came in, I understand why – came over the top and said, “We don’t want to know about that. We want to know about Julia Gillard versus Kevin Rudd.” That’s my very point.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: Minister, in the words of Howard Sattler, it’s not me that wants to know about this.

CRAIG EMERSON: It is. You’re the one who came in when I was talking about policies.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: I have proof that ordinary Australians, viewers of this program, would like me to continue to insult the intelligence of the public by talking about this meaningless tripe.

CRAIG EMERSON: Like who?

LEIGH SALESPERSON: [Looks at her iPhone] Well, since you asked, I received this email today from G. Brandis S.C., which says ‘Don’t let that Communist Emerson divert you – keep banging on about Labor leadership no matter what. There’s a good girl.’

CRAIG EMERSON: For heaven’s sake…

LEIGH SALESPERSON:  [Waves phone.] And look, here’s a text from Andrew Bolt: ‘Keep hammering Emerson on leadership. Only a few months to go until salvation.’ [Phone beeps] And look, just now I’ve just received a tweet for @TonyAbbottMHR which says, ‘Good going @LeighSalesperson, you’ve got him on the run. More #leadershit and I’ll give you a nice back-rub later’. And I regularly receive messages like this from all factions of the Liberal and National Party caucus.

CRAIG EMERSON: Yes, but what about your regular viewers?

LEIGH SALESPERSON:  They are regular viewers. In fact, I understand Coalition MP’s seldom miss $7.30, since Chris and I took over from Kerry O’Brien.

CRAIG EMERSON:  I mean your ordinary viewers — people not in the mainstream media or conservative politicians?

LEIGH SALESPERSON:  Well, why on earth would I be interested in what they want. Their opinions are ill-informed and quite frankly worthless. And some of them are really quite rude!

CRAIG EMERSON:  You don’t say… Look, there is very, very strong support for Julia Gillard. What you’re really saying is that your audience would rather talk about opinion polls. I think your audience would prefer us to talk about the big policy issues that affect their living standards, affect the future such as the fact that China is implementing an Emissions Trading Scheme, as we said they always would, Tony Abbott said he would scrap an Emissions Trading Scheme and that would be a betrayal of the future of this country.

They’re the big policy debates, they’re the big contest of ideas in the parliament, that’s what it should be, that contest of ideas, that’s what the Australian people want to hear. And I will say this, when I talk to journalists in the print media they say, “We don’t want to do anything on leadership because our readers hammer us every time.” That’s my message to you, Leigh, let’s talk about the big policy issues.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: Craig Emerson, we’re out of time. Thank you for joining us.

CRAIG EMERSON: We didn’t quite get to talk about the big policy issues. Maybe next time.

LEIGH SALESPERSON: In your dreams, Craig.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/leigh-salesperson-interviews-dr-craig-emerson-on-abc-7-30/

This is of course the media as seen by the satire, the burlesque, a caricature, some causticity, a bit of chaffing, a tad of irony, some lampooning, a dash of mockery, some parody, pasquinade, persiflage, play-on, put-on, raillery, sarcasm, send-up, skit, spoof, squib, takeoff, travesty, wit, witticism, all with an element of truth about the way the media behaves....

 

Julia Gillard was bullied for being a woman - Anne Summers

GUS COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS

Today Opposition leader Tony Abbott responded, suggesting that being a woman had very little to do with the attacks launched at her.

"99.9 per cent of the time she was under attack not for being a woman but for being an appalling prime minister and that's the test - can you do the job, are you doing the job - and the Labor party said no, she couldn't do the job,'' he said.

ACTUALLY, LITTLE SHIT TONY, GILLARD DID A FAR BETTER JOB IN THREE YEARS — IN VERY DIFFICULT INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES —  THAN SAY A LITTLE JOHN HOWARD WHO WAS THERE FOR 11 YEARS OF LIES, OBFUSCATION, WARS AND STUPID TURDY FIDDLES DESIGNED TO BURY WORKERS. JULIA GILLARD DID FAR MORE GOOD THINGS FOR THIS COUNTRY THAN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE MISOGYNISTS — INCLUDING RUDD AND TONICCHIO... THE ONGOING MISOGYNIST TACTIC IS TO HAVE NO GRACE AND CERTAINLY NO RECOGNITION...

But prominent feminist Anne Summers says that Julia Gillard has been the subject of vitriol and bullying, often of a sexual nature, because of her gender.

CORRECT.

"I just think it's appalling that not only was she bullied out of office but now they're not even going to give her the solace of being able to have her legacy recognised."

THAT IS A MISOGYNY TACTIC...

Summers argues that Kevin Rudd today furthered the attack by acknowledging Gillard's legacy only through the reforms she achieved as his deputy.

REST MY CASE.

"By saying she did a lot of great things for women... it's a snide way of suggesting that she didn't do anything for the whole of the country," she said. Summers says she's astonished that none of Gillard's female colleagues stood down after Rudd's victory.

"I am absolutely flabbergasted that none of them - yesterday or last night - thought that they would make that gesture and leave, given that six men did," she did.

I UNDERSTAND WHY... AND UNLIKE ANNE SUMMERS, I BELIEVE THAT FOR THE WOMEN, NO MATTER HOW THEY VOTED FOR RUDD OR GILLARD IN THE LEADERSHIP SPILL, THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE THE FEMALE LEGACY IN PARLIAMENT. THEIR LEAVING WOULD ONLY FURTHER THE MISOGYNIST SECRET IDEALS TO KEEP WOMEN AS SECOND FIDDLES. THE WOMEN IN LABOR CAN STILL MAKE THINGS HAPPEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE —MEN AND WOMEN... 

ONE CAN SAY FROM SPEAKING TO PEOPLE AROUND TOWN, THE MAN IN THE STREET WAS APPALLED AT THE WAY GILLARD WAS TREATED BY THE PRESS, SOME OF HER COLLEAGUES AND ESPECIALLY BY THE OPPOSITION, LEAD BY TONY WHO HAS PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN HE IS A FULL-BLOWN MISOGYNIST, DESPITE HIS EFFORTS TO HIDE BEHIND A FEW SKIRTS.

I HAVE BEEN RELIABLY INFORMED, THAT ON THE DAY OF... SORRY... I WON'T TALK ABOUT THE LABOR MEN WHO TALKED TO EACH OTHER FROM THE CORNER OF THEIR TWISTED LIPS...

 

Julia Gillard was in the Trade Union Royal Commission today and Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks was there to watch the former prime minister bash the counsel assisting all over the park without her even raising a sweat.

TONY ABBOTT’S Royal Commission into Trade Unions was supposed to be about two things, the vindication of Kathy Jackson and the persecution of Julia Gillard.

However just like Tony Abbott's first Budget, these two objectives have both turned into monumental public failures.

We have already seen Kathy Jackson land face first after falling off the pedestal she built for herself. Jackson spent the year prior to the Commission smelling like roses and, now the media have caught up with what Jackson has called the “blogosphere”, she is smelling more like what those roses may be fertilised with. Jackson is still to face questions on the evidence she sought to have suppressed, which is expected to be bigger than that which has already been made public.

Yesterday, it was time for Julia Gillard to face the tough questions.

The day started off with the witnesses Rob Elliott and his wife Kay Darveniza — names some of you may recognise from previous articles.

Counsel Assisting Jeremy Stoljar SC ignored their involvement in the HSU and their relationship with Kathy Jackson to instead decided to focus on their dealings approximately a quarter of a century ago with Julia Gillard.

Stoljar clearly went out to try to show a pattern of behaviour from Gillard in relation to the setting up of associations for questionable purposes — however those efforts failed.

It turns out that Gillard had participated in what were seemingly boring routine conversations regarding industrial affairs with two union officials — Elliott and Darveniza.

On social media much was made out of the witnesses appearing vague. However, the finer details of a conversation or meeting on what would have been routine affairs for union officials such as fundraising and industrial matters would tend to become vaguer as the years roll on, I would imagine — particularly when one's memory may be impacted by multiple sclerosis, as Darveniza's statement confirms.

Soon enough, it was time for the main event and Julia Gillard took the stand.

Gillard testified about her current work status, her background with Slater and Gordon and how she came to meet her former partner Bruce Wilson.

Wilson had asked Gillard’s legal advice on the setting up of an incorporated association for him and his team, as he was seeking to become secretary of the AWU in WA. Giving advice in this regards was a common practice for Slater and Gordon. Gillard testified that the law firm’s major source of work was plaintiff personal injury work. It was common for work to be done with no charge for unions so that the firm may pick up personal injury work from the union’s members.

From there on in, the questioning up until lunch was all about goings on of the association, the invoices they sent, the members it had, and the bank account details and transactions.

As Gillard was forced to point out on numerous occasions — she gave legal advice on the setting up of the association, she had nothing more to do with it and no idea about the inner workings of the association.

This sounds to me not only feasible, but highly likely. For those on social media who chose to make more out of this than defies logic, I would use this analogy. Just because the green grocer advises you what vegetables are in season does not mean 20 years later he can explain to a court what you cooked them with.

The other aim of counsel assisting, in my opinion, was to extract the “I don’t recall” answer from Gillard as many times as possible, so as to make her testimony seem less reliable.

This was done by asking ridiculously minute details of conversations that may or may not have taken place two decades ago, or mundane details of what sections of an act were used to form part of legal advice, and where the witnessing of documents took place and who was in attendance at the time. Questions that, given the passage of time involved, would be almost impossible to give exact answers on.

Gillard eventually gave a response that resulted in cheers and laughs in the media room:

“My evidence is that I was a busy solicitor across the years in which I practised as a lawyer. I would have witnessed thousands of documents. I do not have specific recall of, you know, each and every document I witnessed and the circumstances, you know, which room, which desk, what I was wearing. I don’t have that kind of recall, but I witnessed documents appropriately.”

This led to this question from Stoljar, which resulted in an answer from Gillard that caused a roar of laughter from those in the media room:

"What about your practice in respect of dating a particular document? Did you have any practice in that regard?"

Replied Gillard:

"You put the right date on a document."

However, it was the blunt tone of Gillard’s response that put Stoljar in his place and highlighted the disrespect and desperation in the line of questioning.

Gillard also stated that the work done on this matter would have taken between three and five hours, and that, in her time at Slater and Gordon, she had done far more substantial work than that for no charge.

There was heavy questioning on the subject of an advertisement that appeared in the printed media regarding the association and its incorporation. The placement of this advertisement is a legal requirement in the setting up an incorporated association.

Stoljar seemed to be determined to have Gillard admit that she wrote and placed the advertisement, despite Gillard stating under oath that she did not have anything to do with it.

The counsel assisting fired many questions at her regarding this ad, yet appeared to have absolutely no evidence on which to base his line of questioning. The best he could use to lend credibility to this theory was to say the ad was written in what looked like legal terms.

The repetitive questioning and the desperate attempts to trip Gillard up on the matter eventually, after what seemed like an eternity, ended with an interjection from Commissioner Dyson Heydon. Heydon pointed out the likelihood that it was a standard advert placed by someone else with the details of the association's name changed to suit.

This simple logic had been lost on those in the right-wing commentary business leading the witch-hunt until now.

After lunch, Gillard was asked questions on several matters that involved the payment of accounts and billing regarding work done for the association.

Those who have sought to trash Gillard’s reputation may have been shocked upon finding out that a law firm the size of Slater and Gordon had a separate accounts department and the solicitors that worked there did not have to perform every task relating to their clients.

(Allegations that Slater and Gordon have a separate mail room were not explored and talk of the solicitors taking turns to act as the receptionist are rumoured to be highly exaggerated.)

When it came to the renovations it has been alleged were paid for by Wilson using funds from the association there was simply nothing to back up these allegations. Gillard testified that she had the work done and paid for with cheques and had receipts for the work.

At one stage Gillard mentioned she had invoices and Stoljar leapt at the chance to bring Gillard crashing down. Stoljar started with rapid fire questions around these invoices, stating that Gillard had not mentioned having invoices in her statements, as if to accuse her of withholding evidence. Stoljar clearly had the taste of blood was going for the jugular — until, sadly, once again the facts got in the way.

Commissioner Heydon interrupted Stoljar to point out where in her affidavit Gillard had, in fact, stated she had invoices.

In the end, Gillard finished the day having faced all of the allegations against her and shooting them all down in flames.

There will always be those out there that believe Elvis Presley is still alive and that Bigfoot exists, just as I’m sure there will be those out there that believe Julia Gillard is guilty of something.

However, just as the public would not like to see vast amounts of taxpayer funds spent hunting mythical creatures and dead celebrities, the vast majority of the public are dismayed to see so much money wasted on a baseless attack from a bunch of sexist commentators and politicians on our first female Prime Minister.

It is about time this travesty ended.

see more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/julia-gillard-testifies-at-turc-next-up-elvis-presley-and-big-foot,6884

--------------------------

as someone tweeted: And with that Jeremy Stoljar has bowled his 10 overs & heads for the sheds with figures of 0/358

 

 

Julia Gillard let the royal commission know early on who it was dealing with. Asked to state her occupation, she said there was "a list".

"I am of course a former prime minister. I am an author. I am the chair of the Global Partnership for Education. I am a non-resident distinguished senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington. I am honorary professor at the University of Adelaide."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/a-stressful-period-of-my-life-no-killer-blow-as-julia-gillard-revisits-her-past-20140910-10f335.html#ixzz3Cx8ukgEo

 

Distinguished Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Center for Universal Education

 

As prime minister and in her previous role as deputy prime minister, Ms. Gillard was central to the successful management of Australia’s economy—the 12th biggest economy in the world—during the global financial crisis and as Australia positioned to seize the benefits of Asia’s rise. Ms. Gillard developed Australia’s guiding policy paper, Australia in the Asian Century and  delivered nation-changing policies including reforming Australia education at every level from early childhood to university education, creating an emissions trading scheme, improving the provision and sustainability of health care, aged care and dental care, commencing the nation’s first ever national scheme to care for people with disabilities and restructuring the telecommunications sector as well as building a national broadband network. In foreign policy, Ms. Gillard strengthened Australia’s alliance with the United States, secured stronger architecture for the relationship with China, upgraded Australia’s ties with India, and deepened ties with Japan, Indonesia and South Korea. Ms. Gillard has represented Australia at the G-20, including winning Australia’s right to host the 2014 meeting, the East Asia Summit, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), North Atlantic Treaty Organization-International Security Assistance Force (NATO-ISAF) and chaired the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Under Ms. Gillard’s leadership, Australia was elected to the United Nations security council.  

Ms. Gillard is the first woman to ever serve as Australia’s prime minister or deputy prime minister. In October 2012, Ms. Gillard received worldwide attention for her speech in parliament on the treatment of women in professional and public life.

Ms. Gillard is a distinguished fellow with the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution in Washington.  In February 2014, Ms. Gillard was appointed chair of the Global Partnership for Education, a leading organization dedicated to expanding access and quality education worldwide.  Ms. Gillard also serves as a honorary professor at the University of Adelaide.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/gillardj?view=bio

----------------------------------

See toon at top... Gus preferred Julia Gillard way ahead of Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd... If one had to give marks, for leading a country, out of twenty, Julia Gillard would be 11 and a half, Tony Abbott would fetch a -2 (minus two) plus three months of detention, while Kevin Rudd barely reached 3. Most world leaders, from Obama to Cameron are within the 4 to 5 mark. Can do much better. Should do much better. 

 

 

It was a climax of sorts, a holding to account: Julia Gillard took the stand and, stripped of a politician's defences and sworn to truth, ran through the entire panoply of conjecture and supposition before the union Royal Commission.

Andrew Bolt was live blogging.

At The Australian Hedley Thomas had set the scene before staking out his seat in the commission chamber: "The concerns ... were neither trivial nor the product of the feverish imaginations of misogynists or nut-jobs on the internet."

At the Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine attempted to undermine the worth of whatever assurances the former prime minister might give under oath: "Julia Gillard's appearance at the unions Royal Commission today is the most anticipated political testimony since Bill Clinton swore: 'I never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky'."

Guardian Australia editor Emily Wilson tweeted while she watched events unfold: "arguably not the MAIN point but i love gillard's dark shirt white jacket combo."

And as Gillard's evidence began, questioned in a dogged, almost soporific parsing of the detail by counsel assisting, Jeremy Stoljar SC, the emptiness of what had been a bitterly contested political campaign and from there an accusatory media culture war, was laid bare.

Would this be the end of it, the end of an insistent and defamatory mythology that began with Victorian Kennett government minister Phil Gude making claims under parliamentary privilege in 1995?

In the stand the former PM was curt. Spare. Firm. Freed of the need to pander to public perception she let her lip curl just a little with evident distaste for what, again, was being put to her, this time with the assumed dignity of a royal commission.

But then Gillard has spent the past decade making occasional, and sometimes exhaustively detailed, denials of the claims put to her yesterday.

And there was nothing new to note when she was finally excused at 3.34pm. No sudden combination of elements that would throw matters in a new light. None of the missteps that might have come through fabrication, none of the uncertain hesitation that might hint at a lie.

And no moment of stunning legal craft that might turn the matter against her, no recapitulation of Brady v Duggan, for example

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/green-emptiness-of-gillard-accusations-laid-bare/5735618

 

See toon at top...

The 'Get Gillard' camp gobbled up hundreds of column inches, burnt acres of taxpayers' dollars and scored zip — apart from their own collateral damage. Alan Austin reports on the never-ending, venomous pursuit of our former Prime Minister.

With Julia Gillard’s long-awaited testimony at the Trade Union Royal Commission, Australia’s longest and most malicious media campaign of vilifying one public figure has almost certainly run its course.

It was more venomous than that against Lindy Chamberlain, more sustained than that against Carmen Lawrence and based on far less evidence than that against Pauline Hanson.

One strong positive to emerge from Wednesday’s theatre in Sydney was to see influential Fairfax mastheads The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald abandon their earlier lockstep march behind Murdoch’s malicious liars.

The difference between Murdoch and Fairfax on this matter is now quite stark. Last September, Fairfax outlets The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times were pilloried by the Australian Press Council (APC) over two articles about Gillard and the Australian Workers Union (AWU): they were not ‘accurate, fair and balanced’ and did not provide ‘opportunity for a balancing response’ to false allegations.

 

Author, Mark Baker, has since left Fairfax and appears to have left journalism. If his departure is because of the adverse APC finding, that’s yet another Gillard scalp. Already 2UE shock jock, Michael Smith, and Murdoch’s Glenn Milne and Ean Higgins have been humiliated or lost their jobs for misreporting the matter.

Fairfax’s syndicated report yesterday was a fair and accurate account of Gillard’s testimony, highlighting the humorous and quirky. Headed ‘Dignified in the dock, Julia Gillard checks attack on invoices’, it concluded:

‘In the end, the commissioner will have to reflect on whether Ms Gillard's word is more credible than some of those who have given evidence. That should not prove an onerous task.

‘The bigger question is one not covered by his terms of reference: whether all the resources that have been marshalled to pursue Ms Gillard could have been deployed for a higher, more productive purpose. You don't need a royal commission to know the answer.

 

The coverage by The Australian, in contrast, continued its long-running malicious misrepresentation. All four falsehoods the Murdoch media have peddled from the outset – now 19 years ago – were regurgitated yesterday by Hedley Thomas. The first is that Gillard set up the union “slush fund” to be used for corrupt purposes. This is the most sustained false assertion, carried across all hostile media, and even some not so hostile.

It is blatantly false. Ms Gillard helped set up an association incorporated with the Corporate Affairs Commission. She did not set up any of its funds – or bank accounts – slushy or otherwise.

Clearly, an association and its bank account are quite separate entities.
Thomas in The Australian yesterday:

‘... he [former AWU chief Bruce Wilson] and his sidekick Ralph Blewitt allegedly perpetrated the fraud with the slush fund — the Aus tralian Workers Union (AWU) Workplace Reform Association — that Ms Gillard had helped to establish in 1992 with her legal advice.’

Unsurprisingly Andrew Bolt repeats this misrepresentation at the The Herald Sun, as does Piers Akerman at The Daily Telegraph.

It is plainly false.

• 
  

The distinction between the two entities was clarified on Wednesday when counsel assisting the commission, Jeremy Stoljar SC, quoted from the 1995 exit interview between Gillard and Slater & Gordon partners Peter Gordon and Geoff Shaw:

'... the account belonging to an incorporated association by the same name which was incorporated by Slater & Gordon ...” [page774]

Clearly the slush fund belongs to the association; they are not the same thing.

Stoljar confirmed the distinction with this question: “He [Gordon] is referring to an account quite separate from the Association; correct?”

Gillard responded:

'When you look across this discussion with Mr Gordon and Mr Shaw, there's a discussion about the Workplace Reform Association; there's a discussion then about bank accounts ...  I didn't know anything about the banking arrangements of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.' [page774]

Deliberately confusing the two has been a malicious tactic used throughout the campaign by Murdoch and other hostile media.

It has clearly been successful. Even Crikey’s Scott Mitchell erroneously referred to the association as a slush fund this week.

The Australian’s second falsehood is asserting that the routine exit interview was an extraordinary disciplinary event.

Thomas in The Australian:

“... with the leaking to The Australian of confidential material showing Ms Gillard’s colleagues at Slater & Gordon were so concerned that they considered terminating her for misconduct as a solicitor in the mid-1990s.”

Bolt and Akerman repeat this lie also.

Several former Slater & Gordon colleagues have confirmed this to be blatantly false, including Justice Bernard Murphy on Tuesday:

'I had conversations with her [Gillard] about whether she'd done anything wrong and she assured me she hadn't and I believed her.' [page 577-8]

 

Gillard was not sacked or censured in any way. She resigned to pursue a career in politics.

• 
  

The third falsehood is that Gillard knew the slush fund was corrupt, and that it was given a misleading name and purpose when registered.

Thomas in The Australian again:

‘[Gillard] ... provided the know-how to create the device that would be used by Wilson to raise ill-gotten money;’

The fourth is that Gillard benefitted from corruptly gained moneys which were allegedly given to her in cash by Bruce Wilson to pay for home renovations.

The Australian continues to claim:

‘[Gillard] ... allegedly received or benefited from (according to three witnesses) thousands of dollars Wilson directed her way ...’

If there was any evidence for any of these alleged crimes, other than unsubstantiated allegations by political enemies, Wednesday was the chance to present it and elicit from Gillard an admission of guilt. No such evidence was tended.

Fortunately, Australia’s alternative media have reported the royal commission accurately. Excellent accounts have appeared in New Matilda, Independent Australia, The Guardian and Crikey.

Barring some extraordinary revelation it seems certain the royal commission will exonerate the former PM. That must further marginalise Thomas, Bolt, Akerman and the other Murdoch manipulators. That, if it happens, will be a just outcome.

You can follow Alan Austin on Twitter @AlanTheAmazing.

see more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/julia-creams-critics--and-crashes-more-careers,6889