Health Minister Peter Dutton replaced by a Plank of Wood in Cabinet Reshuffle
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has today announced that Peter Dutton has been replaced as Federal Health Minister by a plank of wood.
The move follows the Abbott government’s decision to dump its controversial $7 GP co-payment plan in favour of an “optional” $5 co-payment plan which will be imposed by medical practitioners at the discretion of the GP.
Mr Abbott and Mr Dutton defended changes to the proposal yesterday, arguing that it was not a “policy backflip” but rather “revised implementation arrangements for a budget measure.”
The decision to dump Mr Dutton as Health Minister follows criticism that the policy was poorly handled from the outset with voters unconvinced that they would be better off under the new system.
A spokesman for Mr Abbott, Peta Credlin defended Mr Dutton’s performance, arguing that the decision to replace the beleaguered Health Minister was not a reflection of his capacity in the role.
“Look Mr Dutton has done a fine job as Health Minister, and I reject absolutely, any suggestion that this change in circumstances is in any way a reflection of his performance” said Ms Credlin.
“We just felt that at this particular point in time, a plank of wood would probably do a better job, and mount a more convincing argument to propagate the merits of the system amongst the Australian public,” she said.
“Mr Dutton agreed with this approach and we reached a mutually amicable agreement to part company.”
The plank of wood was unavailable for comment at the time of this release, but we understand it offered its commiserations to the talking duck who was also considered a strong candidate for the role.
theguttertrash.com 
Funny but also sadly true… The job of Health Minister under this government is a poison chalice. I commiserate with the plank and hope that it won’t to too bored with job or white-anted by splinter groups.
“splinter groups”
LOL… 🙂
And if you look closely I doubt that the plank of wood in question will handle the portfolio any better … in fact probably worse … at least Dutton has almost hand– (he has two hands) the problem they created themselves … but the plank has not a handle on site!
Worse and worser …
G’day ee, !
Are you sure that plank is not made from old growth wood chips from those great environmentalists Guns.
Pretty sure the wood would be Pyne.
Sometimes, shit has a useful purpose …
OK if you are manure Ross, not so much if you are agrubmint 😉
Some old time religion.
“holes to choose from” lol
That’s classic Ross 😉
hmm, my link didn’t work above @ 10:20 am . I’ll be more blunt this time then
http://smellytongues.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/this-government-is-shit/
Talk about batshit hypocrisy, yabot now plays the gender card, on the woman was most probably the initial source for the multitudes of both blatant and duplicitous sexist attacks on the former PM Julia Gillard
“Do you really think my chief of staff would be under this kind of criticism if her name was Peter as opposed to Peta?” Mr Abbott asked the ABC’s Lyndal Curtis.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peta-credlin-critics-are-sexist-tony-abbott-claims-during-tv-slap-down-20141211-125hxi.html
What a total fucking ignorant, hypocritical obnoxious fucktard
TR, do you have any thoughts about the current Prime Minister that you could share with us?
do you have any thoughts
thoughts??
Not sure it deserves them TB 😉
‘duplicitous sexist attacks’
Could you provide a link for a few? I know may people (mostly self banned from here) made the claim against Gillard critics, including me, but I didn’t see rational criticism of her behaviour & ethics sexist or misogynist.
What, you want me to go through all the sexist attacks the libs made on Gillard, again?
Is your memory that short yomm (probably a redundant question, I know)
I’m not sure. I recall Gillard got plenty of criticism for knifing Rudd and for breaking election pledges.
I think Abbott has got plenty of legitimate and rational criticism for breaking his pledges too.
I don’t recall much criticism of Gillard that focused on her being a woman. Can you provide a couple of examples of the criticism that Abbott made of her that was focussed on her gender?
Is your memory that short yomm (probably a redundant question, I know)
Conveniently limited … and retention is questionable …
Its a problem most people often have in one of two scenarios … lying, or defending the indefensible …
I don’t think ToM fibs …
I don’t recall much criticism of Gillard that focused on her being a woman.
Then perhaps you should lay off the hard stuff fer a time yomm 😉
http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/
I know some objected to “Juliar” probably the same lot that now use “Abbort” or whatever.
But you referred to Abbott’s comments or behaviour about Gillard, and standing near a sign really doesn’t provide evidence.
Don’t bother with a link for me to read or review, take responsibility for your own comments!
standing near a sign really doesn’t provide evidence.
ROFL
Don’t bother with a link for me to read or review
ignorance is bliss 😉
And then of course, I was offended too by the sexism, by the misogyny of the Leader of the Opposition catcalling across this table at me as I sit here as Prime Minister, “If the Prime Minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest woman of herself…”, something that would never have been said to any man sitting in this chair. I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition went outside in the front of Parliament and stood next to a sign that said “Ditch the witch.”
I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition stood next to a sign that described me as a man’s bitch. I was offended by those things. Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition. Every day in every way, across the time the Leader of the Opposition has sat in that chair and I’ve sat in this chair, that is all we have heard from him.
…..
Well can anybody remind me if the Leader of the Opposition has taken any responsibility for the conduct of the Sydney Young Liberals and the attendance at this event of members of his frontbench?
Has he taken any responsibility for the conduct of members of his political party and members of his frontbench who apparently when the most vile things were being said about my family, raised no voice of objection? Nobody walked out of the room; no-one walked up to Mr Jones and said that this was not acceptable.
Sorry yomm, there’s link to that too 🙂
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transcript-of-julia-gillards-speech-20121009-27c36.html
take responsibility for your own comments!
Perhaps you should be applying that somment to yabot, not me, as I am quite prepared to “take responsibility” 😯 for my own comments.
As my LINKS show 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Speaking of links
https://31.media.tumblr.com/4cacc23cf165e9b7c5c5edaeac3a11c9/tumblr_inline_n9dlrg6RtX1scy536.bmp
OK, so the best evidence that you can come up with about Abbott’s ‘duplicitous sexist attacks’ is that he-
• Stood next to a sign at a political protest
• Didn’t object to some comments made by Allan Jones
• Didn’t rebuke some juvenile antics by some juvenile political activists
Are you willing to apply the same standards to ALP politicians that are present at union rallies? Or when an ALP leader is at a union dinner, does their silence represent endorsement of the comments of the speakers they listen to? Or do the comments made by Young Labor types that the ALP leader doesn’t correct represent endorsement?
I’ve never subscribed to the notion that Gillard was hounded on the basis of her gender. I think she was an expedient lawyer with questionable ethics who took those traits into her political life.
I think Abbott was a negative, unreasonable and uncompromising Opposition Leader with both Rudd and Gillard.
But Rudd had a modicum of decency and ethic that was lacking in Gillard, and I think the public understood this, which is the reason they turned on her.
OK, so the best evidence that you can come up with about Abbott’s ‘duplicitous sexist attacks’ is that he-
• Stood next to a sign at a political protest
• Didn’t object to some comments made by Allan Jones
• Didn’t rebuke some juvenile antics by some juvenile political activists
and
• said of Gillard “make an honest woman of herself…”
• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
• calling her “she” instead of Prime Minister inside of Parliament (let alone the disrespect shown by him (and the media in general) outside of it)
We know you have hated Gillard for a long time, for an unspecified reason, but even to haterz, that’s a pretty impressive list of sexist behaviour
I notice tomR still defends a hypocritical abbott when he plays the same sexism card that he and his megaphones said was played by a lying, miserable, incompetent PM Gillard who was using her sex to try and avoid proper and correct criticism..
I’ve never subscribed to the notion that Gillard was hounded on the basis of her gender.
Yes, that has been well noted over the years.
I think she was an expedient lawyer with questionable ethics who took those traits into her political life.
And abbott who has many questionable and unethical traits spanning sexism, bullying, thuggishness, corruption and collusion in office, continued misuse of entitlements, questionable, possibly illegal abuse of legal system for party political purposes, gets a free pass from you?
oops, tomR = tomM
(Given that the bulk of reported ‘attacks’ of late on Peta Credlin’s undoubted abilities as the ‘strongest political warrior he knows’ seem to have emanated from within LNP ranks, might one now also consider that there is (still) a patent culture of misogyny within the Liberal National Party, exactly as Tony Abbott apparently suggests?)
I think it is very obvious that abbott will do and say anything to serve himself. When you think he can go no lower, he will always find a way. The most narcissistic, self serving, self indulgent, self glorifying PM we’ve ever had [even beats rudd].
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-is-crying-sexism/story-fncynjr2-1227153420145
..Mr Abbott also said in a speech to the Food and Grocery Council that: “Alas, we have a government which … tends to play the gender card to try to deflect what is legitimate criticism.”
The fact that Mr Abbott is now calling out sexism has been greeted with disbelief among many Aussies, including his colleages. A Liberal parliamentarian told Fairfax that MPs would not take too kindly being labelled sexists..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10313055/Why-some-Australian-women-loathe-Tony-Abbott-especially-now.html
I notice tomR still defends a hypocritical abbott
Guilty as 😉
a patent culture of misogyny within the Liberal National Party, exactly as Tony Abbott apparently suggests?
It’s possible. Nurtured and fostered under his “leadership” also one might add.
I wonder if he is still laughing at menus these days?
And how yabot now complains about how mean people are to him
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tony-abbott-andrew-bolt-and-resign-dickhead,6296
Well explained. I was a bit shocked (but not surprised) when I saw the sign. But the explanation more than made up for it.
Take the fucken gloves off I reckon and relegate the little shit into nothing but an embarrassing memory and low point of our politics.
memories (sometimes even betta than yomms 🙂
http://talkingpoints.com.au/2014/03/11-winning-photos-march-march/
might one now also consider that there is (still) a patent culture of misogyny within the Liberal National Party, exactly as Tony Abbott apparently suggests?)
That would be obvious by the fact that there is only one woman in the cabinet wouldn’t it meta? and that it’s his own side that are making the attacks on credlin. Abbott will ‘defend her honour’ as he pretends to be a feminist hiding within a chauvinist’s body.
All for his own political purposes and strategy probably devised by credlin!
• said of Gillard “make an honest woman of herself…”
Fine, that is probably a comment that can only be made of a woman.
• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
Did Abbott say this? I though it was Jones. But in any event, it isn’t sexist, it’s just an attack…and probably in poor taste in the circumstances. Should we get into some competition about who has shown the greatest lack of taste in the parliament?
• calling her “she” instead of Prime Minister inside of Parliament (let alone the disrespect shown by him (and the media in general) outside of it)
I presume Rudd has been called “he”, probably Abbott has too. Perhaps go through Hansard and establish whether Gillard got more “she’s” during parliament than Rudd or Abbott got “he’s”. It is quite a simple activity but you might be able to actually prove the point.
Personally I regularly comment on Gillard’s inclination to show plenty of her upper chest and contrasted this to the style of Quentin Bryce and Hillary Clinton. But then plenty of others commented on the attire Abbott wears at the beach.
So I still can’t see the justification for Tom R’s “duplicitous sexist attacks”
…and by the way… would any male use the words “I was young and naive” to excuse their behaviour as a mid 30s law partner and political activist?
It’s fair to say that Gillard used her gender to political advantage.
Take the fucken gloves off I reckon and relegate the little shit into nothing but an embarrassing memory and low point of our politics.
Yep, give him the same treatment that he gives others. He is a bare knuckle, gutter brawler and dirty fighter hiding behind a donated suit, blue ties, respect for office and a respectful polity that he never practices himself.
” a skidmark on the bedsheet of australian politics”
“• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)”
I thought it was Alan Jones on 2GB who said this.
Did Abbott say this? I though it was Jones. But in any event, it isn’t sexist,
So, you read my comment that quoted then I assume 😯
I presume Rudd has been called “he”, probably Abbott has too
You presume a lot. Considering how much has been writen about it, and, given the way it was delivered back in parliament, it was obviously just another way of denigrating the PM. And, as I said, it went even further in the general media.
Perhaps it was simply a term of disrespect, but, yabot didn’t treat rudd in the same manner.
So I still can’t see the justification for Tom R’s “duplicitous sexist attacks”
well of course not, you excuse everything away, quite often under the pretence “well, she deserved it”
And those are just the ones directly from yabot directly at Gillard.
I could go into the rest of yabots sexists comments on broader issues.
And let’s not forget, the sexism was just one small facet of the vitriol yabot and his cronies unleashed
I thought it was Alan Jones on 2GB who said this.
Being as selectively forgetful (and ignorant of links) as yomm isn’t really helping your cause nil 😉
???
I thought you said it was Abbott who made that comment.
Am i wrong?
would any male use the words “I was young and naive” to excuse their behaviour
No, yabot just denies things ever happens.
You know, like punching walls 😉
Or asks us to excuse him for lying, cos he was just talking ROFL
Yep, abbott is as pure as the driven snow but gillard was a nothing but a devious, manipulative witch/bitch.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089019406.html
…Defence Minister Robert Hill today said it was unfair to drag up after more than two decades, a charge of sexual assault against Health Minister Tony Abbott..
…Mr Abbott told the paper the charge was dismissed in January 1978 after the magistrate complained of ”enormous conflict” between the prosecution and defence evidence.
Senator Hill said it was unfair the case had been dragged up again.
”I do think it’s pretty rough justice when you read the small print and you find that this allegation, made at some sort of student rally 27 years ago, was dismissed by the magistrate,” Senator Hill told Network Ten.
Mr Abbott was alleged to have groped activist Helen Elizabeth Wilson on stage before an audience of 200 people in October 1977 at Sydney’s Ku-ring-gai College of Advanced Education…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-14/abbott-denies-punching-wall-next-to-rivals-head/4260714
…In his first media conference since the allegations were raised in a magazine article last weekend, Mr Abbott conceded he did a lot of things that were “silly, childish, [and] embarrassing” while involved in student politics at the University of Sydney.
AUDIO: Abbott denies wall punch incident (AM)
But he denies being physically aggressive towards Barbara Ramjan, who defeated him in the 1977 election for the Student Representatives Council.
“I didn’t recall because it never happened,” Mr Abbott told journalists in Canberra.
“How can you recall something that never happened?”…
Funny how media commentators including peacock and andrew bolt have had to apologise to barbara ramjan to avoid being sued for public comments accusing her of lying about the witnessed incident.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/17/1089694611874.html
…”He was a very offensive, a particularly obnoxious sort of guy,” said Barbie Schaffer, a Sydney teacher who was at Sydney University with Mr Abbott.
“He was very aggressive, particularly towards women and homosexuals”.
Published university reports show that after a narrow defeat in the university senate elections in 1976 – Mr Abbott’s first year of an economics-law degree – he kicked in a glass panel door.
In the ensuing two years, he was repeatedly accused in the university paper of being a right-wing thug and bully who used sexist and racist tactics to intimidate his opponents…
(Egads, Tanya Plibersek ratiocinates almost like ToM: Catcall sparks parliamentary gender row.)
for the fucking slow amongst us (yes, there are a few)
• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
I am sure lots of ALP supporters have said bad things about Abbott and his daughters. Just do a google search.
But TomR said the comment that Alan Jones made was an Abbott comment.
Hence as everybody knows, TomR is a liar.
But TomR said the comment that Alan Jones made was an Abbott comment.
Does stupidity come naturally to you, or do you need to work at it?
• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
Now Tony Abbott has called out sexism against Peta Credlin, there’s plenty more he can call out:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/now-tony-abbott-has-called-out-sexism-against-peta-credlin-theres-plenty-more-he-can-call-out-20141212-125mp7.html
“…Mr Abbott’s response to Ms Gillard’s speech was to deny she was the victim of sexism.
He said at the time: “The prime minister should be prepared to accept fair criticism. And just because the prime minister has sometimes been the victim of unfair criticism that doesn’t mean that she can dismiss any criticism as sexism, that she can dismiss any criticism on gender grounds.”…
…Mr Abbott called Ms Gillard out for playing the gender card as has Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on more than one occasion.
But people can change.
Perhaps Mr Abbott has now discovered there is such a thing as everyday sexism that women routinely face.
I, for one, applaud this change of heart.
I look forward to Mr Abbott calling out people who concentrate on the appearance of his female colleagues or ask how they combine their career in politics with a family.
I look forward to a broader campaign on the gender pay gap, the discrepancy between the superannuation accrued by men and women and sexual harassment in the workplace.
I particularly look forward to the number of women in cabinet being addressed…
Hence as everybody knows, TomR is a liar.
hence, as everyone knows, kneel is a f*ktarded f*ktard who lives and breathes the word and world of bolt.
I am sure lots of ALP supporters have said bad things about Abbott and his daughters.
I’m sure they have
How many Labor MP’s have stood in front of signs that said yabot is credlins bitch?
“”I don’t recall much criticism of Gillard that focused on her being a woman. Can you provide a couple of examples of the criticism that Abbott made of her that was focussed on her gender?””
I think his “make an honest women of her” remark is a prime example…
lolz
Well the ALP supporters are out in force.
Too bad they do not give a stuff about Australia.
TomR, Reb, AO, TB would prefer a trashed budget than a Coalition govt.
Fundamentalists who care about nothing but themselves.
Furthermore TB, AO Tomr Reb your incorrect beliefs do nothing but damage to the lives of people.
I’ve never subscribed to the notion that Gillard was hounded on the basis of her gender.
and you were as wrong then as you are now 😉
(Nope.
Still not thinking anything even like it.)
So exactly which of Abbott’s comments represents “duplicitous sexist attacks’ ?
So far it seems that he said “honest woman” and my have said “she” more than “he”.
Perhaps you might explain how the comments of Jones are so relevant . It seems to me that his comments are also used as recent evidence of Abbott’s incompetence.
Gillard was dishonest and incompetent, she knifed Rudd, when he had the ALP in front 52/48 2pp at the behest of union hacks, to get his job. Any politician with that legacy would get plenty of criticism
Exactly.
TomR is trying to make out that comments made by Alan Jones were made by Abbott
Reb must have hit home with the “piece of wood” analogy… Nils is a chip of the old block…
Perhaps you might explain how the comments of Jones are so relevant
FAAARK, Does your stupidity know no ends?
• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
As in regards to the misogyny speech, as mentioned, quoted from, and linked to above
she knifed Rudd, when he had the ALP caucus all looking to get rid of him 😉
You say knifed, I say replaced 😉
PM made himself the minister for woman’s affairs.. pretty much says it all
A Clueless socially disconnected megalomaniac, Abbott is arrogant and a dangerously vindictive misogynistic Neanderthal.
The sexist commentary and snidey double meanings started the day she took over from rudd and never stopped til she was out of office.
TomR is trying to make out that comments made by Alan Jones were made by Abbott
nil, stop being a fucking idiot. I know you will have adifficulty with this request, but read my comment, note the bit in bolding, and, if required, get mum to look up words in the dictionary for you.
You might stop sounding like such an ignorant prat.
But I doubt it.
TomR, Reb, AO, TB would prefer a trashed budget than a Coalition govt.
cos now we got both 😉
Gillard was incompetent. Nothing she did actually worked.
never stopped til she was out of office.
poor widdle wabbott thinks they only just started 😦
“”TomR, Reb, AO, TB would prefer a trashed budget than a Coalition govt.””
Well goody for you that we have both.
Aargle Tom, you beat me to it! 🙂
“Well goody for you that we have both.”
No. We have a trashed budget because you, Reb, voted for Rudd in 2007.
Along with Toilet, TB, TomR, AO etc
Just look at the history of Labor govts. Blind freddy would know what Rudd/Gillard would do.
you beat me to it
ctrl+c ctrl+v wins the day again 🙂
Nothing she did actually worked.
Except the Carbon Price
The BER
Plain Packaging
Gonski
NBN
whew, getting tired lol
“• said of Gillard alluding to her father “die of shame” (not exactly sexist, but it was what precipitated her outrage)
…and you’ve used this as evidence of Abbott making “duplicitous sexists attacks”. I can see that it is offensive, but I’m afraid I can’t see how this is evidence of Abbott’s “duplicitous sexists attacks”. It’s proof that Jones makes stupid, insensitive, poor taste comments.
Hold the front page.
Her Rights at Work (R-rated version)
http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/
TomR
Nothing Gillard did worked.
Is “Abbort” more offensive than “Juliar”?
from the same link as above
…There is a similar lack of respect in the way the federal Opposition constantly just uses the female pronoun to refer to the prime minister. Tony Abbott is a serial offender – constantly referring just to “she” or “her” in his press appearances – but he is not the only one.
Federal Hansard shows that the following exchange took place during Question Time in the House of Representatives on 21 August 2012. The prime minister was answering a question when the Manager of Opposition Business, Christopher Pyne, interrupted her on a Point of Order:
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. She is defying your ruling. You asked her to be directly relevant and it was a very specific question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually stated I would listen carefully to the Prime Minister’s answer as she had only just commenced. It is for the chair to determine relevancy or not.
Mr Albanese: A point of order, Deputy Speaker: under the standing order which requires that people be referred to according to their titles, ‘Prime Minister’ is the title…
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. [3]
Is “Abbort” more offensive than “Juliar”?
Yes, I don’t even know what abbort means or the reference made.
It’s proof that Jones makes stupid, insensitive, poor taste comments.
And that yabot used those comments to abuse Gillard
As my comment very clearly stated. And, it was the straw that unleashed the misogynist speech, that the media declared was “playing the gender card”, which now, yabot is playing on the person most probably most responsible for these sexist attacks on Julia Gillard
Is “Abbort” more offensive than “Juliar”?
No, it is just as bad, probably worst. Which MP or media icon is calling him that?
Tony Abbort. I prefer yabot personally 😉
sorry, I mean that juliar is more offensive than abbort not the other way around
I mean that juliar is more offensive than abbort not the other way around
probably because of the ease with which it entered into the media lexicon.
Abbort won’t, because of it’s link to “abortion” (and yabots unhealthy history with that topic)
But yes, I’m interested in what reference it has been used?
The general atmosphere of the media and their incitement of hatred and demeaning of gillard. Don’t forget these megaphones are very close to abott and the liberals, basically their proxies.
A trip down memory lane
Haven’t seen any of that hatred and vitriol directed at abbott’s incompetence and policies.
Nils is nowhere.. Its actually like watching a road accident in his pitifully illiterate defense of tye indefensible….
A trashed budget , social unrest and the backlash of a disillusioned realising they were tricked by a morally bankrupt liar
it must be hard knowing you were stupidly duped into voting for a megalomaniac liar professing to be everything he says he is not, then realising by virtue of his actions he is the living personification of everything he is….
A radical incompetent, divisive misogynistic regressive god bothering fraud…
Poor Squeal is reduced to single ner ner sentences…
“it must be hard knowing you were stupidly duped into voting for a megalomaniac liar professing to be everything he says he is not, then realising by virtue of his actions he is the living personification of everything he is….”
No.
I did not vote for Rudd in 2007.
I knew what was going to happen if the ALP ever got into power. Just look at history.
And that yabot used those comments to abuse Gillard
So what exactly did Abbott say in relation to that. I understand Gillard made the misogyny speech. But other than “she” and “making an honest woman”, what represents Abbott’s actual “duplicitous sexists attacks”?
john lloyd, also of the IPA
(There’s “no retreat, no surrender” for culture warriors; simply open up a new front, and “no-one left behind” be goddamed…
“Using the ADF wage case as a bargaining strategy in negotiations with public sector unions may have seemed clever politics at the time to some, but they ignored the longstanding imperative against politicising the ADF or picking on those forbidden to defend their rights,” Mr James said.”)
A great read – even ToM might get something out of it….
“”Tony Abbott’s defence of Peta Credlin against what he says are sexist attacks from his own MPs shows a breathtaking lack of self-reflection, writes Paula Matthewson.””
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/matthewson-abbotts-defence-of-credlin-a-career-limiting-move/5963790
And I guess there’s nothing sexist about this at all….
“…Tony Abbott is a serial offender – constantly referring just to “she” or “her” in his press appearances – but he is not the only one..op
Shades of the continued “chairthing” to ramJan for an entire year of her student presidency. He continued with his old aggressive sexism throughout gillards reign. He also encouraged it from his attack dogs and female members to shield him from the criticism…and you know that’s how they work in politics tomM.
(Another day, another (in)trasparent thought-bubble…
FAMILIES Minister Kevin Andrews announced on Friday that government-contracted doctors will assess new claims for the disability support pension from January 1.
He said the policy will achieve consistency and equity across the country, as the government received more than 2000 claims a week for the DSP. “This measure is not aimed at those who may never be able to work but rather people who can work with independent advice and the right support,” he said.”)
I think-
• Most political strategies have a degree of duplicity, because politicians are duplicitous.
• All politicians attack their opponents.
• Abbott’s political strategy as Opposition Leader can be reasonably characterised as negative, obstructionist, opportunistic…
It’s whether Abbott’s political strategy can be labelled a “duplicitous sexist attack”. I don’t think AO or Tom R have made the case, but that’s just an opinion, because I’m not of the opinion that I’m a “misogynist” either.
(Paula Matthewson’s usually a good read (and ignoring the naturality of ostensible ‘sexism’ even in (sur-)naming conventions); still not quite sure about the countenanced arrangements or arranged countenances, though.)
But other than “she” and “making an honest woman”, what represents Abbott’s actual “duplicitous sexists attacks”?
So, apart from the Abbott’s actual “duplicitous sexists attacks”, you want to know what represents Abbott’s actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” 😯
Thanks yomm, I needed that laugh 😉
I don’t think AO or Tom R have made the case
Of course, if you ignore the actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” and just keep asking what represents actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” just after acknowledging and repeating the actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” it’s probably not surprising that you won’t see any actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” because of the number of actual “duplicitous sexists attacks” blocking your view
Or something like that 😉
I’m still waiting on references for Abbort also, much like I’m still waiting on links/quotes from wall-e on other matters
The attempt to pin that sign on Abbott is just lame, not that there is anything wrong with the sign.
Here’s how Wiki records the stupid misogyny speech
“”Britain’s Daily Telegraph women’s editor said that Gillard had cleverly shifted the focus of the news story with “an impressive set of insults”.[………………… The context of the Labor Party’s support for Peter Slipper however meant that commentary from domestic journalists was far more critical, with
Michelle Grattan writing “it sounded more desperate than convincing”,
Peter Harthcer that Gillard “chose to defend the indefensible” and
Peter van Onselen that the government had “egg on their collective faces”.
The public reaction was also polarised: approval ratings of Gillard and Abbott both improved following the speech.””
grattan, hartcher, van Onselen
ROFL
hmm, what did I mention further back up about our media and their break with reality
The attempt to pin that sign on Abbott is just lame
Almost as lame as actually standing in front of it I presume 😉
I think “Abbort” has been in fairly common usage among those that objected to “Juliar”
https://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Abbort%22+tony+abbott&start=10
“”…what did I mention further back up about our media and their break with reality””
I’d hardly call Gratton and Hartcher sympathisers for the Right.
So, random nutcases on the internet have called yabot abbort, and you try to liken that to the “Juliar” tag that was used so freely by the msm.
Democracy in America:
There is something very wrong with rushing through lengthy and complex legislation without allowing representatives time to even read it all.
Sorry that should have been posted in Rostrum.
I’d hardly call Gratton and Hartcher sympathisers for the Right.
You don’t have to be a frwdb to be a useless media commentator in this country (but it obviously helps)
• said of Gillard “make an honest woman of herself…”
Fine, that is probably a comment that can only be made of a woman.
That’s the dumbest comment all week, the ultimate in naïvity, or yer havin’ us on, ToM …
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The attempt to pin that sign on Abbott is just lame, not that there is anything wrong with the sign.
He needs something pinned to his fkn shirtfront … and I know just the thing …
And of course you missed this bit.
“”Britain’s Daily Telegraph women’s editor said that Gillard had cleverly shifted the focus of the news story ………..””
Seems the way Wiki records it more or less as just an exercise in manipulation.
Which seems about right when you look at the events that day leading up to it.
Anyways she looked a right royal dill when Slipper then suddenly resigned
There is something very wrong with rushing through lengthy and complex legislation without allowing representatives time to even read it all.
Especially when it was written by Citibank lobbyists!
Anyways she looked a right royal dill when Slipper then suddenly resigned
And another LNP conspiracy slipped into the sewers …
“”……much like I’m still waiting on links/quotes from wall-e on other matters””
Really…………I’m still waiting for your Link so I can collect my subsidy.
You ignore Links anyway. You think the Holden Cruze is a wonderful car when all the evidence says otherwise.
Do you actually own one if they are so good ?
“”Especially when it was written by Citibank lobbyists!””
So what do you call a democracy that’s been hijacked by
uber capitalistsThe Robber Barons … ?Anarchy? Daylight Robbery? Stupid?
“…I’m not of the opinion that I’m a “misogynist” either…”
*sigh* they never are 🙂
“…I’d hardly call Gratton and Hartcher sympathisers for the Right…”
I would.
Tom R, I think a couple of right wing jocks in Sydney might have used “Juliar” but that’s Sydney for you.
Who else in the MSM?
“Juliar” looks to be used on blogs, but not much sign of it in the actual media, other than Jones.
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=juliar&start=10
“I’ve never subscribed to the notion that Gillard was hounded on the basis of her gender.”
And so, do you subscribe to the (frankly hilariously hypocritical, given the source) notion that Abbott himself has advanced? that Credlin is being picked on because of her gender?
#unabletoseethewoodforthefuckingtrees
“Juliar” looks to be used on blogs, but not much sign of it in the actual media, other than Jones.
As long as you are deliberately looking elsewhere I guess
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=juliar+site:www.theaustralian.com.au
”’Sack the crack.?”’
FFS. Flick the Dick.
#yeah, saw the Lyndal Curtis interview with mr-rabbit #peter/peta , fully agree, batshit hypocrisy from the zombie (as-usual)
_______________________
#prime meddler juliar gillard at heyfield,
come`on, wherez`ya sense of humor.?
We all know that it was just a bit of horse-play by some unrusted joker at my abc to break-up the boredom in the nest of commies. Donchaknow.?
First para of anne summers,
”””Gillard’s ascension as an important event, to be taken seriously.””’1
””’The public seemed pretty pleased as well.””2
””’Her popularity rating was high.””’3
#1-true/fair-enough
#2+3 total horse-shit, joolya didn`t get `elected` (ever) but managed to cobble together a parliament under the other imbeciles nose, long way from `popularity` and `pleased-public` after the kevin07 knifing (and still an anchor for shortmen too)
”””””’Women and girls, especially, were thrilled””particularly the high-paid, talking-head, feminista demographic, which summers occupies. Not necessarily the low-paid, under-employed, working-class females, that later joolya and mr-rabbit attacked on `misogyny`day with welfare slashing, which they still remember today.
http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/laurie-oakes-the-peta-factor-is-a-real-test-for-abbott/story-e6frea6u-1227154449868
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/dunlop-abbott-not-the-problem/5959676
While `summers` does point to real and true misogyny outbreaks for sure, summers also sees all things as `feminista` and omitted the main root causes of much `hatered` joolya actually `earned` all under joolya`s own steam.
# kevin07 was actually `enthusiastically` elected, some-what like `gough`, so to knife him was highly stupid, (usually public try to elect `less-evil` without enthusiasm) ; ; and who-ever replaced kevin07 was taking the poisoned challis; ; the poison would be stronger for any of the gang-of-4; ;who chose to take the challis.?
# rushed election after knifing; joolya `unfortunately` said `no carbon tax under my govt` and was a misfortune for joolya, the trouble was, joolya then crapped on about `carbon-PRICE` and spent months fcuking herself over in teabag-media, when normal people said `tax`; ; who chose to fcuk themselves over with `price/tax` weasel wordiness.?
# `real` joolya.? or `fake` joolya.? (another self-created injury)
Summers omits this self-created, self-destruction ground-work.
Summers anti-fakbook bleating is nonsensical, just as any talking-heads bleating about social-media is. No matter the platform, professional-trolls from lobbists, teabag-media and politicians have chased after the public to `listen-in` on them. They have no legitimate complaint if they don`t like what they hear.
KL, I see we are still on the same page as Tim Dunlop! 😉
“And so, do you subscribe to the (frankly hilariously hypocritical, given the source) notion that Abbott himself has advanced? that Credlin is being picked on because of her gender?”
I think powerful Chiefs of Staff are usually unpopular.
Another thing l`ve noticed on the Summers speech, she gave plenty of column inches to fakebook and pickering, and except for s few minor references, bugger-all to the misogyny-farms like ipa, Limited-News and the rest of teabag-media. l realize Summers is doing a pro-joolya, pro-feminista piece which probably isn`t meant to be balanced or acknowledge all facts, but hammering fakebook and giving Limited-News a free-pass won`t amount to much.
oh dear teabags,
oh dear team-cheerers,
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-11/dunlop-abbott-not-the-problem/5959676
it looks like they are curating my comments over at my abc 🙂
Women of caliber shall receive fee-free degrees, ministry seat and chaparone or have a parliamentary vacancy sought for them; while others shall have their welfare and medicare cut, job sent to China, and sent to the kitchen with the rest of the chair-things and fright-bats,
says the minister for their affairs
(above)”’says the minister for their affairs”’
http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/laurie-oakes-the-peta-factor-is-a-real-test-for-abbott/story-e6frea6u-1227154449868?nk=d8b2c7169271c10988875ac05445886c
from laurieoakes
Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech ensured that 2012 ended with sexism a major theme in political commentary. Sexism was also a significant issue as 2013 drew to a close, thanks to Abbott’s inclusion of only one woman in his new Cabinet. And now, as politics winds down for the Christmas break, here it is again for the third year in a row, with the bloke who repeatedly attacked Gillard for playing the gender card unashamedly playing it himself.
And what, pray tell us lorrie, is the one uniting factor in those three examples you have listed? I see you forgot to draw attention to that particular Elephant still rampaging through rooms. But this one took the prize for audacity from an article full of it imo
They also dislike politicians who, as the Rudd and Gillard governments did, continually talk about themselves rather than about issues affecting their constituents.
Funny, because, every time Gillard (or her colleagues) began speaking of policy you (in particular instead asked questions about her. And no matter how hard they tried to steer the conversation back, you would simply complain that they were trying to deflect attention from themselves 😯
Which leads in nicely to Tim Dunlops article (although, he should check his date for yabots mea culpa on lying. 2005?). But, I think he could also have gone further and posited why there is a lack of talent in political parties (he did mention it in the article). It would lead directly back around to lorrie and the “cult of personality” he demands, then berates.
Unfortunately Summers wrote her joolya post a year too early. Summers would then have been able to include the `Tims-Gay` horse-shit which is the full-throated misogyny from teabag-media, which sparked even more clap-trap from Limited-News and even got dear old piers chucked off barries discussion entertainment show for trying to repeat and justify it.
Laurie should have told viewers which ministers credlin is running interference on, not the secret-sauces opinion-burger he served up. Maybe he is holding those details back for the `sunday` edition.
“every time Gillard (or her colleagues) began speaking of policy you (in particular instead asked questions about her.”
o The public was interested in how an apparently “loyal” deputy could assassinate a popular Prime Minister.
o How Gillard could profess unqualified loyalty and support while participating in this.
o Journalits wanted detail on exactly when Gillard made the decision that the government had “lost its way”
Gillard always attempted to deflect these questions with crap like – “Laurie, I’m focused on the future, not the past and our policies are…” Don’t try to excuse her avoidance of such legitimate questioning about her motives and ethics by suggesting this is about the ‘cult of personality’.
Don’t try to excuse her avoidance of such legitimate questioning about her motives and ethics by suggesting this is about the ‘cult of personality’.
So, almost two hours of nothing but questions about an accusation from 20 years earlier that, when looked at back then, revealed no wrong doing, and, when looked at ever since, still revealed no wrong doing, and you still aren’t satisfied.
lorry whinging about this now, after revealing “leaks” from people who it was revealed were leaking simply to destabilise, instead of asking penetrating questions, and which lorry and the msm took as gospel, to whinge about “talking about them” would be the height of hypocrisy, if the libs didn’t already have the express elevator there first.
We knew more about Gillard in her under three short years than we ever knew about howard, except for the public persona he and the media showed.
With 20/20 hindsight we know the canberra press-pack does have a cult of personality that would put north korea to shame.
We also know joolyas dancing with weasel words (lost-its-way, carbon-price, real-joolya.etc) super-glued the `liar` to her, and sucked all oxygen from any message she had for the media, back to discussing the weasel word/s of the day.
tomM you are really getting boring with this constant repetition of ‘accusations’ that you think singles gillard out from all the rest. Simply not true. Just admit you never liked her from the start, I recall you hated her way of talking, her mannerisms, her earlobes her clothing – pretty much everything about her. I’ve never heard you with such sustained criticisms of any male politician.
The public was interested in how an apparently “loyal” deputy could assassinate a popular Prime Minister.
yes, it happens every time a party changes leader or someone backgrounds the press, they all profess loyalty – ho hum, happens so often that we all know the script.
How Gillard could profess unqualified loyalty and support while participating in this.
same as all of them have done over the years
Journalits wanted detail on exactly when Gillard made the decision that the government had “lost its way”
And why dos she owe journalists a forensic Q & A? Can’t they accept the “not going to detail private party room/cabinet discussions” another ho hum moment.
Leadership spills have happened more often than not ithrough political history, can’t remember any of the others [who happen to be males] getting a ‘disloyal’ [untrustworthy female] tag forever after.
We also know joolyas dancing with weasel words (lost-its-way, carbon-price, real-joolya.etc) super-glued the `liar` to her, and sucked all oxygen from any message she had for the media, back to discussing the weasel word/s of the day
Tell me how gillard’s weasel words and spin were any different to any other politician’s?
Howard was the master of weasel words, spin and dog whistling
Maybe she just wasn’t as polished at it as the rest of them!
The clearest example of Gillard’s expediency/duplicity is her written agreement with Wilkie.
The agreement allowed her to become PM, her breaking it was a demonstration of her lack of basic ethics and inadequate leadership.
As for Gillard’s 2 hours with the press, I don’t think I’ve defaulted to the position that her actions necessarily represented criminality, which is the accusation Gillard sought to address.
Gillard’s defence in 2006 was that she was young and naïve 13 years earlier.
She parted company with Slater & Gordon under a cloud (resigned under pressure), and had shown a significant conflict of interest in her personal affairs, her duty to protect the interests of her client, and her obligation to protect the commercial relationship of her employer.
Gillard failed on each account. It doesn’t represent criminality, but it is an indicator of judgment and character.
It is therefore a legitimate area of public and journalistic interest.
Raising these issues isn’t sexist, as AO and Tom R are inclined to characterise.
I’ve never heard you with such sustained criticisms of any male politician.
Especially with Abbott and the way he attempts to talk, the gorilla walk, as for ear lobes … look at the fkn elephant ears!
BTW, ToM, I didn’t like the Caesarean assassination of Rudd … nor did I like Gillard for that reason … but The Abbott really IS the most incompetent PM I’ve ever seen … in the Western democracies … apart from Tony Blair, David Cameron, George Winston Bush, Malcolm Fraser … OK one of the worst …
Gillard failed on each account. It doesn’t represent criminality, but it is an indicator of judgment and character.
I’m afraid your condemning yourself, ToM, even the RC enquiry looked like fools in the end … your saying you have more knowledge, skill and expertise than the enquiry … and maybe that’s an indicator of your judgement and character?
Just sayin’ …
””Tell me how gillard’s weasel words and spin were any different to any other politician’s?Howard was the master of weasel words, spin and dog whistling””
#The lying little war-turd we know and love as john-w didn`t knife a `gough-like` first-term prime meddler, trot out a string of dills to claim the total-disarray their govt was in, call an election and not win it, promise no carbon-tax then allow it to linger for what seemed forever under `price` instead of saying `tax` and explaining the green-deal etc This is all now history, which we can see with 20/20 hindsight.
””’Maybe she just wasn’t as polished at it as the rest of them!”’#agree
The Royal Commission is looking at criminality and union conduct, they didn’t bother to question Gillard in detail about her obligations as a solicitor to maintain professional judgement about her–
➢ personal relationship and how this intruded into her professional conduct
➢ obligation to protect the reputation of employer/legal firm and its commercial interests
These are matters of public interest, particularly about a Prime Minister, raising them is not sexist.
tomM, I think your hatred blinds you to history.
Howard was seen [by some] to have skill and decency, there’s been no ‘disloyal, duplicitous, character defining allegations regarding him [from his own side anyway].
Remember the howard/costello leadership tussles, the note dug out of a wallet where howard had commited to handing over to costello and he later broke that signed and witnessed agreement or contract you could call it.
This is politics tomM, it’s a cut throat game of high stakes.
They will all do whatever they need to do to remain in power and the wilkie agreement was one of those too – remember the hung parliament and the pressure applied by lobbyists and threats of MP’s being targeted to lose their seats? . Yes, gillard is a politician, the same as the rest of them, no better, but importantly, no worse. But, she had more political pressure than any of the others have had – the campaigning media, rudd’s revenge and a ruthless ‘whatever it takes’ abbott. Look at the personal nastiness and unhinged behaviour throughout that period, the ramped up sexism, the 20 year old saga of previous employment, the independents targeted for abuse and death threats. Abbott’s had it easy, he coasted in on the back of that instability that was mostly made by himself and has not had anywhere near that kind of political pressure and he’s got a schemozzle.
Nothing you put in your dot points, can convince me that gillard was anything other than a politician, it seems she was a much better one than abbott and his motley crew of out of touch elites who have handed power over to big business & IPA.
Judgement and character? I think your union hatred is really the issue here, it prejudices you to thinking anything to do with union members even having one as a boyfriend shows bad character and judgement. Apparently a 20 year old history of violence, punching walls, sexual assaults, bullying and aggression, sexism and thuggery gets a free pass from you, it’s just being young & silly, no character flaws at all.
BTW, ToM, I didn’t like the Caesarean assassination of Rudd … nor did I like Gillard for that reason …
I didn’t like it either TB, but I see that for what it was, a backroom coup led by union leaders and by a number of cabinet members, this wasn’t led and orchestrated by gillard, she became leader through the overthrow, she didn’t turn down the offer [who would!]
The Royal Commission is looking at criminality and union conduct, they didn’t bother to question Gillard in detail about her obligations as a solicitor to maintain professional judgement about her–
f*ck, heard of ICAC? The dodgy business deals, nepotism and bribery that force many out of politics?
yep, of course gillard will always be worse!
And i might add that there are no misuse of entitlements allegations or $60,000 scholarships for kickbacks attached to gillard, I think that goes to character!
AO, it isn’t hatred of unions that caused my comments. In any event, I don’t object to unions per se. It’s only the behaviour of those with involvement in the construction industry, they then bring those standards to the other sectors where they have membership.
I know we’ve been around the loop in the past, but-
• No male politician would have had the hide to use the “young & naïve” excuse for their actions. In any event, Gillard was neither young nor naïve.
• Her effective dismissal by Slater & Gordon showed how seriously they viewed her behaviour. She cost them the AWU relationship, probably the largest union legal contract in the country.
• She knifed Rudd at the behest of the hacks
• Breaking the written agreement with Wilkie, was dishonest, demonstrated overreach and showed her lack of leadership in that she couldn’t get caucus on board.
In my opinion, this is a particularly chequered history of behaviour, and if anyone wants to argue that other politicians have a similarly dubious past, then that’s fine, but I don’t quite believe it.
———
…and that isn’t to excuse the scholarship for Abbott’s daughter, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d be quite comfortable if he was forced to resign over the issue.
I don’t think I’ve defaulted to the position that her actions necessarily represented criminality
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/10/31/rostrum-shocked-and-outraged-edition/#comment-80936
which is the accusation Gillard sought to address.
Actually, she repeatedly asked what accusation she was trying to address. The fact that they simply had “more questions” (about nothing) without a real end in sight just exposed the depth of malice and lack of journalistic talent our media has/had sunk to.
resigned under pressure
That is your statement, unfounded by evidence. She left and went straight into politics. The evidence suggests she left to change careers
had shown a significant conflict of interest in her personal affairs
Except that, once this was made aware to her, she abandoned that conflict (which, if you are unaware, can hardly exist) immediately
Gillard failed on each account.
And yet multiple investigations have found NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING. The worst one heavily stacked and patisan persecution could come up with was a submission that they thought she was a poor lawyer
Her previous employer disagrees
Yet you, and many other cranks and crackpots on hte internet (sites as brainless as rabid as the oz) still manage to imply impropriety at the drop of a hat, and then run from their slanders when challenged.
Raising these issues isn’t sexist
Who said that this one was sexist? Gillard faced far more than hostile sexism as her time as PM (and before and and after)
they didn’t bother to question Gillard in detail
Wow, so, she still has “Questions to answer”, does she yomm?
AO, it isn’t hatred of unions that caused my comments.
I AGREE!
I reckon I was pretty close with my assumption 😉
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d be quite comfortable if he was forced to resign over the issue.
So, a person who actually has “Questions to answer” is ignored by the media, whilst someone who explained herself 20 years ago over an incident, a decade ago over the same incident, for hours of her time as PM over the same incident, and dragged out of retirement over the same incident, still requires more answering of questions according to haterz.
Do you see the total hypocrisy in that position at all?
No male politician would have had the hide to use the “young & naïve” excuse for their actions.
No, yabot went with the “heat of the moment” excuse.
Her effective dismissal by Slater & Gordon s
Again yomm, that is your accusation, unsupported by event or recent comments from her previous employer
She knifed Rudd at the behest of the hacks
It’s called politics, get over it
Breaking the written agreement with Wilkie
See my last point. Wilkie got 50% of something and, unlike the greens, he accepted it in the real world. Perhaps you should question him as to why he still stuck by Gillard rather than swap to yabot?
In my highly biased opinion not supported by actual events
Fixed it for ya yomm 😉
“‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’‘
Still no condemnation from YomM for Abbott playing the gender card I see. Ho-hum…
are going to go up, every year…’
Wow, yabot discovered inflation
Still no condemnation from YomM for Abbott playing the gender card I see. Ho-hum…
I thought I replied last night, but I’d been to a function and maybe didn’t express it very well.
I think Abbott is a f**kwit for that claim. His CoS is powerful and unpopular and no doubt causes plenty of resentment among the stodgy old crowd.
————–
Gillrd’s career history shows that she had a hiatus between her departure from Slater & Gordon and politics. Her actions caused a rift in the firms, she left under pressure without a job to go to.
It’s called politics, get over it
No it is called duplicitous control of the parliamentary party by hacks like Paul Howes, who boasted about it on 7.30 Report before it happened.
Gillard is the worst product of this poisonous system.
Armchair, there is no doubt joolya copped a lot of misogynistic crap from misogynists, the `bitch`, the `witch`, the `cat-calls` across the chamber Summers reported, the rallying of cranks with signs team-zombie used for photo-ops, the hate-speech down microphones and on broad-sheets, `Tims-Gay`; the list goes on for sure.
When it comes to the `traction` that negative (misogynistic-or-not) messages got with the public, it comes back to the self-destructive `ground-work` joolya+team did l listed above. l reached this conclusion after thinking about the 20-year old questioning joolya got at the RC which `was` horse-shit, BUT at the time, actually watching the RC l didn`t find joolya believable. Remember, the RC concluded joolya had no case to answer. This left me with the puzzle of why l didn`t find joolya believable when l knew the RC result, and my conclusion is the initial ground-work `joolya+team` did after the `knifing` was a psychological hurdle (joolya most likely would never leap) in the minds of the unrusted public.
As for your excusing her personal conflict of interest, Gillard had an obligation to protect the interests of her employer and the union (as an organisation), not the personal interests of her boyfriend.
The evidence is that she put the interests of her boyfriend in front of her ethical and professional obligations. Such significant errors at such a mature age are reasonable to consider in a Prime Minister.
As your defending her actions towards Wilkie, you should try to retain a little credibility by just agreeing that she was dishonest in making an agreement she could not deliver, or lacking in leadership in not being able to get the caucus to support her. They are the only 2 options available as an excuse to Gillard.
Wilkie seems to me to be one of the only ones who occasionally demonstrates the presence of a moral compass.
“I thought I replied last night”
You did, but I thought the reply rather evasive & reluctant to pin the tail on the Abbott!
Now rectified, with your comment at 19:29 13/12/14.
“I think powerful Chiefs of Staff are usually unpopular.”
To me, that wasn’t quite as categorical as plainly stating that Abbott is playing the same gender card which he obnoxiously condemned whilst in Opposition. Thanks for clarifying. 😉
The most delicious part being, Abbott’s cohorts are no doubt rather more outraged by the inferred accusation than anyone else…y’know, coz they understand full well the statements Abbott himself made in opposition & the overarching strategy behind them.
Currently, he projects all the symptoms of a
social conservative lugheadman under siege.When it comes to personal conflicts of interest coloring ones view you-know-who won`t pass that test himself for sure, one whiff of an onion and he will cry. He won`t pass his own `tests` by applying the same standards to all, not just his `selected` for attention either.
”””””””””””conflict of interest, Gillard had an obligation to protect the interests of her employer and the union (as an organisation), not the personal interests of her boyfriend.
The evidence is that she put the interests of her boyfriend in front of her ethical and professional obligations. Such significant errors at such a mature age are reasonable to consider in a Prime Minister.””””
# This is just horse-shit from the junior managers handbook.
So, ToM, what about The Abbott’s performance(s) … Gillard is no longer in Parliament … and thus of no consequence in this discussion …
Do I detect a deflection from criticising The Abbott? Again?
The Abbott Has A Mutiny Developing …
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/liberal-mp-warns-abbott-to-be-careful/story-e6frfku9-1227155389545
The Abbott Girding Up The Loins
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/life-saver-pm-on-beach-patrol/story-e6frfku9-1227155460782
The Abbott obviously knows where his priorities lie … definitely swims in shallow water …
I really don’t know what you’re on about TB. So far on this thread alone, I’ve said –
• I’d be quite comfortable if he was forced to resign
• I think Abbott is a f**kwit for that claim
• Abbott’s political strategy as Opposition Leader can be reasonably characterised as negative, obstructionist, opportunistic…
• Abbott was a negative, unreasonable and uncompromising Opposition Leader with both Rudd and Gillard.
So no one is contesting that Abbott is a prick, the issue that was debated was Tom R’s comment – “duplicitous sexist attack” re Gillard.
I didn’t agree because I think Abbott was just as aggressive towards Rudd.
I think Abbott was just as aggressive towards Rudd.
Nobody said he wasn’t either yomm. But, whether on purpose or not, his attacks to Gillard WERE sexist. Perhaps that’s because of his mach man demeanor, his 50’s perception of everything, or whatever, the fact remains, he had sexist attacks on Gillard, which even you acknowledged, and which he refuses to confront.
Just because he is an asshole in many other aspects doesn’t forgive him for this one. Just add it to the ever growing list of ignominy that he shows in the “heat of the moment”.
I didn’t agree because I think Abbott was just as aggressive towards Rudd.
OK, so we agree that The Abbott is a political dud … back to his well articulated and displayed sexism …
You do know what, “make an honest woman”, implies don’t you?
Addendum, ToM, I agree with The Abbott’s aggression … it seems to be aimed at EVERYONE!
Maybe that’s why most of his senior ministers are so aggressive … or controlled Dutton and Hunt fall into that category …
There are plenty of rational reasons to criticise Abbott without having to invent irrational ones.
Invent … please explain?
please explain?
This should be good
I envision something about dead hands, moll girlfriends, some kind of antiquated “gentleman’s” behaviour or some such rot 😉
For example – Abbott can be legitimately criticised for saying he’s confronted by homosexuality or his 50s version of the status of women (ironing reference), or his “climate change is crap” comment
But it is an unnecessary invention to refer to a “duplicitous sexist attack” on Gillard, when it can be legitimately characterised as obstructionist, unrelenting, negative, opportunistic. Particularly when the examples of a “sexist attack” by Abbott are – standing near a sign, making an “honest woman”, the behaviour of Liberal Juniors and a comment by Alan Jones.
Half the examples advanced as evidence of a “sexist attack” didn’t even involve Abbott.
Abbott’s tactics re Gillard were exactly the same as those he applied to Rudd.
I think it dilutes real societal problems with sexism and misogyny to apply the terms so easily.
“There are plenty of rational reasons to criticise Abbott without having to invent irrational ones.”
Indeed…
standing near a sign, making an “honest woman”, the behaviour of Liberal Juniors never once berated by yabot and a comment by Alan Jones. that was repeated by yabot as an attack on Gillard
Oh, is that all 😯
Now I’m really confused …
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/liberal-mp-warns-abbott-to-be-careful/story-e6frfku9-1227155389545
The Abbott says it was sexist …
The Bishop says it wasn’t …
WTF is Pauline Hanson to sort this bunch of lunatics out!
I love pretencin’ …
I think it dilutes real societal problems with sexism and misogyny to apply the terms so easily.
Translation: I’m old fashioned men are men and women are women, they always have been … get over it …
Women are still struggling to gain equality in our society because of the very attitude you display in defending misogynism and sexism … and, like it or not, defend, The Abbott’s hypocrisy …
Some “duplicitous sexist attack”
So Abbott made no such reference about Gillard.
Tom R, it’s time to stop stretching the truth and comment on legitimate areas of criticism.
Just because you and Gillard assert something doesn’t make it so.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/died-of-shame-focus-on-abbotts-use-of-controversial-phrase-20121010-27cgd.html
(I’m out for a few hours)
“The Abbott says it was sexist …
The Bishop says it wasn’t … ”
= T U R M O I L within the ranks of the conservative appendage-shiners.
Hardly a retraction or termination of unrest between the PrimeMendacious(mk2) & his Deputy…
””””””Half the examples advanced as evidence of a “sexist attack” didn’t even involve Abbott.
Abbott’s tactics re Gillard were exactly the same as those he applied to Rudd.””’
# Horse-shit. Can you show Mr-Talkbull or Nelson standing in front of `ditch-the-bitch` type signs.? making `honest-woman` cat-calls.? as the zealots did. The `brain-farts` you try to claim as evidence, isn`t.
A zombie micro-managed by his amazonian chief would have `calculated` effects before standing in front of `ditch-bitch` signs and addressing cranks, showing said zombie and amazonian chief willfully `decided` to be misogynists as part of the operational strategy.
Tom R, it’s time to stop stretching the truth and comment on legitimate areas of criticism.
“make an honest woman of herself…”
“Ditch the Witch”
“Bob Browns Bitch”
“she” instead of her title (chairthing anyone?)
It’s also fucking irrelevant if he had used the “died of shame” before. Everyone in the country was aware of it. Anyone with a modicum of common decency would have refrained from it, or, upon stupidly uttering it, apologised. yabot is never required to do any. Instead, the media muppets run a cover for him. I also explicitly said this wasn’t sexist, just the straw that appeared to make Gillard snap and launch into her evisceration of yabots double standards.
And all of this is on top of a litany of sexist behaviour from yabot to many women. And a litany of sexist behaviour from his “team” towards Gillard personally, that not once did he ever attempt to squash. It was all fair game to him.
1. “make an honest woman of herself…”
2. “Ditch the Witch”
3. “Bob Browns Bitch”
4. “she” instead of her title (chairthing anyone?)
5. “died of shame”
1. ok
2. stood in front of a sign at a political demonstration
3. ditto
4. Wow, as I’ve said, check Hansard and establish how many times anyone has referred to other PMs as “he”
5. A reasonable comment given the devious way Slipper was appointed in the aftermath of Gillard’s double dealing over Wilkie. Don’t forget that the Sleazy Slipper only got the job because Gillard broke her written agreement.
You’re stretching things (again) if you think your points justify “a duplicitous sexist attack”
The `died of shame` crap, apart from being misogynistic, is evidence of how unworthy the zombie really is, and how poor the teabag-party and parliamentary system is, which prevent removal/allow to remain, such unworthy critters.