Universally reviled Juliar 'knife-in-the-back' Gillard
Editor-in-Chief for the Melbourne Age Expresses the NATION'S Desire
by dasha - The Age Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 12:50am
international /
prose /
post
An Age editorial calls for Juliar Gillard, the most politically toxic and poisonous politician in Oz history -- and this is understatement -- to step down for the good of her Party and the NATION. Unlike the dainty, soft, apologetic approach of the Age I will call it as the Aussie rough that I am, a Sydney slum boy with a university education. The entire country wants Gillard OUT that is established fact but the floundering insular dunces in the Labor Party refuse to acknowledge a NATIONAL OUTCRY -- to their immense cost, notwithstanding.
Universally reviled Juliar 'knife-in-the-back' Gillard
Astonishingly TOXIC and understandably REVILED Gillard, is a known outcome in any election whether it be at a school fete, attracting sandwiches thrown at her by young school children, who are expressing their parent's attitude, or whether it's a State or Federal election this woman is political poison on two legs -- it is Gillard that is responsible for every State election slaughter in the country, not the sitting incumbents that is how far-reaching her toxic influence extends, ACCEPT REALITY LABOR!
THE OUTCOME OF A FEDERAL ELECTION WITH GILLARD AT THE HELM IS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION (slaughter); NATIONAL ELECTIONS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY A NAVEL-GAZING, INSULAR CAUCUS (thank Christ) BUT BY THE PEOPLE, REMEMBER THEM, you insular Labor idiots? If you're not listening to them as usual, here it is AGAIN; they hold Gillard in ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT for LYING to their faces and then ungraciously and in treacherous vulgar fashion, stabbing them in the back in exactly the same way she dispatched Rudd -- Gillard is the most inept, arrogant, disrespectful and INSULAR politician in Australian history -- and what does that add up to Labor dunces? POLITICAL DISASTER, pure and simple and as plain as day to anyone but Labor Party officials, it seems.
Rather than continue my passionate tirade I would defer to the dainty mode of expression of the editor of The Age. But prior to that, one last analogy; a drowning man is thrown two items which he can distinctly see, a life-jacket and a huge rock, he ignores the life-jacket and catches the rock to which he clings tightly, much to the consternation and desperate screams and urgings of onlookers -- his name is the Australian Labor Party!
Personally I hope that Labor clings onto Gillard, it will do them good to drown and go to the bottom of the sea for a century or two. After a taste of Abbott, the people will wake to the fact that neither Labor or Liberal represent their wishes and desires. After the rude shock of Abbott the slasher, Oz just might, with a little luck, return to a representative DEMOCRACY, we shall see.
The Age editorial follows:
For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside
EDITORIAL
It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy. The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.
(The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard.)
The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, recognising that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms, which we hope will remain. We are not saying Ms Gillard should stand aside because of Labor's policies, but because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position.
A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. If our national political discourse continues in this way, the outcome is writ large: Labor would face a devastating loss in September. Outright control of both houses may be delivered to the Coalition and, more importantly for our democracy, the opportunity for Labor to present a vigorous opposition in Parliament would be diminished.
Advertisement
Ms Gillard came to the office of Prime Minister three years ago, in bitter circumstances, after deposing Kevin Rudd in a caucus challenge, which he did not contest. The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged ''because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work''. The Age at the time interpreted her to mean that the Rudd government ''had struggled to explain and justify its policies to voters, and to remind them of its achievements''. The situation is eerily similar today. Unfortunately, the government under Ms Gillard has lost its way. And despite her entreaties to Labor's caucus to stick fast, nothing appears to be changing. No one in Labor has stepped onto the front foot with confidence to reinvigorate the divided and demoralised parliamentary party. The onus falls on Ms Gillard to break the impasse.
The electorate is despairing of the uncertainty and the petty back-biting within Labor. The Age is more despairing of the vacuum in policy debate. Mr Rudd was a flawed leader as prime minister, but he says he is a changed man and that he has learnt much from losing the confidence of his party room. The Age is not entirely convinced about that, but we cannot ignore the clear and consistent evidence of the opinion polls that his return to the leadership would lift Labor's stocks and enhance its prospects of making the election a genuine contest.
Australians deserve a representative Parliament of diverse ideas. They deserve authoritative and inspiring leaders, who command with compassion and respect for all. They deserve a government that can clearly describe a future Australia of which we can all be proud - not one that will divide, marginalise or exclude. They deserve more than to be thrown scraps of policies couched in negative terms, or policies that are not properly scrutinised and debated. As it stands, the Coalition is being given a free run by a Labor Party which is tormented by its own frailties; too many of the Coalition's proposed policies, some little more than slogans, are sliding through.
The opposition under Tony Abbott has contentious policies on the carbon tax, the mining tax and schools funding; these are just the start of it. Yet Labor under Ms Gillard has been unable to step up to the contest. Mr Abbott is being allowed to run almost entirely unchallenged with his preposterous claim that a Coalition government would ''stop the boats'', in part by turning back the pathetic trail of rickety vessels laden with asylum seekers. This is a potentially dangerous and deeply dispiriting approach. Labor's inability to unscramble this sloganeering is damning.
Time is running out. Labor needs to refresh its public face and present a compelling, united and inspiring voice. It is capable of doing so. Now it must find the will. There may only be one chance to minimise the damage that appears inevitable in September. To do nothing would implicitly weaken the democratic choice. If it is to be done, it is best done now. But it must be an unequivocal and energising change for the better.
© 2013 Fairfax Media