Posted by Julia Gillard is obviously clever, determined and successful but ever since she put herself forward as someone to lead the nation, I have thought, what does she stand for?
Gillard will lose the next election, if she is not removed as PM beforehand, primarily because of the carbon tax and now because of the sleaze enveloping Labor. But these are just symptoms of the fact that she hasn’t expressed deep and committed views on public policy.
Take this week as an example. Gillard launched an attack on Abbott which clearly marked families living on the north shore of Sydney as “not real”.
How can he wreck even something as needed as getting more money into a family’s budget? Mr Abbott’s got to get off Sydney‘s north shore and go and talk to some real families and get himself in the real world.”
Putting aside the political stupidity of this line, is this really what she believes?
Her first speech after she became PM was a good one, probably the best she has given. This is how she started the speech:
I believe in a Government that rewards those who work the hardest, not those who complain the loudest.
I believe in a Government that rewards those who, day in and day out, work in our factories and on our farms, in our mines and in our mills, in our classrooms and in our hospitals, that rewards that hard work, decency and effort.
The people who play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, stand by their neighbours and love their country.
I am certain that families on the north shore would work hard to live where they do but now she has deserted them. Is it political expediency now or was it political expediency then?
The contrast is even more stark given that Gillard has in the past wanted to be seen as Hawke’s heir as a “consensus” leader:
In my view the consensus we build must be stronger and must go beyond a notional political consensus.
We need community consensus and above all else this requires a reasonable explanation…not a strategy that relies only on political consensus, the very type of consensus Tony Abbott destroyed to support his own narrow political ambition.
That was in her speech announcing the Climate Change Committee in which she mentioned the word consensus 28 times.
But now we are to believe she wants to play the politics of division.
It doesn’t add up and while most out there would not analyse these inconsistencies like I have, what is hidden is ultimately revealed.
ricardian ambivalence 
I agree with your initial analysis of Gillard, that is she doesn’t really seem to stand for anything. This is because she hasn’t really shown any deep commitment or passion for any issue.
I think this is probably because she hasn’t been able to work her own agenda.
Initially she had to clean up after Rudd’s mess and then because Rudd was such a child Labour almost lost the election and ended up in minority govt. This meant that she has to share the agenda with 3 independents and the greens.
I reckon if she had just let Abbott take the prize we would be seeing the destruction of the Liberal party. Minority Govt are good for no one.
I think your showing your bias to the Liberals with your last dig at her:
“But now we are to believe she wants to play the politics of division.”
Its tit for tat…didn’t Abbott suggest everyone would blow the handout on the pokies? Also I would say Abbott has more of a tendancy to exploit divisions in the community than she does and thats why he’s done so well. Remember Boat people? Gay marriage? Climate Change is crap?
Fair point on Abbott. Ultimately all politicians are hypocrites.
My point about Gillard is not so much since she has been PM, though I use examples from then. Her problem is that she never defined herself before becoming PM. It’s too late once you are at top to decide which path you want to take up the mountain.
True about Gillard but there aren’t many politicians that stand for much in the parliment at the moment. The state of australian politics is very depressing.