As Brendinkles points out, we do have a lot of incessant commentary about her clothing or physical features. I don't think it's a huge issue though, people criticised Abbott for the speedo's and Howard for the eyebrows.
I don't think the fact that she's a woman will stop many people from voting for her though, which is the real measure of it. Despite the commentary on her looks, most of it is idle banter. In a culture where we see news like this about celebrities all the time, it is no surprise she cops this either.
In-fact, I’d wager being a woman has gotten her more votes than she otherwise would have gotten just by virtue of being a women. Obviously, it is more appealing to women voters in a political environment where they would like to see a female PM (indeed, the first female PM). It is not that much of a stretch to draw a parallel to Barrack Obama and the votes he may have gotten due to his poor background and race.
Some of the criticism though has been particularly vicious and vile. Sometimes, it is very overt calling her a "ranga cunt". Sometimes it isn't though. The other day i saw someone criticising her for crying at the press conference where she let go of Roxon but not crying over the floods. There is almost a disturbing trend of trying to dehumanise her and that cannot go anywhere good. She is upset about the floods as any other human being would be. Just because she remains strong for the people who suffer most and does not constantly bawl her eyes out on camera, it does not mean she doesn't feel deeply for them. Its stuff like this I’m more worried about.
She is an amazing and strong woman. Her government and the Labor Party have done a lot of good for the country. People seem to forget it was her government that successful steered us through the global financial crisis. We didn't slip into recession, we didn't stop growing. This is in stark contrast to almost every other first world nation out there that did. Look at the trouble afflicting most of Europe or the USA. It was the Labor government that successful steered us away from that. Most people don't even notice because things didn't get bad in the first place. It almost seems nothing was done but i can assure you, if we had worse management and slipped into recession, then, everyone would notice.
We are getting a world-class national broadband network under her. That kind of long-term vision is very rare in politics, most aim for policies that will get them votes in the short to medium term. This is a long-term nation-building project, something that can really benefit Australia. A project like this takes political balls.
Both parties now admit to climate change. The only difference is in the action they are going to take. Gillard’s plan is the much better one. Yes, we have a fixed tax for a few years but that isn't permanent. It will give way to a market based carbon trading scheme. A free market scheme, it almost sounds like something the liberals would love too if they didn't gain political clout for opposing it. Importantly, a carbon market means no extra taxes for consumers; it is all on the companies trading. Abbott’s previous plan involved spending a shitload of government money on a non-market solution. They'd essentially plant a lot of trees, pay businesses (with tax money) to reduce their pollution, etc. It is nowhere near a long-term solution for controlling emissions either.
So, the battle lines are drawn. Both parties have plans for reducing climate change. The only difference is one must be better than the other. As it stands right now, i can see clearly which one is.
They're not a tax and spend government either, they're not wasteful. Someone earning $30,000 is paying a full quarter (26%) less tax than 2007-2008. Someone earning $50,000 is paying 18% less. Even near the top of the scale, someone earning $80,000 is almost paying a tenth less (8%). Contrast this to Abbott's plan to splash on some seriously lavish programs and at the same time pledge to deeply cut taxes, i have no idea how he'll pull that off.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Poll