So, we have a woman PM. I’m not particularly impressed by that – we should have had equal representation in the Parliament thirty years ago and it’s no great achievement to get a female executive now. We beat the US. Hoobloodyray.
But that she is unashamedly unmarried, and took the affirmation rather than the Anglican Oath, now that impresses me. I wonder how long it will take for Cardinal
Fang Pell to declare that she is anti-Christian and communist, or something, followed by Archbishop Lapdog Jensen soon after. And she’s Welsh! That has to mean something heretical.
So fine, a Labor female unreligious PM. This is what Labor should have delivered years back, and not merely because, as is the Labor way, a woman is appointed/anointed in expectation of electoral failure shortly thereafter. Once it was a progressive party, back in the 70s, for about ten minutes.
No, the real issue is whether we will see Labor resile from the regressive social policies that it has pursued cynically and in the expectation of cheap success. Obviously I mean the internet censorship issue, but more importantly, gay equality in marriage and adoption, and a reduction of government interference in personal lives. Once we hoped for liberty; now we just hope that the “security” excuse won’t mean we get called sex offenders, terrorists or witches.
I weep for my country. I’d really love not to. Julia, don’t disappoint me like those other messiahs.
“we should have had equal representation in the Parliament thirty years ago”
What does this mean? 50% male and 50% female?
A politician in my country said a few months back he is going to introduce a party rule in which the party must be split 50-50 between men and women. I’m all for more women in politics but this seems like bad policy to me.
Roughly, yes. It means that political parties should have taken steps to ensure that those who succeeded in their machinery were not preferentially men, and that candidates were equal in gender representation. However, over 70% of parliamentary representatives are men in Australia, and I fail to see how that can be defended. So I support affirmative action by political legislation for parties that take the funding offered by the state. Of course, if you want to be a chauvinist party, you can do that, but not with assistance from the electoral commission.
Just to be clear here, all I was trying to say was that democratic representation is about electing the peoples choice. Whether that means 70% men to 30% women or 70% women to 30% men. But I understand the sentiment.
Most of the Democratic Conventions in Minnesota require that delegates be split and ranked towards gender equality, and local parties have similar requirements as well. We don’t have a parliamentary system, but it has worked so that no one blinked when our Speaker of the House of Representatives was elected, and now she is running as an endorsed candidate for governor.
Way behind, yes, but it is happening.
We Brits tried a woman PM once. We also tried a Welshman once. I’d like to say we’ll be more careful in future, but history proves otherwise.
So, if I read your examples correctly.
Woman PM good.
Never ever elect a welshperson.
I didn’t think Maggie or Lloyd George were that bad.
I assume she’s lying for the sake of her constituents over her “personal” definition of marriage as being between a man and woman. How can she possibly imagine that’s justified?
But who, on this Earth, imagined politicians had principles, I suppose.
Where does she say that? I’d be very interested.
Ah, last year. What’s not clear is whether she was following the Ruddy line or she thinks that her (and Rudd’s) prejudices have the force of law. I hope not the latter. She is entitled to have her opinion, but not to impose her own values on the country.
Yes. It would be nice to see the party recoil away from the regressive, populist tactics. I’d be awfully surprised if they did though. I had a job for a few years summarising NZ and Aussie radio and television current affairs, and while that certainly offered a skewed perspective (yes, we actually wrote down talkback callers’ opinions, and even SOLD them) it does seem that Australians offer a lot more support to theocratic and xenophobic views than we see in NZ. And that’s not to say, by any means, that the NZ airwaves are a rainbow picnic of progress and tolerance. If anything, I suspect they’ll swing towards a more populist line. After all, it was Rudd’s several departures from what was popular that got him ousted.
Bah! Enough cynicism. I hope you’re right. I hope she was just following Rudd.
It seems ununderstandable to me how a freak like Tony Abbott could be seen enough of a threat to Labor to remove Rudd. I was in Brisbane February to April. Then there were troubles about a house-insulation scheme, that seemed caused by householders choosing incompetent bootleg firms wanting to make a buck on a government scheme, rather than the governments responsibility as The Australian (one of the most rabid right wing newspapers I know) made out. Rudd started a health insurance plan that put the states on the defensive – but then, it might be better to abolish the Australian states anyway. So Rudd wanted money for health from mining? Good idea. Mining has too much influence anyway. One sugar senator and how many mining senators?
Anyone expecting a political messiah is bound to be disappointed … as certain Americans are finally realizing about now.
I know a political messiah when I see one. I should know; I’ve followed a few.
toddlers and infants are horribly under-represented in legislatures (and dictatorships) around the globe! coincidence or conspiracy? you decide…
“Labor female unreligious PM”
‘pm’? ‘labor’ party? hahah haaa, that au sense of humor…
Are you really comparing women with toddlers and infants? What’s next? Suggesting that we should gently and for their own good take the vote away from them and given it to their male relatives?
Comments are closed.