Julia Gillard/AWU - My take

As above, this is my take on this whole issue.  So if you don't agree, get your own Blog.

Anyways, there has been a lot of talk about the PM and the AWU and I think the Coalition and others are focusing on this issue for a number of reasons.

They don't have a plan except to attack the government. 
Sure, the hung Parliament pushed up some interesting times, but it has also got a good amount of legislation through.  And they had a plan to try to bring the Govt down through legislative disruption, but when they didn't get the support of the Independents and after Peter Slipper votes now with the Govt (that's all gone quiet hasn't it?) they couldn't disrupt the Govt, so have now changed to focus on the PM. Interestingly, they haven't focused on Oakshott or Windsor and attacked them on 'integrity' grounds, but are happy to do it the PM and Slipper.
By doing this, the Coalition want to paint the ALP as being a party of miscreants and incapable of leading because of their lack of integrity. The political expediency that is needed in the adversary style of politics means that every party has to make deals in order to get stuff done. This also means getting into deals with people you wouldn't normally cross the road to see except to slap a writ on them. This is the nature of the parliament we have now.  Coupled with this is also the Coalition painting the Greens as nutbags to further alienate them from the voters - it's working, but I think this is a lot to do with some decisions the Greens have made themselves.

She's a woman.
Undoubtedly this is the biggest issue for a lot of people. I heard the Greens Leader, Christine Milne, on the radio today saying that women are here and can do the job (or similar).  I have no issue with the PM being a woman, so to me I've already accepted this.  I can honestly say, that in my working career, I've had more hopeless male bosses than I have women bosses.
There are always going to be a number of men who simply don't like women in powerful positions.  I think that this little gem has been underplayed.  A lot of men want to be in charge and simply don't trust women.  Who knows, they might have had an issue with a lady and never forgiven her.  Frankly I don't care, but chances are there will be a number of women out there that these men need to apologise to for their past actions. Gillard's misogyny speech was perfect and a great rebuff of Abbott who has (not surprisingly) let a woman do his bidding on this issue now, so he can't be labelled as a misogynist again. Letting Bishop attack Gillard is smart, and appeals to men, because at any moment some would like to have them have a pillow fight to get the winner.
My father said to me a while back 'I won't vote for her as she put in the Carbon Tax and said she wouldn't'.  My reply was 'How has the Carbon Tax affected you?' he said it hasn't. With the lying charge, this too is interesting.  As said above, political expediency makes for interesting times.  Do not think that if the Coalition were in the same position as the ALP that they would have done anything differently.  They would have been just as cheap.
Don't forget, that she is a woman and a lot of people (men strangely) simply don't like a powerful woman - unless she is in a bikini firing a machine gun.

The AWU issue
This comes back to the issue of integrity and the Woman factor.  I've read a bit about it and I think that simply, it is, again, men of a certain age wanting to know more than they should.  Reality is a lot of this stuff is often mentioned along with words sexual relationship.  Christ, we've all stuck our willies or let people in who we probably shouldn't have.  I don't see this as an issue, and now we have some old piss head called magically, Blewitt, wanting immunity from prosecution if he starts talking.  Gillard's partner of the time has come out and said that she knew nothing. 
Every bit of this is tawdry and aimed at making her look like a dimwit who makes bad decisions.
Some people would also like to know what the relationship was like, I've read the Pickering Post and this is what he seems to focus on.  Again, because the PM is a woman, obviously some men think that giving her a good rogering will sort her out! Spare me.
This issue is being used by a small number of people to push their own barrows for their own purposes.  It is a non issue, and one that people are getting tired of.

End.
As I said above, I have no issue with the PM being a woman.  The gender specific terms used in relation to the PM is disappointing.  I heard Abbott use the term shrill which immediately reminds you of women yelling and screaming in an uncontrollable manner. He uses words like to get a reaction from men, who are usually on the end of a barrelling from women.  This also pushes back to the Shakespearean play, The Taming of the Screw, which is what some men would want to do to Gillard.
The PM has been referred to as a Bitch before. I hated Howard with a passion, but I would call him other words, a bit more sweary than bitch.  But I would still use those terms to describe a woman.  I wouldn't call a male PM a bitch, he would be an arsehole, tool, fuckhead, unit or c*nt.  All of these I could be used to describe a female PM, and I have used many of these to describe a number of the Liberal frontbench.
In a past life I've had dealings with female members of the Liberal Party.  Most were OK, just like in the ALP, but occasionally you'd meet one who was as hardnosed and as focused as those in the ALP, I reckon that Abbott's chief of staff is like this and would be very determined.  She clearly is pushing the issue with Bishop and will make this issue not go away.  Interestingly today, I heard that Bishop had a meeting with Blewitt, but still described him as a fraud.  Happy to get info from him.
Problem is that those in the marginal seats are probably already set in the decision on who they are going to vote for.  In western Sydney and in other marginal seats there are a lot of people hocked up to the eyeballs with a mortgage and Commodore wagons and a Hi-Lux for dad. They'll probably vote for the party that gives them the most cash, or at least promises the most cash.  The Coalition have already started to indicate that their policies might change once in government, and you can guarantee they will.  So a vote for them will ensure that what you want isn't what you'll get.
Gen Y will vote Independent or Green, and they don't get their news from traditional sources like we do, so I have no idea how they get info on how to vote.   I've handed out plenty of how to vote cards, and can generally say it was old timers who voted Coalition, people my age and younger swung and Gen Y voted Green/Independent.  It is always tricky to win a third term and with KRudd pissing in from the outside and being a story when he isn't, the destabilisation will sit in people's minds and something the Coalition will use as well.

So, looks to me like the issue here is the PM is a woman and the Coalition had no plan once they saw that the Independents wouldn't turn on the ALP.  Unfortunately for the Coalition, and for us, the current political environment will continue if the Coalition are elected.  It has slipped down the slippery slope and won't be back from this for a long, long time. 





*I've been an ALP member before, so you can take the above how you want and publish that on your Blog.