A cuddly bear in a pink tie v. a Commie!

Read all about it over at PollieGraph!

Advertisements
Posted in elections
9 comments on “A cuddly bear in a pink tie v. a Commie!
  1. joe2 says:

    Julia was very strong and is a great asset to the campaign. Joe is always ready with a meaningless anecdote and the granny grab was laughable. Kev is crook with a cold so we might see more of the deputy regardless of the grand strategy, anyway. He should take a few days in bed.

  2. mbahnisch says:

    Actually, Julia usually looks a lot less forced and more confident and relaxed (and funny) than K07.

  3. Paul Burns says:

    Julia is always good fun. My heart warms to the Labor Party every time I see her. I feel sorry for Joe Hockjey – I’m not sure how much he believes the garbage he sprouts, or how much he trusts Costrllo or Howard on Workchoices. Why otherwise did he make that extraordinary promise to resign as Minister if further worker’s rights were stripped away by his colleagues. And he appears to have lost Rudd’s friendship, for now, anyway. Or is that just Rudd’s ruthlessness?
    More Julia, please.

  4. Amanda says:

    I don’t know about the “the ALP should use Julia more” line though, Mark. She is EVERYWHERE as far as I can tell, and not just squirreled away on Lateline and at the Press Club either. She has her weekly session with Abbott on Today (they started it as a shameless rip off of the Rudd/Hockey show on Seven but it has kept going after the Rudd gig stopped) and was on Sunrise last week with Hockey to talk IR. I have been struck by just how much they’re using her up front and centre. Good thing too, ’cause she’s ace.

  5. mbahnisch says:

    Thanks for the info, Amanda. I don’t watch morning tv!

  6. Helen says:

    I got this interesting email alert from those pinkos, the CPSU, today:

    ** Harvester Judgement ** -– Australia’s Minimum Wage – 100TH Anniversary Today —

    Today marks the 100th anniversary of the Harvester Decision
    brought down by the Australian Commonwealth Court of
    Conciliation and Arbitration by H.B. Higgins in 1907.

    The case involved one of Australia’s largest employers, Hugh
    Victor McKay, a manufacturer of agricultural machinery.

    Higgins ruled that McKay was obliged to pay his employees a
    wage that guaranteed them a standard of living which was
    reasonable for “a human being in a civilised community,”
    regardless of his capacity to pay.

    This gave rise to the legal requirement for a basic wage,
    the minimum wage, which dominates Australian economic life
    even now.

    Higgins ruled that remuneration “must be enough to support
    the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort”.

    Higgins set a ‘fair and reasonable’ minimum wage for
    unskilled workers of 7/- (7 shillings), which was around
    $1.40 per week.

    McKay successfully appealed the decision to the High Court.

    Notwithstanding that victory, the 1907 Harvester decision is
    regarded as a benchmark in Australian industrial case law.

    The Conciliation and Arbitration Court and it’s successor
    the Australian Industrial Relations Commission regarded the
    minimum wage as sacrosanct unfortunately a new ACTU analysis
    shows that the award wages for more than a million low paid
    workers have gone backwards by up to $15.67 a week — or $814
    a year — in real terms under the Govt’s Work Choices.

  7. Amanda says:

    I believe Julia and Tony have their spot on Friday so you can catch it tomorrow. No one believed me when I said his Sunrise gig would be the public making of Rudd but it is not too late to get on my bandwagon!

  8. hannah's dad says:

    “I think people want to see women stepping forward and taking a fair share of all the roles in politics.”

    I’ve been looking for a spot to comment on the post about passion pulse that asks people to [strongly]disagree or [strongly [agree] with the statement above made by Julia.
    This seems to be the most appropriate place.

    It’s interesting the different ways people can interpret things.
    I read the statement out to my wife and asked if she disagreed or agreed fully expecting her to agree strongly because I know she believes that women [such as Julia] should “step[ping] forward and taking a fair share of all the roles in politics.”
    But she didn’t agree at all.
    Because she focussed instead on the opening words of the statement “I think people want to see ….”
    And her assessment of the current state of Australian society, particularly the power cliques, is that most people are still afraid of women taking an active political role.
    Most don’t want to see women being politically active, instead opting for the “get back to the bedroom, kitchen and nursery” point of view.
    The treatment Julia having received from the media and misogynists such as Joe and Heff illustrating her point.
    We still have a very long way to go.

    Interesting point about ambiguity and interpretation is it not?

  9. mbahnisch says:

    Amanda, you were totally on the money! Apologise for never being awake in the mornings early enough!

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

%d bloggers like this: