Julia - or Ju-Liar as she is known in the bars here - Gillard has been the most ruinous Prime Minister in Australia's entire, albeit short, history.
The nation waited for just 110 years before electing a woman. That is a far shorter time than any Nation in history. Women were shouting that we needed women in politics. Who could disagree? It was time. And a woman had clawed her way to the top.
|Ju-Liar Gillard, Giving the Finger to Australia|
Not that she was alone of course. We have a woman Queen as Head of State. Ju-Liar doesn't like the Queen. We have a woman as Governor General. She is a rather skeletal person with a sound record as Discrimination Commissioner who fought hard for women. Not for men though.
We have had a succession of women State Premiers. All but one has been a miserable failure including the only one left - the Tasmanian schoolgirl with the bad manners.
Ju-Liar doesn't like them either.
I do not know of anyone Ju-Liar does like.
She clearly didn't like the last Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Few did. But many soon saw him as a poor sap deserving of some sympathy when Ju-Liar, his Deputy, stabbed him in the back. To her it was simply a demonstration of her potential.
So many people helped Ju-Liar up the ranks from corrupt lawyer to politician to PM. Principal amongst her helpers were the women of 'Emily's List'. They believe passionately in Eeek-wallet-eee. That means Gender Quotas. Its 'egalitarian'.
Let us hear what Jeremy Sammut had to say about this matter in the bar last night. This old Knight was all ears.
Gender quotas un-egalitarian
Does Julia Gillard show where affirmative action for women leads?
She built her whole life around politics, only to become a political failure.
Following Martin Ferguson’s decision to retire from politics at the next election, prominent Labor women have argued that a female candidate must get the nod to run in the safe seat of Batman in Melbourne’s northern suburbs and that failure to do so will be a betrayal of the principles of the Labor Party.
Labor’s affirmative action rules require female candidates to be preselected in 40% of winnable electorates. The feminist rationale for this and similar kinds of gender-based policies is that patriarchal institutions and attitudes are so entrenched throughout society that some form of social engineering is essential to tilt the playing field in women’s favour.
These rules have been operating for almost 20 years. Currently, 26 members of the federal Labor caucus are members of Emily’s List – the networking organisation dedicated to helping women get elected to parliament and achieve Labor’s affirmative action targets.
Due to serial maladministration and ineptitude, the federal Labor government is overwhelmingly discredited with both commentators and the public. If the polls are right, Labor faces an almost unprecedented electoral catastrophe in September.
For the last three years, the government has been led by an Emily’s Lister, Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Some have attributed the government’s problems to the PM having a ‘tin ear’, politically speaking.
Though likely to attract the routine charge of misogyny, it is legitimate to question the role affirmative action may have played in the government’s fate. If a person does not have the political skills to get preselected and elected on their merits, will they have the political skills to contribute to a successful government?
There is now a push (backed by the Australian Human Rights Commission) to introduce gender quotas into corporate Australia and require company boards to reserve seats exclusively for women.
This is unnecessary given today’s commercial and workplace realities. Good managers these days are rewarded for their talent management – for finding the right employees, helping develop their skills, and maximising their contribution to an organisation.
Developing this kind of organisational culture is the key to business success – and to ensuring women progress through the corporate ranks. Any board of directors that allows gender to trump merit with regards to the appointment of talented women is not acting in the best interests of its shareholders – as any corporate trainer will tell you.
This is the message that should be promoted to aid the advancement of women.
Women and men should have equal opportunity to rise to whatever tier on the corporate ladder their skills and abilities allow because this is in business’ best interests.
Quotas, however, are fundamentally un-egalitarian. And business has an easy riposte to demands they be imposed – how’s that worked out for the Labor Party?
http://www.cis.org.au/publications/ideasthecentre/article/4835-gender-quotas-un-egalitarianEveryone, including her own Cabinet are waiting for September when everyone will give the finger back to Ju-Liar, this acolyte of the Princess of Lies. With a bit of luck, someone might give her a knife in the back before then too.
Jeremy Sammut | 07 June 2013