Gillard in the New Yorker

Julia Gillard has made it into The New Yorker with her slicing and dicing of Tony Abbott. She seems to have struck a nerve around the world against misogyny.

So why is this among the most-shared videos by my American friends today? Purely as political theatre, it’s great fun. Americans used to flipping past the droning on in empty chambers that passes for legislative debate in this country are always taken in by the rowdiness of parliamentary skirmish. It could also be that the political dynamic depicted in the clip parallels the situation in the States: a chief executive who is a “first” took power after a long period of control from the right of center, and whose signature policy achievements have at times been overshadowed by personal vitriol. Or perhaps it’s that we are right now in one of the rare periods every four years where the American political process provides actual face-to-face debate between the leaders of the two parties. After his performance last week, supporters of President Obama, watching Gillard cut through the disingenuousness and feigned moral outrage of her opponent to call him out for his own personal prejudice, hypocrisy, and aversion to facts, might be wishing their man would take a lesson from Australia. Read more

I was wondering about this last night. Like, why is it that in the USA there doesn't seem to be a regular opposition leader until the 4 yearly elections come along. Am I wrong? Who was there before Mad Mitt came along? Where is the daily confrontation between the leaders of the two major political parties? The above picture must seem a bit strange in the US, when here it's a daily event when the parliament is sitting. 

Gillard's attack wasn't a speech prepared like when Obama or Romney make speeches, it was in response to a Parliamentary motion by Abbott to sack the Speaker (as it turned out the word "motion" was a very appropriate description for what he came out with). Being as the speech was so unrehearsed and so unplanned (Abbott's motion was unexpected) makes the Gillard speech even more brilliant. Abbott looked like she had him by the balls at the end of it. Taking 15 minutes to slowly crush them.

The press gallery continues to not fully understand her speech, all concerned with the minutia of political argy bargy. To say as one of them did, that Gillard has lost politically out of all this shows how out of touch some of those are in the press gallery with what's going on in the real world outside of Canberra. I mean FFS, I'm a bloke and I was cheering her on watching it. Imagine how many many women must be feeling about her speech? It's the best speech I've ever seen come out of the parliament here. She was inspiring, forthright, eloquent, and all unplanned. She let Abbott have it with both barrels. 

I think too it's simply a very Australian way to speak. Direct and to the point. No beating around the bush (sounds like this blog). Australians are like that. We can often be mistaken as crass or impolite overseas, but it's just how we communicate. And even in the parliament and in the high office of Prime Minister, even that at times needs such directness. 

The other thing is that Gillard spoke therefore in a way that we all understand. She was speaking our language, not some lofty word filled bullshit from above. I think she's a very tough person. Behind in the polls and her back against the wall produced that speech.