Richard Glover asks in today’s opinion piece (my added  ):
Mr Glover asks a valid question for anyone who has just returned from a space voyage, or, of course, anyone working at ‘our’ ABC. To give Mr Glover credit, (and I used to like his show), he is at least acknowledging, in his signature ironic flippant way, Australians’ judgment on this government and wondering why his own judgment is so different.
So lets help out Richard to understand.
1. She incorrectly guessed the attitude of the High Court. When the Malaysian ”solution” emerged, many said it was immoral but few predicted it would be illegal.
Wrong. DFAT advised against it on legal grounds and she ignored them, UNHCR knew it was not complying with our treaty obligations (Lateline 1st Sept 2011), as their Richard Towle indicated to Tony Jones. Ms Gillard attacked personally one of the judges to divert blame and finally most Australians knew, as you concede …that it was immoral. Now if you don’t know why Australians might have contempt for a PM who makes immoral policies, against all advice and against her own party platform, then that’s another matter entirely.
2. “she’s allowed Bob Brown to determine the government’s policy, in particular the introduction of a carbon tax”
Wrong. Ms Gillard herself admitted she could have formed government without being forced into a carbon tax. She also need not have caved in to the Greens at all – they had nowhere else to go – you think they would have supported Tony Abbott? Finally she gave her word, she could have insisted deferring it until after an election or have a plebiscite. There is no excuse for breaking this key election promise and 75% of Australians know this and have responded accordingly.
3. “carbon tax might also prove good policy….”
Wrong. You think it will change the climate one bit? You think it will shame other countries into damaging their economies? You think it is called for in the first place with new peer reviewed studies steadily discrediting the alarmist science interpretations? You think the biggest and only industry-wide tax in the world will bring us export advantage? You thing abating 75% of our CO2 by spending $560 billion on Nigerian or other 3rd world offsets will benefit our children one bit? You think ‘Clean Energy Future’ is anything other than a rent-seeking mindless slogan? And finally, you think a tax and subsidies rather than genuine commercial advantage will bring in a new industrial revolution?
4. it [carbon tax] was the joint policy of both parties
Wrong. Coalition agreed to Carbon Trading subject to a global trading agreement at Copenhagen. Since then it is clear to all except green fanatics and the army or rent-seekers that the big emitters are happy to pretend to believe, so they can sell offsets and green technology to the starry eyed Europeans, but won’t damage their own economies with serious carbon price.
5. Of course she looks daft when she defends Thomson… she should tell him to resign, people say
Wrong. No she does not look daft, on Craig Thomson she looks dishonest, immoral, someone who places her political skin above morality, above her own party’s interests and those of Australians she is supposed to represent. She had to be forced to remove him from the finance committee – immoral. She could acknowledge that if he did the deeds, they would be immoral and she could distance herself from him – but as she is immoral herself, she does not. Australians don’t like immoral public figures – bad example for their children.
6. Successful politicians lead from the front but not by such a distance that they find themselves separated from the pack.
Getting warm but still wrong. Gillard is not too far ahead, not too far behind, she nowhere. She is not a leader, she is just an incompetent, incompetent and incompetent self-serving manager. Every company has them – middle managers promoted above their competence who spend their whole time in office politics rather than working, self-promoting while shafting good productive people, just to survive. She is on planet Gillard, a world of perpetual spin, lies, union corruption and thuggery and intrigue, where policies only exist to pay off allies and projects only exist to serve Ms Gillard. Australians are there only to serve her ambitions, just like unionists are there only to provide money and power for (many) union leaders. Update: Oh, and Kevin Rudd, lest we forget, was the pioneer of this type of incompetence.
7. While arguments can be had over ”push” and ”pull” factors, the new policy seemed to attract more arrivals.
Wrong. Spin can be had over push factors but not real argument, as you virtually concede yourself. There is clear evidence from numbers of arrivals and people smugglers themselves that they know and respond to our refugee policies. Gillard and her immigration department have publicly announced this – 600 per month if we don’t have an off shore policy. Which part of this do you want to ‘argue’?
8. People despise her so personally and splenetically when so many of her actions have been a response to events outside her control.
Oh, so wrong. They are all self-inflicted wounds, be she arrogantly denies what we can all see. The hung parliament, Thomson, boats, High Court – they could all have been handled infinitely better by someone competent.
But Richard, you forgot to mention some other tiny details – I know the’re easy to slip one’s mind, like knifing Rudd in the first term and these few policy, management, waste and integrity debacles, that need a spreadsheet to keep track of: