This is a joke, right?

Or an incredibly boring dream.

With the two best fighters in the Labor and Liberal parties facing off against each other, I was expecting something a little exciting. Instead, the banality and mediocrity of this federal election campaign is mind-numbing. The plan seems to be ‘no one say anything that might make even one person a little less happy with us’, and that strategy certainly hasn’t worked for the NSW Liberal Party for the last two elections.

Have any real policies been released? Anyone promised anything we didn’t already know about before the election was called?

Instead, we’re getting the really important news: Julia Gillard was questioned yesterday about whether she and Tim Mathieson would get married if they moved into The Lodge.

What. The. Fuck?

I’ve heard a lot of inane questions asked of politicians, but that one is too much. Yet The Australian thought it was worthy of 372 words:

Asked if he would move into The Lodge, Ms Gillard said: “Oh yes, Tim and I live together, wherever I live, he’ll live”.

Ms Gillard was asked later if a wedding to Mr Mathieson might be on the cards soon.

She laughed and brushed the question off.

“Number one, decisions about me getting married are not just made by me, if I could make that point,” she told reporters.

“Number two, decisions in my personal life I’ll make for personal reasons.”

And why is The Australian running a story on Julia Gillard’s earlobes? Is this what we’ve become? No wonder people don’t want us any more.

15 responses to “This is a joke, right?

  1. What the fucking fuck fuck is that load of shit, holy mcfuck with a side of fucked up.

    Kate Legge the reporter for this dribble needs to slink back to the glossy covers of the weekend magazine where no one can hear her scream.

    Fuck……

  2. Ugh, ugh ugh who gives a rat ass about Julia’s relationship status? Just ugh!

  3. Pingback: Tweets that mention This is a joke, right? « the news with nipples -- Topsy.com

  4. Someone with a degree please say something rangy about the liberal paid parental leave plan being based on the mothers pay, instead of that of the ‘primary caregiver’. What if you are a same sex couple? How does that work? Or is that not recognised so you get fuck all? Where is lexy when I need her???

  5. Dammit, ranty.

  6. Lawdy, I hear ya. It’s like Helen Clark, Mark2.

    Whether it’s conspiracy, or sheer freaking laziness, the media frame a female politician as an absolute nothing by focusing on her looks, clothes, partner and reproductive ability. It’s like by creating a empty political slate by not giving her a voice, the voters won’t have any reason to vote for her, and vote for the opposite by sheer default.

    The only female politician in recent history that I can think of where her politics stood above her femininity, sexuality and family is Pauline Hanson (Yes, even more than Sarah Palin) …and isn’t that saying something?

    • Amanda, I think it’s somewhere between conspiracy and laziness – the media frames female politicians this way because that’s the way they’ve always done it.

      The woman is 50 in September and yet she’s still being asked about her uterus?

      And that’s a really good point about Pauline Hanson. We have a long way to go, don’t we?

  7. Some notes about the debate:
    1. It seems women are less cynical than men. Although the pink line of the worm was higher for Gillard than for Abbott, it was almost always above the blue line.
    2. Exceptions to the above seemed to be when Abbott was negative about his opponent, whereas it spiked up when Gillard was doing likewise.
    3. Everytime I noticed a ‘moving forward’ both lines would dip momentarily proving that the electorate is sick of pathetic slogans.
    4. Gillard looked like a mime with her palms out approach, it seemed forced which it was.
    5. Abbott went well above my expectations of him.

    • Who do you think won it? The SMH contradicted itself in each article, with one saying it was close, another that Abbott fought hard but lost, and yet another that Abbott was no match for Gillard.

  8. Channels 9 7 TEN and Sky perhaps? I think Gillard won statistically although on the weight and validity of their arguments Abbott edged ahead simply by not being dreadful.
    The PM was too stage managed, too much spin, too much slogans by rote. This detracts from the central points she was making.

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s