There has not been a thousand deaths, that is since 2001 and most of them are on the SIEVX which happened after the stupid carry on was started and is still the largest loss of life.

WE also know now that the cops and others delayed a search for them for hours because they had to protect the spy they had working with Abu Quessay and the AFP - every refugee who drowned did so because we let them.

The proof is all now available on sievx.com.

In 10 years though about 90 million kids under 5 died of starvation and that had not a thing to do with anything our government did.

Who could point the finger at her for that?
Considering what the Melbourne Archdiocese had in place at St Vincents in Melbourne for decades for clergy sowing their wild oats and unable to maintain their vows.
Those children if mothers weren't coerced into giving their newborns up for adoption, would have no fathers either.
Religious Order priests have their own "processes".

I'm sure you know very well what/who the Melbourne Archdiocese is, especially being against IVF.
Father's are important, and I think you will find children conceived through the process, are permitted to know who their biological parents are.
More than can be said for children conceived by hetrosexual parents whose fathers are clergyman.

Dale, I'm not sure what Penny Wong's child raising arrangements have to do with her abilities as a policy-maker, and politician more broadly. Do we even know anything about the father in all this? Sure, you are free to judge her personal morality as you please. But I don't think, even if she is privately a monstrous misandrist, that means she can't also be a sharp book-keeper, Attorney-General, Environment Minister, Treasurer, or even Prime Minister. Those are empirical questions to be decided by observing her performance.

The child has two terrific mothers, what is wrong with you snarky little people.

I know Penny, she used to have a smart compassionate mind but lost it when she approved of human trading and trafficking.

Yes, I think academia would be a good place for Roxon. At least she couldn't do any harm.

Not sure what Gillard will do after she faces court though...

What do you actually dislike about Gillard ... what she does, what she did, what she might do, what she says, how she sounds, her hair, her clothes, her throw away sling backs? Serious question.

Is there anyone in the parliament you do regard with any enthusiasm?

Fair questions Peter, so I'll do my best to answer them.

In regard to Gillard there's not much I do like and I'm constantly bemused when I see or hear people defending her.

I don't trust what she says. Not just in a political sense, I don't trust her to even express her emotions honestly.
I don't agree with most of her political decisions and I think her judgement is generally poor, possibly as a result of having had no experience at all in a business environment other than as a union lawyer. Her background is entirely monocultural and has little in common with the rest of us.
It worries me that she's in the pocket of unaccountable people with motivations that are neither transparent nor relevant to the rest of the population.
I think she has diminished the Parliament and the ALP through both her personal connection with criminality and her constant defence of criminals in the name of political expediency.
I think she has created enormous social harm through her promotion of genderism as an expedient political wedge.
I think she has very little interest in anything other than in how it impacts her personally. She may even be a genuine psychopath, in the real sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

"Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2] is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle."

Basically, she should not be there and the quicker she's gone the sooner we as a nation can start to undo the harm. I'd be very happy to hear the Victorian police have turned up at The Lodge with a warrant, despite the terrible damage that would do to the office she holds.

As to others on the ALP side, I've got little respect for any on the current front bench. McClelland is quite a decent person, I think, and highly qualified but he's going. Fancy replacing him with a third-rater like Roxon! I have a lot of respect for Penny Wong's ability, but she's far too willing to do as she's told and she's obviously subordinate to unaccountable others in her home state.

On the LNP side I think there are some good performers, including Abbott himself, despite the demonisation. His two biggest problems are a certain impulsivity and a tendency to think out loud, which I probably share. Julie Bishop is impressive. I'd be hard-pressed to find too many others I regard as really good candidates. Turnbull is capable but lazy in the job. Hockey is obviously smart, but he tends to the shallow and doesn't really get across issues as well as could be expected.

I have to admit to having little knowledge of the backbenchers. Perhaps there are some hidden gems on both sides, but I have to say it seems unlikely on the Labor side, since they're all products of the same selection process or they're never going to be anything more than non-entities.

Thanks. Serious answer - serious response.

"I don't agree with most of her political decisions and I think her judgement is generally poor, possibly as a result of having had no experience at all in a business environment other than as a union lawyer. Her background is entirely monocultural and has little in common with the rest of us. "

... She is a professional politician - of course she has nothing in common with the rest of us. Neither did Keating. Or Howard. Or Hawke (despite the pretence) or any of them. Thank goodness. If she did we'd hate her for that too... remember the awful stuff spattered about about Joan Kirner - precisely because she was more like a suburban teacher than a polished merchant banker. As it is some catty folks reckon Gillard sounds and looks "common". Dreadful accusation.

"It worries me that she's in the pocket of unaccountable people with motivations that are neither transparent nor relevant to the rest of the population."

Do you mean the independents, the greens or Cory Bernardi? Don't worry they are all accountable eventually. Unions? Well votes and money anyway. Gee now Tony wouldn't be in any sort of position like that now would he - needing their votes and money?
This is politics as it is. Realpolitik. I agree it shouldn't be. Transparency - and no donations at all somehow seems sensible to me. And a means of expelling/expunging MPs during a term.

"I think she has diminished the Parliament and the ALP through both her personal connection with criminality and her constant defence of criminals in the name of political expediency."

Peter Slipper? Craig Thomson? This is symptomatic of a deep sickness. It is deeply disturbing that the preselection processes of both parties leave themselves open to corrupt and self-interested people winning office. I agree. See comment above re expungement. I also think that, given the roots of our employment law and other chunks of legislation, it should be an offence in itself to be in elected office while guilty of a crime... larceny as a servant if ever it was, the betrayal of trust.

"I think she has created enormous social harm through her promotion of genderism as an expedient political wedge."

Gee I wish that was true Craig... that she'd had to invent it. Sadly some of these fellas haven't really gotten over their days at St Pauls. Or the old blokes in the bar days of the Tramways Union.

Sexism - I still call it that - isn't confined to Abbott's lot, nor her own outfit, or to the chamber. The Press Gallery is cloaked in a rolliing grog soaked testosterone fog. There are some shocking attitudes down there on both sides of the paddock and, when you really loathe someone - it's the first rock you reach for - but quietly.

"I think she has very little interest in anything other than in how it impacts her personally. She may even be a genuine psychopath, in the real sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

This is a harsh judgement Craig - and one that is impossible to "prove" or to "refute" without delving into deep analysis of a third person and personality based on little more than tabloid gossip. Suffice to say that most folks who have had dealings with Gillard are rather impressed. She sticks to her word and delivers what she promises. Unlike Abbott whose porkbarrelling bribes to Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie were stupidly obscene. I don't think psychopaths really get far in the Australian political system, Craig. You need votes. You need mates. Or at least folks who trust you. Less so in the US and the UK I suspect fordifferent reasons.

It will be an interesting year. And a very very long one.

But watch the space for the sexism Craig ... just commentary and criticism that would not be applied were she a bloke.

It is interesting that your criticism is so deeply set in both political and personal characteristics. Personally I'm glad our politicians are under such close control and scrutiny by their colleagues. It's about trust and confidence - otherwise you don't get there. It's a team sport and individual personality plays little part. And when it does, like on any team, it can be disastrous. Ask Kevin.

'Isn't the shallow pool of talent in the Press Gallery getting disturbing?'

Only when they do those things with which one doesn't agree, wouldn't you agree?

'Balance', what we should receive from the national broadcaster, is no longer an objective of that organisation.

Bias in the 'other' MSM has been there forever. Tis the nature of the beast.

Discourse!!!!! Strewth that stuff's always disappointing Misha.

But what you've got here is not uniformly disappointing or elevating. It oscillates like a large cat between ratbaggery and insight ...

The interesting thing for me is that so few academic types wade into the raucus pub brawling dialectic with the cooling voice of reason and the odd informed opinion. But with a few exceptions they don't chip in.

That's OK - it's good to be able to get their stories and articles but on occasion one yearns for more - or to give them a good grilling.

Look to improving the calibre of commentary by encouraging saner voices to stick their oar in rather than risk certain subjects being targeted and dominated by kooks and ratbags. And cut the comments off when it gets bogged down or repetitive or unproductively abusive.

Incidentally if you are disappointed by the dismal discourse here - you're not reading Crikey of late. Neither am I. Or the Drum. Or Q&A ...any of them. Welcome to the standard of public discourse outside the seminars and press conferences. This stuff's bloody stratospheric compared to the depths of the popular blogs.