Is Julia Gillard ‘prime ministerial’? And if she isn’t, does it matter?
As Australians get to know their new leader — and it’s still early days on that journey — what is becoming evident is that the Gillard formulation of national leadership, in both style and substance, is entirely different to anything we have known before.
What we now have in Australia is a PM who publicly admits she prefers being in classrooms to meeting world leaders. Who mainly speaks like a mid-level bureaucrat giving a Powerpoint presentation. Whose style often appears to exaggerate her working-class origins.
Julia Gillard’s only real prime ministerial moment, arguably, came on the day she took Kevin Rudd’s job, when she acted and spoke like a leader with a powerfully articulated vision.
Since then, Australia has been led with managerial competence. But the kind of gravitas, boldness and aura of leadership that gets wrapped into the somewhat elusive description of being ‘prime ministerial’ has, so far, failed to emerge.
Does that matter? Is this kind of commentary elitist? Or is it an important ingredient in the leadership of a modern developed democracy, with fairly major aspirations?
I still don’t understand what the *anonymous* editorial writer means by ‘being prime ministerial’. Was Aotearoa New Zealand’s Helen Clarke ‘prime ministerial’ in their understanding or does it just mean taking oneself too seriously?
your comment is elitist
the leadership that julia gillard is giving at the moment is just what australia needs
like anybody, if given the chance she will grow into the job, and as her confidence grows so will her grasp on some policy matters ie foreign policy that she appears to lack at the moment
have a look at barack obama, he promised the american people the world and has given them an atlas
this is not so much a crititism of him as in how if leaders promise to much and lift expectations then the people feel let down when things do not evenuate
i would like to see you focus more on the sustained and unwarranted attacks on julia gillard from the right wing thugs in the liberal party, which border on being sexist as well
imagine if someone in the labor party used the same language against julie bishop or other coalition woman mps
Geez, get over it will you. You are so hung up on Gillard and not being totally besotted with meeting world leaders at a gabfest where most of the real discussion has happened prior.
What is “prime ministerial” anyway and tell me which of our previous leaders or potential alternate leaders might possess this magic ingredient. Name one PM in the last 50 years who has been 100% rounded or haven’t grown in stature during their period in office.
wtf — if “prime ministerial” is such an elusive concept, how do you know Gillard has failed to be it?
Why is Crikey bothering to enter this bogus debate about whether Gillard is “prime ministerial” the debate itself reeks of a shoddy agenda to undermine her eligibility to be PM.
The hand wringing about whether we are respected overseas and can strut it on the world stage is a remnant of cultural cringe, which I thought we were collectively over by now.
Also, commenting on non issues like this highlights a weird dichotomy in Crikey’s content — Crikey presents itself as being an alternative to MSM dross, but Crikey also swims in it, like when you bag the focus on weekly polling but breathlessly reporting every poll and give it front page treatment.
nope