Peter Freedman wrote on May 30
th, 2012 at 9:03am:
When it comes to leadership qualities personality, not policy, is the principal issue.
On those grounds, neither Gillard nor Abbott show the qualities required of a leader.
Abbott is an attack dog, a useful tool for a political party. He is not averse to fighting in the gutter and slinging mud. Unfortunately he is unable to resist continuing to do it and that is not a good look for a leader. His performance during the Thomson affair, where he finally had the sense to back off, is a major reason in his poor poll showing.
Gillard is a backroom operator, a skilled negotiator capable of twisting arms and doing deals. Again, useful skills but not the qualities required of a leader.
A leader should inspire people, not only their own team, but the voters at large. He/She should be someone most voters can feel some pride in even if they don't support specific policies.
The last true leader I can recall in either NZ or Australia was David Lange. He had many faults, but the day he took on the hawks in a nuclear weapons debate at the Oxford Union (and wiped the floor with them)was a moment of pride for every Kiwi no matter who you voted for.
There are many styles of leadership and many ways that each leader motivates their troops. Leaders who inspires move their troops with words whereas leaders who are less gifted with rhetorical skills move their troops with actions.
Our preferences for each type of these leadership qualities helps us to overlook their faults as much as we laud their good points eg your reference to David Lange.
Circumstances also dictate the types of leader required. When you are in a middle of a gun fight - an inspirational leader is the last person you need. What's required there is someone who thinks clearly and is very clear in his/her instructions.
Getting back to Abbott as an attack dog for the party. Perhaps he is and perhaps he's not. Facts are circumstances dictates how he got into the leader seat. Greens_booze reminded me 2 days ago that we've lost sight of how and why he got into the seat.
As a nation we need someone to stand up and tell it like it is. And if need be attack the establishments.
For 4 years this Thomson issue has dragged on and you want the Opposition to remain quiet? But when they speak out about it - it's leader is demonised as an attack dog. Is this the society that we have turned into whereby someone who speaks out against breaches of the law and is then labelled as an attack dog?
Abit like when you are bullied in the workplace and you are condemned for taking actions.
It is alarming that the left seems so focused and condemn Abbott on HOW WELL he handled the Thomson affair - very much echoing the focus of the Labor party which is trying to deflect attention. So your assessment is not logical but along party lines.
You might say - well it's important to focus on HOW WELL a prospective PM handles an issue. Okay. Lets apply the same principle on Gillard. HOW WELL has she handled all her stuff ups? Where are your threads and continued threads of condemnations of HOW WELL Gillard has handled all of these issues??!!
There aren't any!!
So voting for a party based their leadership style is not the best solution for the country. Especially when the style does not impact you and or the result. This is the whim of a child.
You look at who will get results for the country.
You look at their integrity
Gillard has no integrity
Forum
Pages: 
