Gladys rejects “evil bully” Liar

It’s the least that Gladys could do:

“I’m grateful to have served the public in the way that I did. I tried hard every day. And I hope people feel I made a difference.”

“I won’t be contesting the seat of Warringah or any other federal seat for that matter. I’m looking forward to much less public life … I’m going in a different direction and I’m looking forward to the opportunities that next year brings.”

“I’m really positive about the next chapter of my life and I’m always a very positive person. I think no matter what challenges you face … you can’t look in the rear vision mirror.”

“It wasn’t something that I intended to do, but I had respect for those people and I did give it some thought, but decided against it. It’s not something that I want to do.”

How could she possibly sign up with the Liar and keep any credibility:

The NSW Premier has told Liberal colleagues she’d have preferred that Peter Dutton had won the last federal leadership ballot – she’d rather be dealing with Dutton because Morrison is so unpleasant, she’s said. She’s described the PM as a “bully”.

Berejiklian went so far as to tell a colleague that Morrison’s behaviour was “evil”. She and many of her colleagues are still angry at the fact that Morrison’s press office phoned political reporters in a background effort to discredit her, so-called “briefing against her”, over the vaccine rollout a few weeks ago. They accuse Morrison’s staff of doing the same during the bushfires of two years ago: “Usually he briefs against her for doing her job with some measure of competence,” said one of the Premier’s loyalists. “He doesn’t like the contrast – he makes himself look big by trying to make others look small.”

Got him in one, Gladys. Let’s hope the rest of the nation wakes up to it as well.

Good luck and god speed.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)


  1. After Glady got thrown off the bus and run over by the NSW LNP, why would she want to suffer the same in Federal Parliament? She didn’t resign, she was PUSHED.

  2. I have nothing but contempt for Berejiklian. Gladys, you did make a difference, but it was negative and you aren’t much different to Morrison.

    It’s amazing that politicians can do what they do these days and simple put their hand on their heart and say “it’s not true”, and they really seem to believe it. The really sad point is that she is nowhere near the worst.

    Edit: Fed and state politics is just a nice version of the NSW Rum Corps.

    • The cognitive dissonance in the Liberals is strong. They truly believe their warped version of reality. Or they’re just psychopaths and charlatans out for themselves.

  3. Diogenes the CynicMEMBER

    A difference – yes Gladys you allowed Covid to spread widely in Sydney from a quarantine failure and as a result the eastern states by ignoring your, “the best health advice.” As the decision maker you are responsible for many people getting sick or dying, the inevitable rolling lockdowns that followed which caused some businesses to fail. I bet you are NOT looking in the rear vision mirror.

  4. TheLambKingMEMBER

    She was never going to run. This was a campaign tactic to get ahead of the Labor “We need a federal ICAC, the LNP promised one 1000 days ago.” This was a measured campaign to discredit ICAC’s. Because he has trashes oversight the Labor strategy will have less impact.

    I know this paints the ScoMo as having some sort of smarts in strategy – so the probable reason (Occam’s razor) is that ScoMo just sprouts random rubbish and nonsense without thinking things through like he normally does 🙂

    • I think Occam points straight to rat cunning marketing to destroy or weaken federal ICAC. He has advisors and whatever too.

      A mind rid of scruples and ethical compass frees things up nicely.

  5. Why would she run. She will get a lucrative board role or five. Look at most ex premiers, they have board/consultancy/lobbying roles.

    • If she gets a negative finding from ICAC, she will struggle to get a Board position on any regulated entity which have character requirements for their Board members.

      • In which case it will be a consultancy or lobbying role. The stain of corruption will be overlooked for her political connections.

    • Regardless of the title, their role is to lobbying and introduction to those with who make the decisions. Look at Mike Baird, a few yrs at NAB then out and from memory a CEO of some crappy aged care setup.

      Nearly always the only jobs they can get involve access to gov; couldn’t run a chook raffle.

  6. This story is less about Gladys and more about the breathlessness with which the media reports anything given to them by the PMO without questioning the veracity of it. This was clearly a desperate distraction by a desperate lunatic.


  7. Jumping jack flash

    Almost all of our current crop of politicians are relics of a bygone era, an era of excess and stellar economic growth on the back of unprecedented debt growth created by economic abnormality.

    Our leaders needed to do virtually nothing for that entire time except watch others make the decisions here and there to prolong those conditions for as long as possible. All our politicians had to do was sit back and reap the accolades of the people, and busy themselves any way they could, some choices were better than others.

    In such an environment like the one we have enjoyed for the past decade or more, anyone can do well in a leadership position just by turning up and sitting down. As such, its a boring job, but its a job that appeals to a certain type of character, and those character types are the ones we currently have leading us.

    These good times are quickly ending though, we are now in the endgame, interest rates are finally zero. Now the tough decisions need to be made, and the current crop of “good-time-politicians ” we have, on all of the various “sides”, will all need to stand aside for the actual leaders to come in and fix the mess they allowed to happen.

  8. Is anyone else enjoying the narkimess and squirming from the “moderate” Liberals being challenged in their seats (and their boosters like that lightweight Andrew Bragg).

  9. Can someone please explain to me. Concerning State and Federal Government funding of a range of services at community/area/regional levels, how can equity/need analyses not be required, or be ignored in various instances- for the purpose of ensuring evidence-based allocations? How can some politicians even admit to favouring various areas for funding allocations to promote their own electoral needs? My underlying question, I suppose, is how can “pork-barreling” not be deemed as a form of “corruption” in any moral or political sense, as appeared to be the case in the recent NSW ICAC hearing?