That’s the question in an Age online survey being conducted right now. And the results so far:
Yes 31%
No 69%
And this is, please recall, a survey of readers of The Age. Even the caption under the picture is hardly designed to help the PM out:
‘You’re corrupt!’ MP ejected
Liberal MP Andrew Laming is ejected after yelling ‘You’re corrupt’ at Julia Gillard during question time
What will readers remember? That some Liberal MP was ejected from the House or that someone was ejected for saying that the Prime Minister is corrupt?
The final tally:
Yes 23%
No 77%
But if we conducted a poll about whether Julia Gillard will explain here involvement, there is only a single person who can answer that question and I suspect that the final result would be 100% No.
71% – I had no idea so many misogynists read The Age…
ar
1 Nov 12 at 10:19 am
It would be interesting to see whether “Destroy the Jointers” and “GetUp!ers” rush across to address the “imbalance” here.
Russell
1 Nov 12 at 10:27 am
It may well be that the Age has never reported on this issue until recently (they might have put this on page 12 in small print in years past, however). This is new news to Age readers, and they might be genuinely concerned about these revelations.
Keith
1 Nov 12 at 10:29 am
Laming should get a kick up the backside – an extraordinary lack of discipline. Mind you he isn’t alone in this. Rowdiness is part of the whole QT thing, but there times when the MPs should be totally quiet.
Sinclair Davidson
1 Nov 12 at 10:33 am
Yes Keith! To The Age readers this would be…….BREAKING NEWS!
Lysander Spooner
1 Nov 12 at 10:37 am
I Gillard had NOTHING to hide she would answer the questions.
I assume Gillard doe’s not consider her character assassination of Tony Abbott a smear strategy. Clearly Gillard is quite happy do dish out abuse and innuendo but falls apart and runs to her mummy’s apron strings when the shoe is on the other foot.
This woman is unfit to be our Prime Minister.
Muphin
1 Nov 12 at 10:41 am
Vote early and vote often.
cohenite
1 Nov 12 at 10:48 am
>Rowdiness is part of the whole QT thing, but there times when the MPs should be totally quiet.
Agreed – so many times when the Liberals are about to score a goal some loud member rushes in and snatches an own goal.
brc
1 Nov 12 at 11:04 am
Laming was stupid but in a way I can understand his frustration, Worked in The House for years and cannot remember when it has been so disgusting. The government should set a proper tone but is incapable of doing so. While ever we have Albanese as Leader it will get no better. Old NSW Labor tactics run run the Parliament.
Mother G
1 Nov 12 at 11:20 am
Probably neither much, both are commonplace. Its a mark of the times, even the Left finds little to argue with about the description of the PM a Liar. They are more likely to justify Lies and Corruption with their good intentions to save the planet.
Jannie
1 Nov 12 at 11:21 am
I’d be more likely to remember the reason. LNP members seem to get tossed out all the time and perhaps it becomes a badge of honour in this current climate. In this case, to me, the accusation itself is memorable.
Steve D
1 Nov 12 at 11:26 am
Julia Gillard won’t answer the questions because
a) she is afraid her answers would incriminate her
b) she daren’t lie to the parliament
c) she doesn’t want to open up even more fronts for discussion
I think she acted like the dodgiest lawyer one can imagine,right from the moment she agreed to help Wilson with his nefarious actions.
The fact that files from the WA government as well as S and G have “gone missing” shows that even coincidence is somehow on Ms Gillard’s side–anyone interseted in buying a harbour bridge?
Jazza
1 Nov 12 at 12:11 pm
Bummer!
“interested”–see I did learn how to spell years ago, just not how to type well at speed!
Jazza
1 Nov 12 at 12:13 pm
The numbers are now 74% no and 26% yes with 11246 responses.
sabena
1 Nov 12 at 12:20 pm
It also suggests that 31% are perfectly accepting our PM;
- habitually sleeping with married men
- willingly aiding and abetting her lover to set up a dodgy account
- willingly signing a legal document as a witness when she wasn’t
- turning a blind eye to what the account was to be used for
- turning a blind eye to where the money came from to buy a house to be used for her boyfriend
- willingly use a house procured under the above question marks
- be “moved on” from a legal partnership because of questionable practices
- willingly hide the existence and purpose of her boyfriend’s account from BOTH her partners AND the client.
Just imagine yourself having an affair with an official of your employer’s client, then using your employer’s resources or position to your lover without the knowledge of your employer or their client?
You’d know it was wrong.
A normal person would feel guilt and forever be embarrassed by the whole thing, if not in fear of incarceration. There is no indication of remorse by Gillard beyond the dubious “young and naive” dismissal.
It’s not like she was a young starlet giving a blowjob to land her first acting role. She certainly ended up much higher in the food chain than her boyfriend, so was it done to enhance her career, or otherwise?
The Beer Whisperer
1 Nov 12 at 12:29 pm
“right from the moment she agreed to help Wilson with his nefarious actions”.
How do you know it wasn’t her idea? You know, “we could make this happen so we could be together” type of thing. Just conjecture, of course!
The Beer Whisperer
1 Nov 12 at 12:36 pm
She must have been covinced he’d leave his wife for her, or he was incredibly good in bed.
Otherwise she’d have dobbed him to the police, for fraud.
You wouldn’t let him get away with trashing her job, her prospects of marriage etc without a bit of female revenge.
candy
1 Nov 12 at 12:44 pm
I bumped into Mafia Chief Recruiting Officer Antonio the Snake in the departure lounge at Sydney Airport. We engaged in casual conversation. I asked him if he had any luck looking for new talent. He replied by saying he was leaving our country empty handed. I suggested he sound out a few of our pollies and the colour drained from his face. He said even the Mafia had standards which it adhered to and our pollies were considered too rotten to join the Mafia ranks.
Sid Vicious
1 Nov 12 at 12:47 pm
It’s not binary. She may not have given a shit he was married. Don’t forget the Lying Slapper believed that marriage was slavery.
She has the morals and integrity of a hungry jackal.
JC
1 Nov 12 at 12:52 pm
She didn’t dob him in, so she clearly wasn’t jilted. In that case he obviously made no representations as to leaving his wife and children, so she must have been happy being the woma. In that particular port. There’s a word for that…
The Beer Whisperer
1 Nov 12 at 1:02 pm
JC 1 Nov 12 at 12:52 pm:
Ah! So it was an exercise in liberation! I can see how she would arrive at that conclusion.
Steve D
1 Nov 12 at 1:09 pm
26% satisfied when I voted. I wonder how many union heavies are included in that number? I’m sure they’re more than satisfied.
Ellen of Tasmania
1 Nov 12 at 1:24 pm
When Abbott was ejected, the msm was full-on with “Abbott has a problem with women in authority”.
When Laming was ejected, crickets.
A future Royal Commission might prove that he merely spoke out of turn.
Keith
1 Nov 12 at 1:52 pm
Every day, more and more the PM of Australia is less and less — to how many words applying to the current PM can the suffix “-less” be appended?
Gabriella
1 Nov 12 at 1:57 pm
Not until the lying slapper is in jail.
jupes
1 Nov 12 at 2:06 pm
The PDF documents which Michael Smith has on his website are damning for Gillard – at least from a lawyer’s ethical perspective.
There really can be very little doubt, looking through those documents and the chronology and related entries, that Gillard has some very serious questions to answer.
The fact that the screeching harpy seeks to deflect answering these questions by screeching at the supposed ‘mud-slingers’ of the Coalition pretty much says it all.
Gillard cannot answer these allegations because there is simply no answer that could absolve her, once you look at the documents that are on the public record.
Frankly, I think the lying bogan is finished by this; she just doesn’t know it yet.
Greg J
1 Nov 12 at 2:23 pm
Anyone who just watched Question Time would agree with you Greg.
Lew
1 Nov 12 at 3:07 pm
The current Prime Minister of Australia is corrupt.
This is new I think.
I cant think of another PM who was genuinely corrupt.
Gough was stupid, not corrupt. I can think of quite a few corrupt premiers off the top of my head, Jack Lang, Asken, Bjelke Petersen, Burke. But they were not PMs.
Jannie
1 Nov 12 at 3:27 pm
Julia tried for a job with this bloke after she left S&G, he was appalled at her lack of ethics..
(If you havent seen breaking bad, this bloke is a highlight)
thefrollickingmole
1 Nov 12 at 3:54 pm
Gillard is getting things squared away for an election in February or March, I think.
She’s taken care of Wilkie with the watered-down gambling legislation, and the other dependents will give her no pain.
This line of questioning from Julie Bishop is really getting to her, and she can’t afford for it to go on much longer—which is why Abbott and team must stay with it, and keep the pressure on right through the break.
The Coalition team, and especially TA, need to take to the campaign trail right through the Christmas/New Year period—no let-up.
Gillard has answered nothing—her press conference /ambush was designed to silence questioners and give her protectors in the MSM something to hang their hats on, when they dutifully try to hose it all down for her, and treat the Australian people like fools.
According to the Age she had at least some role in the conveyancing for the purchase of the property by her boyfriend in Blewitt’s name, so she must surely have known the deposit came from the AWU Association she set up unbeknownst to the AWU—– and that private use of its funds in that way was explicitly precluded—- and she therefore surely must have known what her boyfriend was up to .
She had to have known that her boyfriend was using what were ostensibly AWU funds to purchase a home in which AWU had no title—all unbeknownst to the AWU.
A reasonable person would be likely to conclude that she knew at that point that the law was being broken with her help—and that she –a lawyer—failed to inform the police of a serious offence having been committed.
Police would possibly have asked awkward questions about her part in the apparent deception that allowed the association to be set up in WA in the first place.
They might want to know why Ian Cambridge , despite his calls for a Royal commission into the scam and the AWU—–was suddenly moved to just drop his very strong concerns after a group of Union officials, including Bill Shorten were sent a letter [ recorded in Victorian Hansard, 1996]—–that declared that he must be stopped….
The letter reminds those receiving it [ including Shorten]………
‘As we have discussed, you know as well as I do that if Cambridge is not stopped we are all history.’
And so he was stopped, and fortuitously was given a job on the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, and then later was fortunate enough to find himself appointed by the Gillard government to FWA.
Some of the people who know the truth about Gillard and her former lover, have found that their careers take lucrative turns— surprising leaps of fortune to plum jobs in the Labor-controlled institutions.
It’s a wonder Bruce Morton Wilson’s not in parliament!
truth
1 Nov 12 at 11:52 pm
I guess anyone who actually has a life doesn’t watch Question Time, but I watch it now every day in the vain hope that SOMETHING will happen to please me….But …
One of the things that really pisses me off about Question Time is those bloody Dorothy Dixers. And then to top it off they always then, ask as supplementary, which I suppose is a form of filibuster.
Question Time is only one hour for a few weeks of the year. It should be there to hold the Government to account, an opportunity for democracy to be seen in action – by putting the Government to test.
In actual fact the Opposition only get 30 seconds to ask a question – approximately 6 of them
This then means the Government gets to make a longish speech about how stupid the Opposition is and then prattle on for ages without actually answering anything.
And another thing, when one of the Independents ask a question it is taken as the Oppositions turn and then it is the turn of the Government again!
And when one of the Government Minister’s answering time is up, they just sit down as they are not then required to actually answer a question, even if being directed to do so by the Speaker during their response.
Scuse the rant…..
Winnedge
2 Nov 12 at 2:05 am
The fact that the screeching harpy seeks to deflect answering these questions by screeching at the supposed ‘mud-slingers’ of the Coalition pretty much says it all.
Certainly does. Caught a snippet of QT and was amazed. Still waiting for the MSM to jump on this.
Coalition needs to be careful here because I think the public is getting tired of the yelling. That JB was leading the charge suggests Abbott has been informed to avoid the aggression stance. I was wondering if the heat should be turned on Slater & Gordon. Get Gillard through the backdoor.
Dead Soul
2 Nov 12 at 2:11 am
The worst of the lot at following the direction of the speaker, inter alia, is the PM; even when finally instructed to be relevant by the partisan and inept speaker, she usually says something like, “I am being relevant, Speaker”*, and then resumes her shrill, irrelevant rant from the point she was halted.
* Following the PM, since the fall of Slipper, all Government members now address the speaker baldly as “Speaker” instead of “Madam Speaker”.
Deadman
2 Nov 12 at 2:15 am