The Essential Vision research published today has some incongruous results on the Julia Gillard union scandals etc.
Taking the past two weeks, the voting intentions show two party preferred at 53-47 for the Coalition with the ALP gaining a little ground, not statistically significant, at the expense of the Greens.
Drilling down to the AWU issue, Essential finds that 38 per cent are more negative to Julia Gillard as a result of the Opposition’s “slime and sleaze” campaign, including 64 per cent of Coalition voters but only 9 per cent of ALP supporters. Those who had heard a lot about the issue tended to be more negative to the PM. Only 11 per cent were more positive to the PM as a result of the issue (22 per cent of ALP voters and 4 per cent of ALP voters).
On the other hand, reflections on how Julia Gillard and the Opposition had handled the issue tended to see the former in a far more favourable light.
Perceptions Julia Gillard The Opposition
Total Good 39% 35%
Total Poor 20% 49%
Even among coalition voters, one third of those registering an opinion did not think it had been handled well. Julia’s lavish use of scorn and rhetoric clearly cuts ice among large swathes of voters
The Galaxy polling published over the weekend was rather less favourable to the PM. According to Samantha Maiden, 1015 people surveyed across Australia on Thursday and Friday nights, 31 per cent said she lied and 31 per cent said she was economical with the truth.
Among Coalition voters, 81 per cent believe the Prime Minister should explain herself over the AWU affair with a statement to Parliament. That compared with 36 per cent of Labor voters.
?
What a bullshit ‘question.’
In any event, there’s no joy in it for Labor. This response strongly suggests that voters believe the Coalition should have done a better job of pursuing Gillard’s lies and dodginess and wish they had done so. That’s ominous for Gillard, not Abbott.
C.L.
3 Dec 12 at 5:26 pm
The AWU scandal will continue to throb harder than a viagran epileptic’s heart on steroids.
If this doesn’t electorally kill her off by September the news that they missed the surplus target will.
Splatacrobat
3 Dec 12 at 5:31 pm
I presume thats 22% of ALP voters and 4% LNP?
I dont think the Libs have handed this well, but I still dont support the ALP.
Jannie
3 Dec 12 at 5:33 pm
Samantha Maiden?
The women who was so keen to believe Barbara Ramjan that she put into print the supposed “killer evidence” and was found to be a shrill Abbott hater with no evidence or credibility:
Token
3 Dec 12 at 5:34 pm
What is truly regrettable in this is the slow destruction of the Westminster system.
We now have an ugly precedent where a minister can refuse to answer questions without any national interest reason being cited. Questions are dismissed simply because, it is said, the opposition can’t prove wrongdoing.
A sad time for open government. Virtually every democracy in the world has some form of the right of interpellation, but it seems no longer in Australia.
We can’t let this erosion stand. Black letter law in this area would be regrettable, but may be necessary to get it back. I hope Abbott sees the problem as bad enough to act in future.
2dogs
3 Dec 12 at 5:38 pm
Just wait for public reaction when she rejects the judicial inquiry by pulling the victim card. “Abbott, right wing bloggers and the misogynist nut jobs have a vendetta against me with their campaign of sleaze, smear and negativity.” The slapper can plug the dyke with that one for while, but not forever.
In the meantime more evidence and witnesses will surface, especially with the police investigation bubbling along. It’s just a matter of time. The longer it plays out the bigger the stench around Gillard.
Oblique
3 Dec 12 at 5:50 pm
2dogs, don’t forget Peter Beattie passed a law which reversed the provision that it was illegal to lie to parliament.
One of the first things Campbell Newman did was reverse that, thankfully. It is now against the law to lie to the QLD parliament again.
But don’t expect any of the love media to bring up that little nugget any time soon.
On the poll, I agree with CL : without a more/less question, the ‘did they do it right’ is meaningless. Half might have thought they went too far, the other half might have thought they didn’t go far enough.
brc
3 Dec 12 at 5:55 pm
What the hell does that even mean?
C.L.
3 Dec 12 at 6:03 pm
What has giving one to Penny got to do Gillard stalling an inquiry?
Splatacrobat
3 Dec 12 at 6:24 pm
It means I am one of the third of coalition supporters who dont think the Libs have handled it well. It seems to be a bit of an anti climax, which is how Labor wants to portray it. They also seem to be intimidated by the sexist and misogyny thing, which just irritates me as abandoned ground.
I dont think the Libs are handling it well at all, its a lost opportunity, but that clearly does not translate into support for the ALP.
Jannie
3 Dec 12 at 6:28 pm
I was trying to be subtle .
Oblique
3 Dec 12 at 6:36 pm
I guess we know now why Thomson and Slipper were protected.
The Dependents were worried about setting a “dangerous precedent”. Labor more concerned about setting a precedent for accountability.
ar
3 Dec 12 at 7:01 pm
Doesn`t the crook on TV always say “Go ahead and prove it!“
Viva
3 Dec 12 at 7:02 pm
49% of Liberal members reckoned they didn’t go hard enough…
Forester
3 Dec 12 at 7:05 pm
How can people accurately judge how well the Coalition has handled this issue when the coverage has been so thoroughly distorted by media bias?
It isn’t a matter of seeking favourable coverage for the Coalition or overly critical coverage of the Government. It’s a matter of having facts reported, separate to analysis. Instead, large swathes of the media chose to ignore the whole issue or openly barrack for the Government.
When you take into account the amount of time this whole issue has taken to slowly bubble to the surface in drip feed fashion, most of which went unreported, the Coalition has been largely restrained and measured. It is open to debate as to whether mistakes were made or their extent, however it is certain that Abbott’s team has handled itself better than Turnbull’s team during Utegate and the Grech affair.
Lloyd
3 Dec 12 at 7:26 pm
Alternatively, The oppostions lavish use of slime and made up claims clearly cuts no ice among larger swathes of voters
SteveC
3 Dec 12 at 7:32 pm
Azazel…
There we go.
Now, she made the slime, they just picked it up and threw it.
.
3 Dec 12 at 7:34 pm
Something an inquiry will easily solve, SteveC. You support one , right? That way the slapper and the union movement would be found above board.
JC
3 Dec 12 at 7:37 pm
Moving forward, moving forward, moving forward….
Working families, working families, working families..
Relentless negativity, relentless negativity, relentless negativity…
Smear and sleaze, smear and sleaze, smear and sleaze.
She doesn’t even have the self-awareness to know how completely moronic she sounds. It is beyond my comprehension that anyone can consider her worthy of the office she holds.
Tracey
3 Dec 12 at 7:53 pm
Don’t forget this little gem: clean energy fewchar
Splatacrobat
3 Dec 12 at 8:02 pm
Then they are idiots.
Gillard’s performance in parliament was utterly disgraceful and seriously degrading to her position as PM. She left all dignity behind. She rarely answered a question, using bluster, abuse and obfuscation instead. She clearly had something to hide.
Blind Freddy could see that.
Anyone who found her performance believable, has to be a moron.
jupes
3 Dec 12 at 8:14 pm
and that was not limited to questions about AWUgate.
Gab
3 Dec 12 at 8:19 pm
Enter the steves, fat boy and one or two others.
JC
3 Dec 12 at 8:21 pm
An inquiry that cleared Gillard would destroy Abbott and Bishop, leader and deputy gone just like that. How could the ALP not go with such a gift? What’s the ALP Troll spin on that?”. I feel like a little amusement.
Honesty
3 Dec 12 at 8:23 pm
Exactly; tu quoque; Gillard says you can’t prove anything; call her a liar and when she objects say prove us wrong.
cohenite
3 Dec 12 at 8:55 pm
The AWU-WRA is too complex an issue for the average voter, who I’m sad to say, likely reads only headlines or newsgrabs. Gaining a full understanding of the issue has to compete against distractions like sport, reality television programs, driving the kids to endless afterschool activities, prepping for Christmas, end of year parties, shopping, cooking, bathing the kids etc.
The Coalition needs to distill the entire AWU-WRA issue down to a digestable short paragraph that can be further distilled into a Twitter feed, headlines, or interjected into press conferences as a complete paragraph.
Perhaps the paragraph could be something along the lines of:
In the 1990′s, Gillard as a Solicitor was allegedly instrumental in setting up an illegal Association, which enabled her AWU union official lover to extort money from construction companies who paid money into the illegal Association, thinking their money was going to help pay for workplace safety training; however the money deposited into the Association bank account was used for non-Union purposes, including laundering the money via the deposit on a property in Victoria.
A Lurker
3 Dec 12 at 9:09 pm
Political scandals frequently have intricate details and rest on matters of law, finance and so on, yet they can often still get traction. If they’re complex it does take longer to get traction, but traction can nonetheless be got.
Even something as complex as this has a few basic, easy-to-grasp elements at the heart of it. The story has shady unionists, affairs, dodgy associations and bank accounts, bags full of cash, and shonky lawyers. Ingredients for a classic scandal.
dd
3 Dec 12 at 9:19 pm
In the 1990′s, Gillard as a Solicitor was
allegedlyinstrumental in setting up an illegal Association…Let’s be accurate.
jupes
3 Dec 12 at 9:57 pm
Not forgetting the cast and crew of the ALPBC.
Damn their oily hides.
Carpe Jugulum
3 Dec 12 at 10:01 pm
.
I’m now really confused.
Has the Finance Minister been invited to the Lodge For a “party” with Tim Flamnery and his new “research assistant”?
Leigh Lowe
3 Dec 12 at 10:04 pm
Another slogan:
During the HSU scandal, whose side was Gillard on, the union members or the bloke ripping them off?
Roll the tape “I have full confidence in the member for Dobell”.
During the AWU WRA scandal, whose side was Gillard on, the union members or the bloke ripping them off?
Roll the tape of a picture of Wilson.
Labor the party for the union official.
jupes
3 Dec 12 at 10:06 pm
DD I agree. It’s what Paul Keating has wanted articulated for the ALP! a narrative. Now they have it self-interest, corruption and deceit. Everything feeds into it, NSW Right, Obeid, Carbon Tax, Slipper, Craig Thompson etc. over time and particularly in a campaign you won’t have to understand the detail. Every week there will be an investigation, a charge, a new allegation, that’s the narrative. Moreover it will be just like Qld, feels like there could be a chance but come poll day it will be pay back day. How sweet it will be to do them slowly.
Honesty
3 Dec 12 at 10:09 pm
Smith should just RSAnimate the thing. A couple of million hits might achieve some cut through. And get 60 mins to run it as a segment. And have them report on the apoplectic phone call they get in their locked bag summary.
Rousie
3 Dec 12 at 10:10 pm
The bullshit throw-away line in the original report by Smanfa Maiden was that “a majority of voters said they wouldn’t change their vote as a result of this issue”.
The majority was 56%.
Well …… duh!
So …. the 40% of Coalition voters are not voting ALP after her shenigans with the AWU. Surprise, surprise!
And there is a core of about 15% of rusted on ALP/Greens drones who would vote for her even if they discovered the remains of the Beaumont children in her Unley backyard.
If a mere 5% change their vote over this issue she is toast.
Leigh Lowe
3 Dec 12 at 10:13 pm
I don’t believe they believe Gillard’s spin. They are being wilfully deceitful.
Note they can be very thorough when looking for evidence to excuse Gillard e.g. Brandis’ press conference. However, they couldn’t see the evidence against Gillard even if it was stapled to their forehead.
They just aren’t looking, hoping it will go away.
jupes
3 Dec 12 at 10:14 pm
It really isn’t that complicated.. as Jupes says.. distill it down to its essence.
Slogan #4 – What happened to the bereavment fund in Kalgoorlie that Gillard personally vouched for when miners suspected Wilson was dodgy?
Slogan #5 – why didn’t you alert the authorities when you knew money was being siphoned?
duncanm
3 Dec 12 at 10:28 pm
Abbott may have been right that “It’s not about gender; it’s about character”, but the tape clearly shows that the stronger, more ethical character of the two in relation to the issues raised by Abbott was Gillard. Abbot’s failure to apologise after clearly over-reaching and accusing Gillard of criminal behaviour, without the evidence, deserves condemnation from all. Unbecoming conduct indeed.
Yet what do we get on Catallaxy? Nothing more that an attempt to divert attention by switching from the rights and wrongs to race calling. “How is it playing out among the punters?” “Will this dent the Liberals’ lead?” “To what extent have last week’s events been reflected in the polls?”
Spare us the faux objectivity – you guys are so hopelessly incapable of balanced analysis that any attempt to portray yourselves along those lines is inevitably as transparent as it is risible.
William Bragg
3 Dec 12 at 10:56 pm
Bullshit and lies.
She is a criminal.
.
3 Dec 12 at 10:59 pm
Err… wut?
Brian of Moorabbin
3 Dec 12 at 11:03 pm
You’re so high up on your high horse you’ve got a fucking nosebleed.
wreckage
4 Dec 12 at 12:42 am
Frankly, Abbott letting Bishop take the reigns on this defanged the only real reply Gillard had, which was to boldly ride forth against sexism. (Which she had to do, and do really really well, or die horribly over the Slipper matter.)
Julie Bishop has been controlled and intense, I knew she had a good rep as a rep, but I had no idea she was this much of a killer.
wreckage
4 Dec 12 at 12:59 am
I read all the comments here with some amazement Can anyone tell me what questions the PM still has to answer?
Abbott and Bishop can’t!! All they say is “she has questions to answer”. She has not been found guilty of anything, and that means INNOCENT. Something the coalition doesn’t understand. However Abbott has a lot of questions to answer about his own slush fund.
KOKO
4 Dec 12 at 1:59 am
What is truly regrettable in this is the slow destruction of the Westminster system.
We now have an ugly precedent where a minister can refuse to answer questions without any national interest reason being cited. Questions are dismissed simply because, it is said, the opposition can’t prove wrongdoing.
Innocent till proven guilty. The opposition can’t come up with anything. They have nothing (zero). Just slur and smear
KOKO
4 Dec 12 at 2:04 am
What is truly regrettable in this is the slow destruction of the Westminster system.
We now have an ugly precedent where a minister can refuse to answer questions without any national interest reason being cited. Questions are dismissed simply because, it is said, the opposition can’t prove wrongdoing.
The opposition can’t come up with anything. They have nothing (zero). Just slur and smear
KOKO
4 Dec 12 at 2:05 am
The Clown?
Jannie
4 Dec 12 at 10:15 am
KOKO
Gillard is guilty. Piss off.
.
4 Dec 12 at 10:20 am
Reading from Jock McSporrans talking point memo you dribbler.
Carpe Jugulum
4 Dec 12 at 10:22 am
Crimes were committed in Slushgate.
This is now proven.
There is no argument about that.
C.L.
4 Dec 12 at 10:25 am
You’ve got to be fucking joking.
Lloyd
4 Dec 12 at 10:27 am
KOKO – is that an anagram for KOOK?
dianeh
4 Dec 12 at 1:00 pm
”
I read all the comments here with some amazement Can anyone tell me what questions the PM still has to answer?”
I suppose for starters, one question is why Ms Gillard didn’t open a file in the way that 99.9% of other lawyers would for the “work” she was doing for their big client AWU.
candy
4 Dec 12 at 1:08 pm
Candy
KOKO isnt really interested in knowing what the actual questions are.
But about that file. Mark Latham said that Gillard didnt need to open a file as there was no charge. That excuse is pathetic. Regardless of whether it was paid work, there was clearly a conflict of interest, that required the work was approved by the partners. Latham also said that there was no conflict of interest as there was no financial aspect to it. He seriously said that on Agenda on Sunday.
I think as a country we should thank our lucky stars that Latham was never elected PM.
dianeh
4 Dec 12 at 1:47 pm
Koko asked at 1:59 am:
She can start with these:
Was ANY slush fund money used to pay for her renovations? That is not answered by her repeating that she paid her renovations. No one is saying that she paid nothing for them.
She can also answer the question as to whether she was present when Blewitt signed over POA to Wilson, Yes or No?
She can also tell us about the letter to the WA commissioner rather than gloating that her opponents can’t produce it now that records of it have disappeared from two places. She’s too clever by half.
With that and other questions, if she has nothing to hide, she can stop acting like she has.
Sean McHugh
4 Dec 12 at 2:05 pm
Oh gosh. That sounds really serious!
wreckage
4 Dec 12 at 2:16 pm
Sean, why don’t you read the interview transcript before showing your stupidity:
Was ANY slush fund money used to pay for her renovations? That is not answered by her repeating that she paid her renovations. No one is saying that she paid nothing for them.
SteveC
4 Dec 12 at 10:54 pm
She is lying. Abbot has accused her of fraud and she cannot even be bothered suing him.
.
4 Dec 12 at 10:58 pm
Sean McHugh, I think Gillard was referring to you when she said:
SteveC
4 Dec 12 at 11:02 pm
Steves;
how did the 5G hit her account and why?
JC
4 Dec 12 at 11:03 pm
FIFY
wreckage
4 Dec 12 at 11:07 pm
JC
She is confident she paid herself $5000 for entirely innocent purposes she cannot remember.
Anyway
She ripped off orphans and widows anyway, on top of the AWURA scam.
.
4 Dec 12 at 11:08 pm
Why did Gillard actively deceive the WA gov agency over the intention of the slush fund?
Token
4 Dec 12 at 11:13 pm
Because it is fraud Token, and she is a felon.
.
4 Dec 12 at 11:17 pm
Like Clinton arguing over what “is” means.
Yes she “paid”, but no-one asked if the sourced any funds from her boyfriend for any reason.
Token
4 Dec 12 at 11:21 pm
How do you know 5G hit her account?
SteveC
4 Dec 12 at 11:27 pm
Either you are stupid or are paid by the ALP to troll.
.
4 Dec 12 at 11:33 pm
dot, same question. How do you know 5G hit her account?
SteveC
4 Dec 12 at 11:37 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/whistleblower-wayne-hem-alerted-awus-national-secretary-to-5000-payment-to-julia-gillard/story-fng5kxvh-1226516225346
A UNION employee who was concerned about wrongdoing told the national head of the Australian Workers Union in June 1996 that he deposited about $5000 cash into Julia Gillard’s bank account at the request of her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson.
The disclosure by Wayne Hem forms part of a contemporaneous and confidential 150-plus-page diary that was kept by the then AWU joint national secretary, Ian Cambridge, now a Fair Work Australia commissioner.
The 1994-96 diary, which recounts hitherto unknown numerous events and conversations during the AWU fraud scandal, has been obtained and its authenticity verified by The Australian.
That’s fucking why, you stooge.
.
4 Dec 12 at 11:48 pm
And he’s stuck to his story adamantly from the moment he came forward AFAIK.
John Mc
5 Dec 12 at 12:06 am
Saying one is “confident” is not the same as saying one is 100% sure. Having confidence is only stating a high chance of probability of something occurring and leaves wiggle room if your statement proves to be inaccurate.
“I have full confidence in the Member for Dobell”
“I am confident that these measures will smash the people smuggler’s business model”
“I have full confidence in the Speaker”
Splatacrobat
5 Dec 12 at 7:54 am
I get it. You know, because some unknown union stooge said so 20 years ago. Irrefutable. Stick to Econ dot, your legal nouse is fucked.
SteveC
5 Dec 12 at 10:10 pm
Nous, not nouse, you had to have several legal concepts explained to you recently.
Hem signed an affidavit, Gillard won’t answer questions.
She could release a redacted bank statement from back then to clarify.
.
5 Dec 12 at 10:13 pm
Are we talking about Ramjan and that fictitious wall punch?
Gab
5 Dec 12 at 10:19 pm
If you still have 1995 bank statements there’s something wrong with you, most likely OCD.
SteveC
6 Dec 12 at 12:20 am
Good point Gab, an equally reliable testimony to Hem’s.
SteveC
6 Dec 12 at 12:20 am
SteveC said at 10:54 pm:
Steve, your class is in tune with that of your political defendants.
You quote with emphasis:
You actually throw back at me, supposedly as refutation, the very point I made. What was that word you used to terminate your first sentence? All Gillard is telling us there is that she did at least SOME of the paying. That way, when/if stronger evidence emerges of her having received slush fund benefits, she can say that she didn’t lie.
Telling only safe parts of the truth is exactly what her adviser, John McTernan teaches. The cry-misogyny tactic was also his. These days Labor explores the uncharted deep. Such is their class.
For the reader, Gillard even makes that loophole-providing distinction in the longer section you quoted. She says she believes she paid for all the renovation but is confident she paid an amount of money for renovations.
Both statements are useless, except to her kind. No one is saying she paid nothing, and what she says she believes gives her latitude with whatever is later discovered.
Also keep in mind that, speaking to a journalist, she is not going to be misleading parliament. Why not quote her answers given in parliament?
She says that she can’t remember everything from 17 years ago. We had extensive renovations on our home 24 years ago and I can say categorically that no one else paid for any of the work. I can also say, that if someone had generously paid thousands for any of it, that’s something we would remember. And we aren’t by any means good domestic accountants. Julia Gillard didn’t even have to remember it for 17 years; she only had to remember it for a couple of years, to the time of the highly unusual and ominous recorded interview she had with her legal firm, Gordon and Slater. There is no way on earth she wouldn’t be asking herself how all this would appear, in terms of whether she received any benefits from the fraud.
As for the “reimburse” bit in bold, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never raised that anywhere.
Sean McHugh
6 Dec 12 at 9:50 am
She could ask the bank for them.
.
6 Dec 12 at 9:57 am
I have kept every bank statement from every bank account I have ever owned, and currently own. Some of these statements even go back to the early 1980′s. It is not a great imposition of time to keep paper records, it even does not take up much room (all in a plastic box). I have kept records because I feel it is important to be able to refer back in case something odd happens with a bank account, so I can check back to see if something similar has happened in the past. The fact that Gillard who was a Solicitor, and should know the value of keeping accurate paperwork, did not keep her own bank records, is in my mind, astounding behaviour.
A Lurker
6 Dec 12 at 10:16 am