Graham,

As you pointed out, this scandal was not raised by the coalition, but by the unions and then pursued by the media, with the coalition tagging on at the end.

And Abbott got no kudos for pursuing this. However, given that one of the points of the attack was to tie Gillard, Labor, and union corruption together and expose daily in the media. Especially given Labor's prominent pursuit of popular policies such as the NDIS etc, to see a collapse in the polls would indicate that there was more than a little success.

Graham, I think that your thoughtful analysis is sound, and I wouldn't argue with it. Don't forget the contributions of Labor stalwarts Robert McClelland, Ian Cambridge and Bob Kernohan to this issue - all profound.

There is, however, another elephant in the room here that could be causing intense pressure for JEG. The investigative journalists (Hedley Thomas, Mark Baker, Michael Smith, Grace Collier and writer Harry Nowicki) are digging hard and unearthing all kinds of documents. There is a real risk that their digging will reveal the much bigger issue that lies behind the AWU WRF issue - that is, the practice of contracting and construction companies paying off union officials to gain industrial "peace". It would seem that Grollo's experiences in Melbourne could be to do with their unwillingness to play that game, whereas other companies have been somewhat more pragmatic.

If I am correct, then I think that a lot of people might be keen to see JEG get the AWU WRF issue off the front pages, especially going into an election year. That could be why the Coalition placed so much emphasis on it during question time in the last week of sitting.

A good analysis overall Graham.

The Coalition's pursuit of this matter may have had more weight or been seen as legitimate if handled differently without the strident and sometimes hysterical attacks in parliament and in the media.

It was difficult I think for people to see the AWA attacks as separate from other issues. Like public perceptions of 'the Noalition' and 'right to rule' behaviours, 'no policies' and some dodgy rhetoric on the Carbon Tax. Thus the attacks were seen as part of some wider aggression towards the minority government.

There clearly was something wrong with the AWU fund but doubts still centre around the extent to which JG was involved. JG certainly acted secretively in deciding not to open a file and being intimately connected with the client as a conflict of interest.

I do think people care about the integrity of their leaders but proving it is another matter and in many cases a dogged pursuit does not always mean there is anything to find and can place the attacked in the position of underdog if pursued too rabidly or vehemently.

On this and other issues, specifically the misogynist rant, Gillard is showing a strident triumphalism that is a poor look. Her main strength is Abbott's equally poor look.
There's not a great deal between them, confected outrage notwithstanding.
I foresee another informal ballot coming up, unless either side can offer a leader worth voting for.

Three probably minor points Graham

'Indeed, making allegations and failing to substantiate them can blow-back on the accuser,...

Is there any evidence of this in your stats in relation to the 'misogynist' attacks?

I think the coalition is building up to a painting of the union movement as generally corrupt and wasteful of members funds with the intent of negating any union campaign similar to the 'Your Rights at Work'.

Any suspect connect between Gillard and Unions would help.

Abbott attacking Gillard personally would have been viewed as 'beating up' on a woman. I thought Abbotts tactics effectively negated that and Gillard's tactics lacking judgement. Abbott slow to become involved, using Bishop as the shock troop, and finally laying out the explicit caseagainst Gillard in the house after her invitation to do so. Gillard evasive and fudging media performances and then giving Abbott an opportunity to state his case formally in the House.

Let me preference my remarks with the revelation, that I never have and never will vote Labour, while ever an independent stands!
Well, here we go again, with the same tired and boring, same old same old.
There is a thing called client confidentiality Graham, and its probably more sacred than a journalist's right to refuse to reveal sources.
And that does take some integrity, moral courage and testicular fortitude, and at times, contempt of court/jail time!
Lawyers and journos have at least one thing in common, they rarely if ever, get to choose who they associate with, in the course of pursuing their career objectives!
Julia was duped and betrayed by a person she trusted implicitly. And that betrayal cost her, her partnership and lucrative career! Isn't that enough?
As for the union thing, where is the evidence of any actual wrong doing.
One can imply many things from a document, that tells very little, except say, a Lawyer was following the clients' explicit instructions!
We all of us have a past, and things we would do very differently, if we but had our time over, knowing what we know now.
Should any of us be expected to pay and pay, over and over for the mistakes we made, when younger and less wise?
And some of those mistakes or lessons, have been very costly; and or, put some steel in the spine?
[They say, what doesn't kill you, just makes you stronger.]
And then we have those two exceptional press conferences, where the Prime Minister of the land, answered every legitimate question levelled at her, by at times, a patently partisan press?
I would have instructed them to go visit the nearest taxidermist!
More of the same partisan puerile muck raking here Graham? Enough already!
Evidence Graham, evidence not more of the same patently biased conjecture?
This feeding frenzy is now only harming the coalition and its prospects?
Rhrosty.