Perhaps the Tag-Team could look beyond piddly misunderstandings about whether or not Abbott read a statement by Kloppers or a statement by BHP, and was a bit befuddled at the end of a typically long day, to honestly try to weigh up the difference between being unclear about reading something, and being unclear about setting up a $ 200,000 slush fund with workers' union dues, that somehow translates into a house for your boyfriend.

Did Julia set up a folder/file for the paperwork in relation to her boyfriend's slush fund, i.e. the house that he lived in, or not ? Did she ever live in it with him ?

Did she attend the auction at which the said house, a.k.a. Workplace Reform Association or whatever, was purchased, or not ? Did she oversee the paperwork of the land broker, the real estate agents, the banks involved, the Land Titles Office, etc., or not ?

Did she smell a rat early on, and if not why not ? Did she think to enquire into the proposed activities of the WRA, and how they meshed with the purchase of a house for her boyfriend, who was in charge of the fund ?

If she did, why didn't she seek the advice of more senior partners ?

To whom did she hand over all her paperwork in relation to the WRA ?

Question: who owns that house now ? If it was worth $ 200,000 back in 1993, what is it worth now ?

Equate Abbott's faulty memory with a $ 200,000 deal all you like. I don't think they are equivalent.

Tag ! You're it !

Loudmouth I expect better from you.
First the two slugs did not handle union funds.
They told donors but not the union it was for the union.
So the stole it!
Such slush funds exist, you can bet even now.
Usually called a health and safety fund they are in part spent on union members, in part.
The Union found out and informed the police and other authoritys, forcing the grubs to leave.
Gullible Gillard, at best, was doing what this closely linked union legal firm still does.
Free work she says was not recorded, it usually is not.
Not sure if she knew, and no fan of hers.
But my reason for expecting better from you? we differ in our politics but you do so with fairness,and the information we have, so far, seems to say no evidence exists she profited ever.
I want her gone,do not trust or believe her, but 17 years?
IF information to convict her of anything exists why has it taken this long?

Poirot,

Just popping Abbott out of the picture for a moment - are you honestly saying that this lying, vacuous, sloganeering, foot-in-mouth pollie is the best Australia can put up as a leader?

Sad really....

SM,

That's one of your best posts....but then I think I've read something similar somewhere before - so perhaps you lose marks for originality.

(I'll let you off slightly because I know you're super pissed off today because Julia has gained in the polls)

Poirot,

(I'll let you off slightly because I know you're super pissed off today because Labor has lost yet another state.)

I am always amused when I see a troll in a blog calling an eminent leader or thinker (sometimes with a Nobel prize) an idiot. Here you are doing the same to a Rhodes Scholar to whom I doubt you (or any Labor MP) could hold a candle.

As to Abbott's performance, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just compare Abbott's tenure compared with that darling of the labour left Turnbull. When in early 2010 TA took over the leadership, Labor was on a 2pp of 54%, and they were celebrating, as they thought TA was a bumbling idiot. They made the same stupid mistake you are making now.

You label a poster a "troll" if they disagree with your take on the marvelous Tony...excellent modus operandi.

Sorry, mate, being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't automatically designate one as a politician of substance. When Tony demonstrates to me that he isn't as vacuous as he appears, I'll take more of an interest.