Essential: voters support WikiLeaks and Assange, attack Gillard’s stance
|
Most Australians support the release of the WikiLeaks cables, say that Julian Assange should receive legal support, and are critical of the federal government’s rhetoric on the issue, new polling reveals. And support for Assange and the diplomatic document leaks is largely uniform across party lines, with Labor and Coalition voters approving the right of WikiLeaks to release the highly sensitive information. A weekly online poll from Essential Research found more than half of voters approve of the release of the cables (33% approve; 20% strongly approve), compared to a quarter who expressed concern (14% disapprove; 11% strongly). Support for WikiLeaks was, not surprisingly, highest among Greens voters (80% total approval) but still strong across party lines — 55% of Labor voters approve in total compared to 51% of Liberal/National supporters. Disapproval ratings were the same (30% in total) across both sides of politics.
There is similar levels of support for Assange, the bailed WikiLeaks founder who faces r-pe allegations in Sweden and the prospect of espionage charges under US law. Half of respondents say Assange should receive support and assistance from the Australian government if he is charged with an offence — 76% of Greens voters, 52% of Labor voters and 50% of conservatives. About a quarter of those polled believe Assange shouldn’t receive legal and consular support — 29% Labor and 27% among Coalition voters. Support for Assange manifests in criticism of the government’s handling of the issue. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has called the WikiLeaks dump “grossly irresponsible” and “illegal”, apparently isolating the majority of Australians who support WikiLeaks. Asked about the government’s response, 46% were critical (27% disapprove; 19% strongly disapprove) compared to 32% who back Gillard’s rhetoric. Criticism comes mostly from Greens voters (66% disapprove) and Coalition supporters (54%), but resentment is still high among Labor voters — 38% disapprove of the stance compared to 45% who support the government.
But the controversy doesn’t appear to have harmed overall support for the government, which is still slumped four points behind the Coalition in two-party preferred polling (48%:52%) but no worse than its position a week ago. Primary support for Labor actually jumped a point (38%) to be eight points behind the Coalition (46%). Gillard did see a slight rise in her personal disapproval numbers over the past month, up two points to 40%. More voters still approve of her performance, which is steady on 43%. Tony Abbott leveled out with a one-point dip in his approval and disapproval — both running at 39%. And there was no change in the better PM stakes — 45% still rate Gillard a better manager than Abbott on 34%. Voters generally are optimistic about the new year. They contend the economy will improve (48% say it will be a “good” year for the economy compared to 16% who worry it will be “poor”) along with their personal financial situation (38% “good”; 20% “poor”). But it’s unlikely to be a positive year for Labor, voters believe — 40% believe 2011 will be “poor” for the government and the Liberal Party will have a better year (35% “good”; 18% “poor”). Poll responders were also asked about nuclear power — and demonstrated little more support for the cleaner energy source than they did almost a year earlier. More people still support the use of nuclear power than oppose its use, but the 43% approval figure hasn’t budged since the question was asked in late January. Opposition firmed slightly, with 37% against nuclear power compared to 35% in January.
|
|
|
|
13 Comments
I certainly hope that the wikileaks soap opera apart is stirring you all into asking the question, why we are paying for these clowns ( 3 tiers of government and various assorted quangos ) inevitably to follow the agenda of the highest bidder / corporation / or dominant regional sociopolitical bias and to lie to us about their motives and methods.
This is the the current business of government , you got to love it.
What I find so interesting in these figures is the clear merging of opinion between Left & Right of politics.
It is also a very clear rebuttal of media information.
The populace want facts and they don’t get that from Crikey or News or Fairfax or ABC or etc.
Long Live Assange!! And may his rising signal the downfall of mainstream media who wouldn’t know fact from fiction.
VIVA ASSANGE !!
@LOVETHEBUZZ - Why indeed? Did you hear the latest on ABC PM? Joe Biden is carrying on a treat, pushing the espionage buttons etc. Poor dear, now he’s being told by foreign ministers etc around the world, that they only want to talk to him without the office staff etc diplomats etc? Poor dear, now he has to take notes I suppose? Rather demeaning for a vice pres no doubt? Now he might have to earn his keep - do some work! His stance re espionage is, that if Julian asked? someone in the military to pass on secret records etc, it’s worse than just reporting them? Truly! No wonder the yanks earn their reputation for being ignorant and thick? Are they so far up themselves that they lose all sense of reality in the world the rest of us live in?
I can’t wait for Wikileaks to get up to 2001? ‘Behind closed doors’ and ‘the road to war’ and the Iraq war, lies and statistics? WMD’s and the Downing Street Memo, not to mention AWB! Hurry up julian!
@MICHAEL - I’ll drink to that! Are you the same Michael having a go at me on another post? About being a “hater” or is there more than one of you?
I’m astonished at the VP’s comments. Obviously he can be a bit of a loose canon, but either he’s got something in the bag so the words are a real warning shot to Wikileaks - or this a spectacularly foolish instance of verbal incontinence which will bring down the Administration’s generally dignified public stance so far.
Look at Rupert’s flagship mouthpiece for the opinion article by Julian Assange by Brendan O’Neill. His comment that “WIDE-EYED, unquestioning worship of Julian Assange is embarrassing and creepy.” could well have been applied to the years when the Murdoch press repeatedly expressed WIDE-EYED, unquestioning worship of George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and the WMD assertions.
I feel that Congresswoman Dillard should be called Pinnacio, her nose is definitely getting bigger every-time she lies, which is often.
Her loyalty to an Australian citizen, is straight out of the WHITEHOUSE
Anybody whingeing about the release of confidential information is clutching at straws for a reason to complain. 3 million people had access to this stuff. That is nearly 1 in every 100 Americans. This information was common knowledge that just wasn’t commonly distributed.
When you share a secret, it is no longer a secret. When you share a secret with 3 million people, it is ludicrous to then suggest it remains a secret. Politicians insult peoples’ intelligence when they make this claim. Tough luck if a nation, banker or corporation is seen to look like liars or at the very least, misinformants.
The Australian banking system nearly collapsed in 2008. Two Australian banks secured a secret loan from the US Federal Reserve. National Australia Bank borrowed USD$4.5 billion from the US Federal Reserve during 2008 and 2009. Westpac Bank needed USD$1.09 billion in 2008 and 2009. This information only now became available after the Dodd/Frank bill was passed in the US.
Without the direct financial support of the US Federal Reserve, Westpac and NAB would have gone belly up. Taxpayers would have to have funded the banks debt. If that information had been made available to the shareholders or the public, do you really think the Gillard Govt. would have clawed its’ way back into power?
For corroborating evidence, download the excel file here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_taf.htm.
Q: Based on the foregoing, who does Gillard & her Govt. take orders from?
A: The US Govt. MalAdministration.
In Conclusion: If US Attorney General Eric Holder say WikiLeaks is “illegal” then Gillard & McClelland must also say WikiLeaks is “illegal”.
Henry Kissinger once said “Corrupt politicians make the other 10% look bad.”
Follow the Money & May the Leaks be with You.
(check out how much the Swedish Central Bank borrowed & ask yourself who do they take orders from.)
Joe Biden claims WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a “high-tech terrorist”. (Yawn.)
Move over Sarah Pailin, there is a new contender for the title of Patron Saint of Low IQ Americans.
Joe is not too bright … well dressed, but not bright.
@Chokes: “3 million people had access to this stuff. That is nearly 1 in every 100 Americans…”
Evidence please.
MLF pedantically enquires for ‘evidence’ … .
Your attention please:-
‘More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked “protect” or “strictly protect”.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis
and there’s more where that came from …
Let Assange combatively “crush the bastards” he will probably encounter during his thirty years at the prison farm where he’ll be relieved that, like him, nobody will ever use a condom.
Cripes! Yes peace on earth and good will to man , lucky he isn’t a woman or you would let her have both barrels I expect.
@Chokes - cheers for taking the time to reply.
If it is pedantic to want to ensure that statements like “anybody whingeing about the release of confidential information is clutching at straws for a reason to complain. 3 million people had access to this stuff. That is nearly 1 in every 100 Americans. This information was common knowledge that just wasn’t commonly distributed,” are based in fact before I or others potentially taken them on board to form opinions - then I am pedantic. So be it. I am happy with the label.
Your reference to The Guardian story doesn’t satisfy in that regard. I had read those numbers too - but what I also noted was “potential access access to the material,” and further:
“Within that staggering number of security-cleared individuals, a much smaller number would have a role which allowed them to access Siprnet. And in theory there are built-in safeguards.” Also “a state department spokesman today refused to say exactly how many people had access to Siprnet.” (guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-america-stores-secret-cables)