Dear Mr. Kawker,

Would your friends in the Labor Party have done any different if the shoe was on the other foot?

You are saying, in effect, that because the independents sided with Labor that Mr. Abbott got a fit of pique and decided on a little pay back in the form of non-pairing for the speaker.

Would your side have done different? It's a safe bet not.

I have reservations about your thesis as blind Freddie and his dog could see that Mr. Windsor - a disaffected National, and Mr. Oakeshott, more truly a Labor person than a conservative, were just looking to find some way to convince their electorates of why they were going to opt for Labor. Mr. Abbott is not naive and would have been aware of this.

Besides, the PM said to the electorate just before the poll that there would be no carbon tax. After being appointed as PM she then says there will be a carbon tax and that things are different now.

Why? because she has such a slender majority? Because an independent could breach the walls of that margin and Mr. Windsor on carbon is looking shaky at the moment?

Is it less bad for the PM to break her word to about 6 million Australian voters and then try to justify this with the lame-brained excuse that things are different now?

From where I sit, the PM's offence is a hanging one - much more so than Mr. Abbott's.

If the sequence of events are as you have outlined, then I also think the Liberal leader has done the wrong thing. But, it is not a hanging offence as is the deliberate deception practiced against the electorate by the PM.

Besides, even though they should not have signed a document, the opinion of several constitutional experts as published in newspapers has it that the decision Mr. Abbott took with regard to pairing was the correct one.

Ibbit
It's not certain, from your comment, that you have a good sense of balance where Mr Abbott is concerned. A couple of questions for you, remembering that we now have a legitimate, democratically elected government, one that commands the majority of votes in the House which is the only test of legitimacy in Australia. Q1: If an action open to an Opposition leader could promote his personal political ambition but at the cost of impeding the governance of the nation, should he place his personal interests above those of his nation or the other way around? Q2: Is the Opposition leader's refusal to honour a signed agreement calculated by him more to enhance government efficiency or advance his personal ambition? Q3: Given that in cases of extreme incompetence or maladministration, it is proper for an Opposition to bring down a Government if the opportunity arises, what is the extreme incompetence or malfeasance that the Government has demonstrated since it was commissioned that justifies Mr Abbott's dishonouring of a signed agreement in an attempt to bring it down? Q4: Do you think the Australian people think more or less of Mr Abbott as a result of his recent behaviour?

The "pairing" arrangement was put in place primarily by Rob Oakeshott. The main objective of which would be to strip the opposition of its power to block legislation it found objectionable, and exercise its powers given to it by the electorate.

Given the readiness of Labor to sign up, and the reluctance of the coalition, (who eventually signed under more than a little duress) I have a suspicion that this was done with the main purpose of cementing the influence of the independents, and that RO and TW knew ahead of time which way they would vote.

Given that to abide by the agreement would strip the opposition of most of its influence, it is not surprising that they ditched it.

Nor is it surprising that given the influence of the greens, Julia Gillard has ditched most of her election promises.

It's becoming more apparent the fool defacto labor members for Lynne and New England never negotiated with the liberals in good faith.

Can you tell me how a man who has made millions out of coal mining now sits on a committeee overseeing the implementation of lying Gillard's Carbon Tax? The same fool who now claims to be concerned about the Carbon Tax increasing the cost of food ... doh! Wouldn't he just vote against it if he's fair dinfim?

The other fool has chased every opportunity to increase his own income. First seeking ministerial positions (Twice) and then the Speakers position.

I don't blame Abbott for dumping any parts of any agreement made with these two hypocritical fools. I can't see how either fool could sincerely back Labor when they had only 15% and 17% of their electorates vote for Gillard's lies.

Tell me about the busiuness plan for NBN Bruce ... and would you care to voice an opinion on NBN now, given Forbes assessments ... especially as your mates jnumped in over Kloppers opinions on carbon taxes. (Which when read in full include suggestions that BHP be rebated it's total carbon taxes).

What are you blokes going to do when it becomes obvious as this parliamentary term wears on, that Gillard's uselessness shows and she becomes less popular than Rudd ever was, and completely unelectable?

Am I biased ... well yes I am but unlike you I don't run around voicing opinion pretending to be impartial and everbody else always wrong.

Let me give you some advise ... ask your opinion focus groups whether people feel Gillard's elevation to PM by Windsor and Oakshott is just plain wrong.

You'll be in for a huge surprise. Come next election she'll be biffed out and Labor will be in the wilderness for generations and that will be right.

Abbott will get his second 'first termer' ... either by the faceless ones or the electorate.

Sleep tight Bruce and mind the bed bugs don't bite as all those election lies are starting to come back at Gillard and Rudd's labor..

Does this joker really expect the Oppostion to help out a Government that wasn't elected but inflicted on us by an embittered ex-National and a nobody who giggles like a girl.

If Abbott didn't make the most of the current ludicrous situation in Parliament, he wouldn't be worthy of being Opposition Leader. It is quite clear that the Australian electorate said a 'pox on both your houses' in the way they voted.

The only way to clear up the mess is for all politicians - preferably more than the current crop - to front up again and show that they are capable of forming a government that doesn't have just the temporary, undeserved and undemocratic hold on it that the Gillard crew has now. It is inevitable that Gillard will fall. The sooner the better for the good of Australia.

Is my perception awry or do posts that descend to near-hysterical, personal insults come mainly from those putting extreme right wing and fundamentalist religious views?