Dear Graham,

I can't understand why all the fuss.

Isn't it accepted procedure in politics and business and even
sport that when the Captain steps down, the Deputy steps up -
unless he chooses not to. It's very disconcerting for Mr Abbott
the leader of the Opposition to express such vehemence when
the same concerns could have been expressed in a civilised and
diplomatic manner. We fully understand the effect that this
situation has had on the Opposition - but after all it is the
individual's choice in a democratic society.

I believe that Mr Slipper has resigned from the Liberal Party.
And, at least until the next election he can contribute to the
functioning of the Parliament albeit at a higher salary. (Which
could have been an incentive for accepting the job. Perhaps he
needs the financial benefit).

What has happened should not have come as a surprise to anyone -
the exiting Speaker could have resigned for a variety of
reasons - such as health, family, or whatever. Accepting the
position of Deputy Mr Slipper was always going to be
the main contendor for the post of Speaker. Afterall it's only
until the next election in two years time. Knowing Mr Abbott's
record to date, he will use every weapon at his disposal to
undermine Mr Slipper's position - no matter what damage it could
cause to the Liberal Party.

We've become accustomed to news-as-entertainment, now we are getting politics-as-entertainment.

Of course it is a low, devious and deliberate move by Ms. Gillard to shore up her numbers in the House. So what? The days when our political class acted with principle and integrity are long past - if of course they ever existed at all.

As with everything political, though, it is a two-edged sword.

Managing a cobbled-together majority with hostiles - Green and Independent - was never going to be an easy task. It was a position unique in Australian parliamentary history, and I don't think Ms Gillard has ever really come to grips with it. Now, however, the consensus is that Slippergate has somehow given her more "freedom" to get policies implemented, and she will now be judged on how well she takes that opportunity.

In reality, she is still entirely beholden to the Greens. And until she finds the courage to face them down, and nip their lunacies in the bud, she has no more genuine "freedom" of policymaking than she did before.

As I said yesterday on Hasbeen's Climategate 2.0 thread, so much depends upon the asking of the right question, doesn't it? And OUG has, perhaps, asked it with this:

"its just too clever by half
what events has this event 'hiden',
from the news cycle[?]"

Harry Jenkins was a respected expert in, and acknowledged admirer of, Parliament as an institution and its proper functioning. It is the ongoing supremacy of Parliament that our Constitution delimits and establishes, not the supremacy of ephemeral governments. In the chair as Speaker Harry Jenkins could play an active role in ensuring such proper functioning of the institution. Now he is no longer there.

With respect to Parliamentary procedure, several matters involving possible contempts of the Parliament presently hang unresolved over the leader of the government, the PM. One is a possible contempt of a Senate Committee, that of the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for the carpeting of, and effective forcing of the resignation of, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Allan Asher, in breach of the privilege his testimony before that Committee should have enjoyed. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4792#127862

A second possible contempt relates to that of a Joint Select Committee of the Parliament, the Joint Select Committee of Inquiry into Australia's Immigration Detention Network, which possible contempt is constituted by the forcing of the Ombudsman's resignation having deprived that Committee of two important witnesses: the (forced out) Ombudsman, and the erstwhile permanent head of DIAC sent on extended leave. It is this latter possible contempt that may involve procedural questions relating to the House of Representatives, and thus possibly involve rulings by the Speaker during any privileges debate that may yet arise. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4792#128634

Any such rulings will no longer be made by the respected Harry Jenkins.

What nobody knows yet is how Peter Slipper will perform as Speaker. All we know is that he doesn't have the respect Harry Jenkins enjoyed. As a consequence, what may come to be seen as very important future rulings may not enjoy the same respect, to the nation's detriment.

So, Opposition, to be truly loyal, STFU!

I must add, that it's also classic watching the lefties condone all this when there would be outrage writ large if The Rodent or Mr Rabbit had done the same. Exhibit A Lexi.

I expect to hear no more talk about the negative cynical MrRabbit bringing down the righteous morally superior ALP after this little episode.

Even if she's still Bob Browns B..., she does have one monkey in Wilke off her back Pericles.

Bling Bling, bling bling.

Houellebecq... Mal Colston.

In your pipe and smoke it.

Just had a thought.

Jenkins is well regarded by all in 'this place' (to be read in reverential tones every time).

He is now 'back' in parliament.

When Rudd goes bonkers over xmas and challenges Gillard, Jenkins, the clean skin respected member, will throw in his hat as a contender.

This will split Rudd's vote and secure Gillard the respectable win she so desperately needs with both 'the public' and 'the media'.

But hang on!

What if it goes horribly right (for us) and Jenkins beats them both?

Oh gosh! A person with scruples in The Lodge?

Are Australians ready for that yet?