Dear rehctub,

How about hopping off the hobby horse for a moment and thinking this through.

The independents, after much deliberation, decided the Labour party was the most appropriate one to govern the country. If you recall Rob Oakeshott went to great lengths to relate to the Australian people why they went with Gillard. Although the press called it grandstanding I saw it as trying to be as open as possible.

They should be given credit for sticking to their agreement with the Australian people to provide as stable a government as possible through the period.

Lesser men may have withdrawn support over some of the less popular decisions made by Labour just to preserve their seats. These two have stuck by the commitments they made and when compared to the horse trading Abbott was prepared to do to gain power, or Gillard's sliding away from her promises to Wilke, these guys are to be admired.

I repeat, we would be far better off if there were a dozen of them.

Dear Chris Lewis,

My hope is that if in the unlikely event Rudd is gets up they will do as they have promised and deliberate in the same principled manner they did the first time. On their record thus far I’m prepared to trust their judgement.

Csteele,

You are subscribing too much virtue to Oakeshott and Windsor.

As an MP one has two main duties,
The first is to represent the views and desires of your electorate,
Where decisions and compromises are to be made, to act in the interests of your electorate.

As it was blindingly obvious in 2010 that Labor had very little support in their electorates, RO and TW obviously thought that a Labor minority government could be forced to pork barrel their electorates far more than the coalition, and that the projects and improvements would compensate the voters for acting against their desires.

In hindsight, this was a wildly stupid tactical move, as it painted them into a corner. If they supported a coalition government, and it collapsed, their support might be slightly dented, but they would survive. A collapse of the Gillard government would mean obliteration.

TW and RO are now have their backs against the wall. With recent polling indicating that their support has collapsed to 20% or lower, a fresh election means political oblivion. The question is whether they have the moral backbone to do the right thing and remove support for this noxious Labor government. I doubt it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Firstly Oakeshott and Windsor were placed in a position very few MP's would ever find themselves, deciding which of the two major parties was the most likely to provide a stable government for all Australians, and for my mind they shouldered that task admirably. Having made that decision the commitment to ensure stability has been solid and the power they have has been used with restraint and honourably.

I contend less men would have put their electorates and their own interests ahead of the interests of the country. These two did not.

However they did score a few goals for regional Australia like a dedicated ministry and the setting up of a regional think tank.

Could I invite you to step away from your post and view it through other eyes. To me you seem to be saying these two should act in venal self interest to ensure “they would survive” instead of facing “obliteration” while finding ”the moral backbone” to withdraw support from the government against all the undertakings they have given.

Perhaps we might have conflicting views on what constitutes moral backbone.

Csteele,

"I contend less men would have put their electorates and their own interests ahead of the interests of the country. These two did not."

Firstly that is your opinion. Given Labor's performance on just about every issue, the voter support collapse, the need to depose a first term prime minister, and array of independents required to get any legislation through, I would struggle to see any validity in the claim of greater stability than the coalition. I see primarily self interest in their decisions.

Secondly, the moment that Gillard broke her "no carbon tax" promise in the first weeks, that should have given them a wake up call.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Basically you continue to tear strips off Julia Gillard for breaking her promise on the Carbon Tax and her undertakings to Wilke, yet you want Oakeshott and Windsor to commit the same crime, to go back on their word.

Don't worry, I'm absolutely positive if they had initially gone with Abbott the Labour supporters would have been equally vicious in attacking them as you seemed determined to be.

This is what is meant by politics twisting people's values, and why I generally loathe party politics, something I have in common with both independents.

Seriously, take a moment and think about it, don't you think Australia would be better served with a Senate filled with Windsors and Oakeshotts? I certainly do.

Csteele,

Agreements are not without limits and conditions. Labor has lied, back flipped and all but filled out TW and RO's pink slip for 2013. Given that in both seats Labor and the greens polled below 25% combined, and both are ex nationals, I doubt that their support of the coalition would have been a surprise.

With both polling below 20%, they are cooked whatever they do, the question is whether they have the backbone to put the worst government in decades out of its misery. Supporting Juliar is only in their own personal interests.