Tony Windsor and Rod Oakshott are two gentlemen of character and integrity and I for one think our parliament will be lesser for their departure. We need more of their type not less.

Those on this thread who have chosen to denigrate them should know just how much it reveals about their own base hatreds and myopic outlooks.

For those who don't appreciate what they stood for or how they conducted themselves know little about our past and those who should deserve our admiration. Both are laconic individuals who stood apart from the sneering arrogant party sycophants that now pollute our parliament. Each of them managed to keep a degree of humour despite the assaults on their character and even their families. There weren't too many interviews without the twinkle in the eye being evident. Both reminded me of my father's generation or even my grandfather's.

Individualism, integrity, laconic humour, thinkers, old school Australians, I for one am damn sad to see them go and want to personally thank them for the impressive way they have conducted themselves.

The Oakshott speech was too much though csteele. It was cringe-worthy narcissism, hubris and arrogance.

Windsor was a wily old fox, but I think it lessened him to quote Abbott and his graphic 'bend over' type turn of phrase in their private negotiations.

Dear Houellebecq,

I have done your post the justice of going back and listening to the decision speech of Rod Oakshott and Tony Windsor.

It can be found here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Sc2JTarnc

It is really worth listening to.

Oakshott talked about what a 'wicked dilemma' the three had faced saying both Gillard and Abbott would have made good prime ministers and hoping they would work together.

He and Tony Winsor took 17 days to make their decision and he was at pains to explain to the Australian people why they ended up supporting who they did. They assured us there were no 'Smoky cigar/whiskey deals' done and I believe them.

One of the key issues for the pair was stability and an assessment of which leader would be the most likely to keep the parliament together for the following three years, or to put it another way which would be least likely to find the chaffing of minority government too great and call an early election. It is hard to argue they got that wrong.

Both of them flagged broadband for regional Australia as one of their top issues saying we need towe do it once, do it right and do it with fibre. That is now being rolled out.

Oakshott called for members to break ranks when required to vote for the 'good of the electorate and the good of the country'' and that the two leaders now come together to provide stability and outcomes.

Both men also went in to bat for a better deal for regional Australia including education and dealing with Climate Change.

Julia Gillard for the most part honoured these commitments.

I invite you to listen to the speeches and then tell me where I should be looking for the “cringe-worthy narcissism, hubris and arrogance”. Granted these were not well coached party hacks staying 'strictly on message' but they came across as two good men who gave due weight to the responsibilities that were foisted upon them basing their decisions on what was good of their 'electorates and country'.

What is not to admire here?

So how are the polling csteele?

Their voters did not vote for labor, nor did they want their votes supporting labor.

Furthermore, they would be dumbfounded to think these two continued to offer their UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT, despite several barbers cat style threats.

Now had they manned up, there's a very good chance we could afford the likes of education reforms and the NDIS without having to rob from Peter to feed Paul.

Now you can see it any way you choose, but It is their unconditional loyalty to this hopeless government that has seen both of them fall on their swords.

The shameful part is that they are too gutless to stay and face the music.

' tell me where I should be looking for the “cringe-worthy narcissism, hubris and arrogance”.'

I just reckon it was a self indulgent speech stretching it on and on for 20 minutes when everyone just wanted to know who he was supporting. He could have easily said who, then explained his decision.

It was a vast exercise in grandstanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmwDDap5dyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H39p6lTV4Gk

Tell me he isn't absolutely lapping up the attention.

'What is not to admire here?'

Going against what your constituency voted for, and bailing before they can vote you out.

'They assured us there were no 'Smoky cigar/whiskey deals' done and I believe them.'

Really? Look, I don't really care about the coalition forming Government, in fact I was happy they supported Gillard (Although I think it would have been more stable with Mr Rabbit, as it would have been a bigger majority?), but you cant seriously believe it had nothing to do with their grudges against the Nationals?

Dear Houellebecq,

I think 17 minutes might have seen it out rather than 20. In fact it was only 2 minutes longer than Julia Gillard's misogyny speech and calling it 'vast exercise in grandstanding' is overstating it more than a little.

And why do you accuse him of “Going against what your constituency voted for”? They overwhelmingly voted for him knowing full well his record in his first term.

“In his first term, Oakeshott voted 32 times with the ruling Labor government (including in support of the proposed emission trading scheme) and nine times with the opposition. He has explained that this record was not indicative of support for Labor's policy platform, but rather because he believed in allowing governments to govern.” Wikipedia

The people of New England and Lyne accepted the premise that the marrying of the Nationals to the Liberals came at the expense of regional voters. This is why they gave these two such support. Both saw substantial gains for regional Australia managing to have it husbanded under its own ministry. Rod Oakshott was of course offered the position of Minister but turned it down, not something you do if you strictly want the power and limelight.

Here is a little exercise, can you tell me who do you think is more deserving of the label “cringe-worthy narcissism, hubris and arrogance”, Rod Oakshott or Christopher Pyne?

Once the heat comes out of this I think any fair minded assessment of the actions of these two should see their integrity acknowledge and respected. As Bernard Keane writes;

“For much of the last three years, Windsor and Oakeshott have looked like the only adults in Parliament, particularly Windsor, who always seemed to take seriously the stuff that needed to be taken seriously but knew that most of the rest was nonsense.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/26/windsor-and-oakeshott-independents-alike-to-the-last/

Two damn fine Australians in my book. Should be more of them.