While I have no sympathy for Slipper the actions of the LNP in trying to depose Slipper once his ascendancy to the Speaker's chairs is the stuff of 'hollowmen'. The LNP had no problem with Peter Slipper and allowed his behaviour to go on for years while retaining LNP support at preselection.

Lets assume for a moment that it's agreed Slipper was not a good candidate for the Speaker's Chair under normal circumstances and that his placement was purely for strategic purposes. The nonsense that followed by the LNP to unsettle the minority government was unbelievable. Then we had Mr Abbott denying his involvement in using ministerial entitlements to fund his book signings for Battlelines arguing his office arranged everything - 'it wasn't me'. Did he not realise he was stepping into a Comcar to go to these venues? Really!

Poirot don't worry about the strident LNP supporters. For some the LNP could commit murder and there would be some reason why it would be okay. You will always get the 'rose coloured glasses' syndrome from voters for their side of politics.

That is the part of the problem with Australian politics, it is one thing to support a party, but quite another to let them get away with stuff just on the basis of winning at all cost. Would rather there was a concerted and united effort to keep them ALL honest.

You're right, Poirot, it IS fun :)

So that's a promise ? You won't post any more ? If you can't stick to topic, you'll give it all away ?

Thank you.

Joe

Loudmouth,

I will continue to post where and whenever I please.

I'll not be responding to you in future except to draw attention to your harassment.

If it's good enough for you to stalk someone around the forum to get some perverse jollies, then it's good enough for that person to periodically highlight your twisted fixation.

As I mentioned, there are plenty of men around here with whom I don't see eye to eye, and we have some fairly full-on debates.......but none of them displays the creepy habit of following me about just to put the boot in.

That distinction is yours alone (and the worst thing is that you appear proud of it)

pelican,

While I agree with your final point perhaps your earlier defence is an example of what you criticise.

The latter is an example of the rhetorical trick often employed in defence of the government -who after all are in power and are wielding power and making decisions- that because the opposition has some failings either now or previously, then Labor ministers and union officials of today have some excuse for bad behaviour.

That defence is extended to the even more unreasonable and ridiculous demand that no Opposition member might criticise because s/he must share the guilt, real or alleged, of others, usually of people and events long gone.

At its simplest, that is childish tit-for-tat. However it is used very cleverly by people who know better to avoid all personal, ministerial and cabinet responsibility. Penny Wong is well known for it and is rarely challenged, because she then turns questioning along gender lines, another clever and over-used defence. That is done by some on OLO too and recently in this thread.

To cut to the chase, it is sly rhetorical trickery that maintains as you have just done, that it is hypocrisy for Abbott or his fellows to criticise corruption where there is suspicion or evidence of it. The rhetorical trickery seeks to nullify any criticism of the government by the Opposition and muzzle it.

Yet is it the role of the Opposition to keep the government honest. It is also a reasonable expectation that those who exercise the very broad powers of ministers or (say) are CEOs of unions should be held accountable for their actions.

Taking the foolishness to its limits, it is to say that anyone who has acquired a parking ticket (or maybe a member of their family has similarly transgressed) should not comment on a politician who has been broadly criticised by his peers for unseemly conduct.

OTB Pelican is probably the most balanced poster we have.
Even when taking the stick to me.
Slipper lived at the heart of both Nats and Libs for nine elections.
His fall was eye opening for those who can consider the question why only after he left?

OTB
I wasn't defending putting Slipper in the Speaker's Chair, I fully disagreed with this move and have said so on other posts. It was a frightful choice.

My 'let's accept' part of that earlier post was to get it out of the way as we all know it happened and why and that it was a poor move no matter the reasons. The problem with politics today is that it is more about strategy than principle. That was the point I was attempting to make.