Rudd supporters are using the issue to raise questions about Ms Gillard’s judgment, saying she should have realised on Tuesday morning that Mr Slipper’s tenure was untenable because of the publication of lewd text messages. They say she should have anticipated the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was likely to move a no-confidence motion in the Speaker that day.
That’s all well and good, except for the fact that Samuel J listed the MPs who voted for Slipper on Tuesday and it included Rudd and his known supporters. He could have cut Gillard off at the knees on Tuesday by not supporting her.
He could. He would then be unprepared for the next step and having set up stall as a Labor rat.
Better for Rudd to let Gillard marinate in excrement.
Dr Faustus
12 Oct 12 at 6:55 am
Quite so Faustus. In their world “solidarity” trumps everything.
Cato the Elder
12 Oct 12 at 7:02 am
More importantly, why hasn’t the musselman resigned from politics altogether?
He was voting with the clown collective yesterday – twice.
Bloody disgraceful.
Rabz
12 Oct 12 at 7:20 am
Yes Rabz, each vote the government of PM who has the touchiest mysogi-dar in history, only passes with the assistance of:
1. a man who rorted money from poor female union workers to trawl brothels
2. a man who sent hateful tweets about women and women’s body parts.
Is is any wonder the mysogi-dar seems to be going off when faced with a faithful husband who is the dedicated father of 3 intelligent and accomplished girls?
Token
12 Oct 12 at 7:26 am
It’s not so much the misogydar and more the self-loathidar, I suspect. There’s an awful lot of projection going on, and it’s not the sort you see in movie theatres.
perturbed
12 Oct 12 at 7:36 am
Dr Faustus is right about Rudd.
But he misses the natural corollary of Sinc’s point.
It’s not right that Dr Faustus is right.
It goes to the very fetid core of Labor.
If it is wrong to stand against the Labor leadership on a principle than you cannot stand on that principle a couple of days later
JamesK
12 Oct 12 at 7:45 am
For those ignorant (and there’s a surfeit posting here), there is a principle called “separation of powers”. This principle, essential in any strong democracy, demands the separation between judical and parliamentary processes.
The Coalition’s behaviour a few days ago calling a vote on Slopper was in clear breach of this principle.
Mind you, conservatives in this country have always felt free to ditch principle when it suits -
The cross examination of the then Premier of the State of Queensland in 1988 during a Royal Commission into police and political corruption[2] revealed the following of the knowledge of the leader of the State about the doctrine of the separation of powers:
Michael Forde. Former Judge & Counsel assisting the then Royal Commission: What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?
Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen: The Westminster system? The stock?
Forde: The doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?
Bjelke Petersen: No, I don’t quite know what you’re driving at. The document?
Forde: No, I’ll say it again. What do you understand by the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system?
Bjelke Petersen: I don’t know which doctrine you refer to.
1735099
12 Oct 12 at 7:52 am
LOL – we’re lectured to by a moron.
Even Anna Burke correctly applied the priciple but it would have been too much fo expect the same ALP talking points repeating Peter Principle military limited twit, numbers
JamesK
12 Oct 12 at 7:56 am
The old Homophobe (who has not apologised for his disgraceful statement about AJ) is back to stink up the place with his trolling.
People, please show some restraint and not feed him.
Token
12 Oct 12 at 7:58 am
Numbers, the issue here is the right of an institution to set standards of behaviour for its members. This is normally an entirely separate concern from any judicial proceedings that might be happening at the same time.
In the Commonwealth public service, for example, it is perfectly appropriate to discipline a person for a breach of the service Code of Conduct while that person is also subject to a judicial process related to separate criminal allegations. I’ve seen it done.
In the Slipper case, the issue was whether his salacious texts meant that he was no longer a fit and proper person to be Speaker of the House. It had nothing to do with his criminal trial for sexual harrassment, which proceeds.
Des Deskperson
12 Oct 12 at 8:26 am
And only days after much liar’s party screeching and squawking and posturing about Corman’s accidental letter to Thompson, we now have the government accepting the vote of a vile misogynist without a qualm.
Keith
12 Oct 12 at 8:34 am
Those hyperventilating about a confected separation of powers issue should do some research into the liar’s party role in respect to Ian Sinclair, when he was Speaker.
Keith
12 Oct 12 at 8:37 am
Nobody was voting on matters of law. They were voting on whether Slipper was fit to be speaker. The motion was based on the text messages sent by Slipper. Abbott made this abundantly clear. He said that the content of the text messages were uncontested, and that everyone agrees they were really sent by Slipper.
That was the point of the motion to remove him as speaker. Not the court case itself, nor was it to do with second-guessing the outcome of the court case. It was completely about the text messages.
dd
12 Oct 12 at 8:45 am
Anyone who says that this is about separation of powers either doesn’t understand what they’re talking about or is engaging in deliberate misdirection.
Hypothetical: if the parliament found Slipper guilty of something, that would be violating the separation of powers.
Hypothetical 2: if they sacked him because he was embroiled in a court case, that would be braking the separation of powers.
Neither of these were the case. It was entirely about the text messages, not the court case itself.
dd
12 Oct 12 at 8:47 am
Gee, who’da thunk it?
Rabz
12 Oct 12 at 8:53 am
That was clear, it is why I suggested we don’t reward the thread wrecking by numbers.
______________________
It is no coincidence that FauxFacts ran the article about the AWU affair after Gillard’s blunder in endorsing Slippers appalling tweets.
As Rabz has noted Rudd only has until Christmas and must believe that if he gets the leadership he can get Labor ahead in the polls.
The resignation of Darrly Melham must be seen in that light.
I do hope we see some more internal bonfires in the coming weeks as this plays out.
Token
12 Oct 12 at 8:53 am
If I remember correctly, it was Rudd who was said to have played a significant part in Slipper’s defection in the first place. They are supposed to be mates.
Ronaldo
12 Oct 12 at 9:12 am
It’s a wonder that Gillard hasn’t blamed AbbottAbottAbott for selling her a pup in the first place.
As for Rudd, being held to account for his vote on Slipper will be the very least of his problems, should liar’s party repeat its foolishness, and elect him leader. The Rudd legacy might look better to some eyes than Gillard’s, but it’s still abysmal.
Keith
12 Oct 12 at 9:31 am
JamesK: That’s right; but its not right that I missed Sinc’s point.
The problem I pointed to lies in looking for moral consistency and principled behaviour from such an inconsistent and self-interested player.
And it’s misandry to suggest otherwise.
Dr Faustus
12 Oct 12 at 9:33 am
After all that Rudd still doesn’t have the numbers.
Australian Lemmings Party.
H B Bear
12 Oct 12 at 9:51 am
Of course, another dirty deal was done on Tuesday, and not just by Windsor, Oakeshott and Albanese. For mine, the Great Nego-she-aydor was also involved.
See Breaking News: Slipper Resigns thread:
Septimus
12 Oct 12 at 10:20 am
Back On Topic –
was it even tactically sensible (for whatever leadership aspirations he may hold) for Rudd to have caused the loss of that vote?
It may have caused yet another leadership vote which, as the actual architect of the downfall, he would be expected to lose to a compromise candidate (if one could be found – if I was Shorten, I’d run from that option).
Better to wait until drafted*
Boy do we need an election.
* I am no Rudd fan, this is from an analytical perspective; like watching bugs fighting in a jar.
DMS
12 Oct 12 at 1:20 pm
I think that’s the point, DMS. It’s more than a bit rich for Rudd to criticise Gillard’s judgment now, having obeyed a three line whip in favour of that judgment.
Sure, Rudd should probably be discreetly making the above point about the mishandling of the Slipper departure to the powers that be in the Liar’s Party, but having his backers publicly question Gillard’s judgment over the issue makes him look like an idiot, considering he voted for it.
Oh come on
12 Oct 12 at 2:50 pm
[...] noted by Sinclair, Rudd voted in favour of Peter Slipper being retained as Speaker. Here is the record of the vote in [...]
Rudd and the Slipper vote at Catallaxy Files
12 Oct 12 at 4:58 pm
The separation of powers argument by 1735099 above is quite wrong. It would be a breach of the separation of powers if the Court tried to sack a Speaker. But the gift of the Speaker is entirely within the power of the House of Reps – the Speaker serves at the pleasure of the House. He can therefore be sacked for any reason. The Abbott motion to dismiss the Speaker was entirely Constitutional, reasonable and – above all – ethical. The Court will later find him guilty or not of any crimes and subject him to the appropriate penalty.
Sacking a Speaker for inappropriate behaviour while there is a Court case in place is entirely reasonable, just like sacking a person from a job who is separately being charged with a crime.
Samuel J
12 Oct 12 at 5:21 pm
@dd
By your assessment either (or both) of your hypotheticals would have resulted in a breach of separation of powers had the vote gone against Slipper.
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
BTW – the text messages would not have been an issue without the court case. The two processes are tangled – an unedifying spectacle visited on the People’s parliament by Abbott the wrecker. As I pointed out, most posting here are too thick to see the connection.
1735099
12 Oct 12 at 6:38 pm