(Reproduced from my home blog Alpine Opinion)
Caught in the middle between two goof-offs, Gillard has nowhere to go but out.
The news that the embattled and unpopular ALP member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, has, um, quit the ALP and will sit out the remainder of his term on the cross-benches as an independent, coming on top of the Peter Slipper issue is no coincidence.
PM Julia Gillard has clearly moved to distance herself from supporting Thomson ahead of the impending release of the damning HSU report and right now – at the very same time in fact – she is doing another ‘backflip’ on her position re Peter Slipper returning to the Speaker’s position anytime soon, even if cleared of any criminal charges.
Unlike just the other day, Gillard is now saying that the position of Speaker is so “important” and so “revered” that he must continue to step aside until the civil action re sexual harassment is also resolved.
Julia Gillard seems to be making it up as she goes and is clearly limping from one disaster to another. What does it all mean – an election pretty soon? Or just a new PM? I fancy the latter.
And I sincerely hope that the caucus finally sees the light and realises that Julia Gillard’s tenure as PM has been one giant mistake that must be corrected. Bring back Rudd pretty quick smart or face a political wipeout at the next election. I give her about 2 weeks.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
I agree that the party only has one chance and that is Kevin Rudd. The people trust that he will bring reform and trust back to the party. Julia has made one mistake after another and even though she may have passed good legislation none of it is acknowledged by the people because we all stopped listening when she ousted Rudd. I hope they don’t waste time in bring Kevin back, at least he will minimize the damage dealt to labor or given enough time may even win the next election. I look forward to having my Labor party back! KR4PM
Agreed Katherine … and the link to your FaceBook Page is noted:
https://www.facebook.com/KevinRudd4PrimeMinister
Even the lefties at crikey are saying that Gillard is gone :
Rudd may be drafted Ray but I still think that they will be thrashed at an election, which may come sooner than you think
He’ll be back in May, Iain – which, funnily enough, is the month he originally intended to launch a challenge before Gillard forced his hand in February with a pre-emptive strike. Yeah, we ALP supporters are heartily sick of her. She has no substance, no inner belief, no vision and no ‘light on the hill’. She’s the opposite of what the ALP stands for. Rudd might be a bit of a spin doctor too but at least he’s believable and more his own person. And make no mistake, Iain, he will give Abbott one hell of a fight.
Well Ray I actaully hope that you are right about a resurrected Rudd giving Tony a good run for his money because I think that it would be bad for this blog if the fight is too once sided against a mortally wounded and on life support Labor party because there are only so many ways that I can say that Labor are fucked before it sounds too full of hubris.
How do you reckon Abbott would have fared in the same position as Gillard, Iain? ie if say Windsor & Oakeshott had backed him as leader of a minority govt? Would he have called an election by now? Would he still even be PM? I reckon the opinion polls you see now would be reversed. It’s starting govt from behind the 8-ball and Gillard was doomed from the outset.
well Ray
If Tony were in minority government he would not be there on the basis of breaking a pledge about a Carbon tax so his standing with the public would have been far better than Gillard’s, he would not have had the scandal of Thompson hanging over his head either, nor would Slipper been such a big deal, on a broader policy front the boats would been stopped by a return to the regime that worked. he may have called an election by now and I think that he would have improved his position to a workable majority in his own right.
He’d have brought back a defacto WorkChoices, Iain, and that’s equivalent to Gillard’s carbon tax turn-around. The rest of your predictions are crystal-balling bordering on wishful thinking. Face it, Abbott would NOT have gone to an early election because he would have found opinion going against him too. And answer this: Would he have kept Slipper on, despite his known history of rorts and weirdo behaviour over 20 years? Of course he would have.
I think whatever happens to Labor leadership, it is too late to stop the lunatic.
He will win by a street although I am guessing with somebody else it would be by a walkover.
So when he is loose to do what he wants and controls both houses, then bye bye Australia.
George Pell is probably wetting himself with excited anticipation.
Ray
Workchoices is “dead buried and cremated” and we both know that even if Abbott wanted to revive it (and there is no evidence does want ) he is astute enough about politics not to do that which he has promised not to do, Gillard on the other hand…
As for Slipper at worst he would have been a troublesome backbencher sure to be disendorsed before the next election, Abbot would never have made him speaker,Gillard on the other hand…
That aside Tony would not have had a Craig Thompson in his ranks…
Alan
Yeah so perhaps you had better get used to a coalition government because I reckon that Labor will be in the wilderness for a decade at least.
Tony Abbott has done the hard yards so its only natural that he should get the reward, but to put it in betting parlance we will all be winners when Gillard and Labor are scratched.
Hyperbolic bollocks Alan I predict a period of rather boring good governance and sound administration.
Oh how your “I hate religion’ underpants are showing Alan
Iain, if Abbott is elected he will change industrial relations to something similar to WorkChoices and just give it another name. It’s delusional to think he will go against standard Liberal hard-on-employees policies of the past.
You can’t speculate on what he’d have done with Slipper anymore than I can. My guess is Slipper would have caused him a problem somehow. And so would have Sophie. In fact if Abbott were PM, then the current Sophie saga involving a shady deal over an old man’s estate would be a major controversy and she’d be in the spotlight more than Thomson.
Actually I never gave it a thought until 5 or so years ago, when I was my father’s carer.
When he told me he wanted to go into a home the only place I could get at the time was a catholic run one.
He had a terminal illness, and the lengths they went to keep him alive, AGAINST his wishes, to assuage their own beliefs was truly amazing.
Despite his constant agony.
If they had have properly cared for him, I would have donated the bond to them out of gratitude when he died.
Instead they got my loathing and nothing else.
Ray
I don’t need to use a crystal ball to know that were Tony in the Lodge now that Peter Slipper may well be a problem but as a back bencher that is a far smaller problem that Gillard has created by making him speaker.
Alan
Well I’ve been there with my own father and may experience was quite different, in fact when he got Pneumonia and was taken the the PA hospital he refused treatment something that was respected by the doctors Frankly I find it hard to believe that a catholic home would be so keen to artificially extend someone’s life at the cost of extensive misery.
Maybe you are confusing the drawn out and natural end with your own wish for a quick and clean end to your father’s suffering.
Believe what you like, it’s really nothing to do with you.
I would have been perfectly happy for them to just make him comfortable and as pain free as possible.
I didn’t expect them to hasten his death, just not prolong his life, as best they could.
What precisely did they do to prolong his life Alan?
The doctors they have that kept reviving him incessantly.
I didn’t even know until my sister told me what was happening(my father himself couldn’t).
Then it hit the fan when I knew, and he was thankfully dead a couple of days later.
My mother by contrast went into a council run facility, and her level of care was great and I couldn’t speak highly enough of those that cared for her.
And oddly enough I would guess the carers were all lowly paid immigrants, by the looks of them.
Did you and your sister tell them not to revive him?
Because in my experience if the family makes a clear and unequivocal “do not revive” instruction to the doctors they are bound to respect that.
Maybe Gillard needs those doctors too?
He did himself when he entered, anyway I am not getting into a discourse on this.
I simply say I don’t like religion(before I just had no interest in it despite being a supposed catholic), and as far as I am concerned that’s sufficient, I don’t need to enlarge upon it.
Ray
A do not revive instruction for Gillard?
Now that is an idea that has merit!
However I suspect that as she is already on political life support she has more to fear from someone wanting to pull the plug on the machine that goes ping than being kept alive against her will.
Alan
Sorry but it sounds more like an over zealous lot of medicos desperate to preserve life at any cost rather than any sort of expression of the catholic faith, which is generally rather sanguine about people dying when its their time. My point being why do you think that it was done at the behest of the catholic faith?
I’m suggesting she needs those Catholic doctors, Iain.
Some how I think that she could be attended by the entire convocation of cardinals and the Holy father and every doctor who is true to the faith of Rome and her fate would still be certain death.
They should have issued one for Rudd when he was first sacked, instead of continually reviving him in the hope that he can turn around the pitiful remnants of the once great (sarc) Labor Party.
Continually reviving him? Look, GD, Rudd doesn’t have a ‘terminal illness’, he has wounds (knife wounds) … but wounds heal.
Agreed, it’s the Labor Party that has the terminal illness.
Although I’d like to see Rudd come back. It would make the next election campaign a lot more interesting. The way it is now, you just want to look the other way and hope that it’s over soon. There’s no fun in watching Joolia slowly destroy herself.
Putting aside your ‘terminal’ barracking for old-fart, rusted-on conservative values & beliefs, GD, (how old are you again?) I’m glad you concede that Rudd would right the ALP ship and give your 50s man Abbott a genuine run for his money. In fact, he’d run rings around him. Who knows, maybe Abbott will have a few more ‘frozen moments’ and be seen as the real ice-man that he is.
Whoa, Ray, I didn’t say all that. I said it would be more interesting. While Rudd would run a better campaign, he still can’t change what is inherently wrong with Labor today: abject socialism at odds with the average Australian’s views and needs.
This includes the backsliding on industrial relations: ie the re-introduction of strike action at the drop of a hat; the Fair Work Australia Act, which ludicrously took three years to not come to a decision about Craig Thomsen.
This same Fair Work has caught Labor on the back-foot because one of Joolia’s clauses (she wrote much it) is item 361, which states that claims of sexual harassment or racial discrimination are to be regarded as guilty until proven innocent. Hoist by their own petard in relation to Slipper.
Will Rudd repeal the carbon tax?
Because if he doesn’t, that’s another albatross around his neck.
Finally, a resurrected Rudd would still have the motley, adolescent caucus that has stumbled from one failure to another to work with.
No matter how much of a knight in shining armour Rudd is, the caucus is too dysfunctional and Labor’s policies are too far removed from the reality of the average working man or small business to translate into electoral success.
That’s all just political opinion, GD. Yours. And you are a rusted-on coalition man. A dinosaur (did you really experience the 60s btw?). Anyway, no disrespect intended, but all those things you mentioned can be addressed via leadership. Something neither Gillard or, more importantly, your man Rabbott possess in any great quantity. The fact is that Rabbott has NO POLICIES and Rudd is just the man to expose that. You did in fact say that Rudd could right the ALP ship – you just didn’t realise it.
Rudd didn’t have it the first time around. He alienated almost everyone except the two GenYs he had advising him.
Tony Abbott has shown leadership in spades, in the hard yards he put into the last election. The man has credibility. He may not become Australia’s greatest prime minister, but so far no one else has claimed that prize either.
Australia needs a pragmatic alternative to this dysfunctional socialist government with their whimsical pipe dreams of magical green energy and their bizarre attempts to turn us into a socialist state ready for induction into Bob Brown’s one world government.
OK, forget the induction into Brown’s one world government. The UN already has that in hand.
As for Abbott’s lack of policies. I have previously posted the link to the Libs’ policy document. They have policies for all aspects of our economy, society, defence, immigration and welfare.
Once again, I reckon you won’t even bother looking.
You previously mentioned ‘vision’.
Since Labor took office in 2007, their ‘vision’ has resulted in nothing but failure after failure. Perhaps it would be better if ‘vision’ was integrated with pragmatism, so that policies are implemented rather than scuttled. Perhaps it would be better if ‘vision’ equated to the betterment of society instead of yet another black hole in the nation’s economy.
Thanks Labor, for a job not well done.
It’s time to go. Rudd notwithstanding.
GD, need I remind you that you have previously (on many occasions) said that Abbott is not fit to be PM. Your change of mind reminds me of someone. Can’t think who …. oh, wait … Julia Gillard!
you need to do better than that Ray…
Why? There’s not much to beat but hot air, GD.
And-And, Abbott would sell his arse to be PM—-but then on the other hand he is a gonna be Catholic cleric. Not all child molesters are Catholic Priests, but a lot of child molesters are Catholic Priests.After visiting Ireland recently, the Catholic Church there is f###ed, and Satan resides in the Vatican.
great video……
Come on, Iain, where’s your comment on the Pyne & Brough meetings with Ashby?
And on Ashby’s youtube support of yet another Slipper opponent for his seat (while still employed by Slipper)?
This has got set-up written all over it.
As I have always believed – since the Vietnam War days – you can:
NEVER. TRUST. A. LIBERAL
Three words Ray
“Desperate Beat up”
If he is on youtube campaigning for Brough, then there HAS to be something in it.
Can’t find it though.
Not to mention WHEN he resigned from the Liberals and went to work for Slipper would get any thinking person thinking.
They would have know Slipper bats for the other side like Ashby, and they thought it an opportunity to do what they do well.
From today’s OZ:
Sorry Ray but all of that seems both innocent and reasonable
as for the you tube stuff look at his channel by double clicking the vid below:
Iain. From the piece you quote:
They are his own words, Iain, and they amount to Brough admitting that he not only “advised” Ashby to taken action, he also sought legal advice on his behalf. Come on, it’s obvious.
As for the YouTube video, it’s clearly Ashby’s channel and he’s using it to promote a Slipper opponent. This is QED stuff.
Ray
if someone came to you and said that they believed that they were being sexually harassed by their boss wouldn’t you advise them to make a complaint?
There is no wrong doing here in Mal Brough either being sought out or advising Ashby to seek out a lawyer or to lodge a complaint with the AFP There is no conspiracy here, none whatsoever, Heck I have had advice from you to complain to the police about a certain stalker, that does not mean that you are helping me “invent” the allegations in question as you are implying about Brough has done here. In any event who else should Have Ashby confided in to seek a remedy to his problems with slipper?
As for Ashby’s you tube channel most of the pieces are news items he has recorded from broadcast TV and clearly not stuff he has produced himself.
Oh yeah, he just so happened to call Brough for advice, even though Brough didn’t know him!! And Brough is after Slipper’s seat. What an amazing coincidence. Serendipity.
You didn’t read the source piece did you Ray? Because if you had you would have seen just How Brough and Ashby came to be discussing the issue. Check it out and get back to us.
LYING BASTARDS those Liberal Amigos —-Pyne is a complete lying pig, next time he might be reincarnated as a human.
Brough claims Ashby called him out of the blue. It’s not credible, Iain. None of it is. This Ashby looks sleazy and very sus.
IF they were ALP Politicians—Iain would screaming blue murder, along with his idol, Bolt.
“IF they were ALP Politicians—Iain would screaming blue murder, along with his idol, Bolt.”
exactly
Must say that Michelle Grattan has lost the plot though.
Calling Pyne, “sharp-as-a-tack”, had me in fits of laughter.
None of what Pyne and Brough are accused of is illegal. What Slipper did is. Yet rusted-on lefties will grasp at any straw rather than deal with the stench in their own backyard.
Ray
The story in the OZ that I quote from explains very well that Ashby was seeking advice about how things work in parliament and that he was pointed at Mal Brough as someone who knew the ropes and none of his reported comments and advisements to Ashby seems at all untoward. You and your fellow ALP barrackers are desperate for anything to deflect attention from Gillard’s ineptitude and it shows.
Saying that “Ashby looks sleazy and very sus.” is just an example of your confirmation bias and that is no substitute for the lack of cold hard facts supporting your conspiracy theory.
” All Liberal Politicians look sleazy, slimy, and very sus.” Shalom, Richard Ryan.
The only person who has been proven to have done anything “illegal” in this whole Slipper affair is James Ashby. He’s been convicted of misuse of a carriage device to cause offence. He’s the sleazebag, GD. As for Pyne & Brough, no one is saying their behind-the-scenes activities in aiding and abetting Ashby to bring Slipper down is “illegal”. It’s just: dirty, lying and hypocritical. Lacking in integrity and moral fibre comes to mind too. As does the term ‘not of good character’.
hmm…sounds about right, Slipper, Thomson and Gillard. Yep, spot on 😦
Your lot gets down in the gutter as much as, if not more than, the ALP, GD.
And don’t forget, Slipper is a 20 year Liberal, not an ALP member.
You endorsed him. You tolerated him. You excused him. You own him.
And then there’s Slimey Sophie ….. Whoa, what till the Supreme Court hearing starts on her litlle expolit(ation).
Slimey Sophie——I like it——-
AND what about Abbott! what a crossed eyed lying c#nt that one is
Great Bolt Report this morning. Alexander Downer in excellent form and robust debate by all. Bruce Hawker, labor strategist, laughing as he tries to defend labor: priceless.
GD
You are dead right about Sunday’s bolt report, it was a cracker with lots of sizzle!
Richard
You seem to be suffering severely here but I suggest that as it is almost inevitable that Tony Abbot will be our next PM and that his tenure in the lodge will be of a long duration that you begin a serious course in anger management now, lest you have a stroke or a heart attack from persistent high blood pressure.
Ray
What You need to remember is that he was well on his way to being disendorsed by the LNP which was a clear an unequivocal signal that the LNP had had enough of him. Ok its their bad for sticking with him for so long but then when he was finished with the LNP Gillard chose him for high office even though his rep was in the toilet. So which is worse a party that tolerates a backbencher who pushes the boundaries of bad behaviour developed over a long career, or a party that knows he is a bad egg and decides to use him to make a fancy pavlova that poisons the party. You want to blame the chook rather than the cook who knew the egg was bad, sorry mate but its won’t win on Canberra master chef 😉
Iain, the Slipper appointment does not damage the Labor party per se, it damages Gillard. It was her call and her (poor) judgement that he be appointed. But don’t kid yourself that the Libs are any cleanskins in this matter – there’s just too much evidence to deny their involvement in the Ashby allegations. Now it looks like even Julie Bishop was involved. I have to point out to you that it’s only Lib supporters who deny the existence of bad eggs in their own camps, Iain, and that your continued support for the grubby tactics of Lib MPs is totally hypocritical.
Barnaby said it best the first time:
Old news, GD. Get with the latest from your mate Barnaby:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/opposition-slipper-story-slips-20120506-1y72f.html
Ignoring the elephant in the room, eh, GD? Maybe you’re spending too much time resurrecting the dying blog of Iain’s arch rival over @ AOL. Lost focus huh?
Ray you can rail against Slipper’s connections with the LNP but the pale into utter insignificance compared to the crimes and dishonourable dealing alleged against Craig Thompson.
The HSU report:
Now comparing that litany of villainy with the admittedly bad behaviour of the member for Fisher naturally makes one consider which is more serious.Frankly as bad as I think diddling the commonwealth over travel entitlements and sexually harassing a worker are, I think that rorting the union funds of the most lowly paid is orders of magnitude worse. And which party has bent over backwards to obstruct and delay the release of the report into investigation of the HSU?
No argument from me on Craig Thomson, Iain. I’ve never defended him and I’ve said repeatedly that he’s a sleazebag who should never have been endorsed. That’s one bad egg in the ALP basket for sure but it does not excuse, exonerate or lighten the inappropriate conduct of the sleazy types in the coalition. Your lot wouldn’t pass a lie detector test, Iain. On just about any subject. Pyne, Abbott, Bishop, Hockey, Robb and – worst of all – Mirabella are not fit & proper people to govern this country. Play point-the-finger as much as you like re Thomson but I wouldn’t trust the coalition on any score, on any level.
Downer with his English accent,a typical pommy bastard—–Keating gave the jerk heaps in Parliament. Bolt and Downer—good bed mates.
Ray
You need to take a step back from your own partisan view about politics and realise that there are people of good intentions and ability on all sides of politics rather than just insisting that one side is good and one is bad as you do here.
That applies to you too, Iain. That’s my point – you are backing sleazebags.
fwa report into hsu is now in public domain, for those that can be bothered.
sleazebags? remind us who please?
I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to comment that other blog.
That’s not what I said, GD. I said you were resurrecting a dying blog by doing so. That’s all. It beats me why you’d want to breath life into a corpse but you did.
I did, Ray! And thanks for noticing. I’m all for free speech. It was refreshing (??) to hear some comment from the horse’s mouth. And your mate with the unmentionable screen name has taken the thread to all those nooks and crannies that the Labor Greens alliance wish would just go away.
Way to go, SB!
Leon kills it, you revive it. Well done.
Oh Ray?? Is that the raison d’etre of the Sandpit? To close down a Greenie blog? I’d rather be able to read, and in this case respond to their lunacy.
Well I for one would miss our learned friend’s blog were he to give up on it. Where else could we find a Greenie who is so often so silly and inadvertently funny?
I’m starting to like Barnaby Joyce. Now he’s having a go at Mal Brough:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/joyce-takes-brough-to-task-over-meeting-with-slippers-accuser-20120507-1y95o.html
Well said, Barnaby.
Ray
from the SMH
To think that Gillard governs courtesy of this man’s vote, Hmm that makes Slipper’s bad behaviour while a member of the LNP look like rather small beer doesn’t it?
Iain, I’m not talking about Slipper’s “bad behaviour” (*). And yes, it’s a pity Gillard needs Thomson’s vote but that’s how it is and like it or not, Thomson is still entitled to sit on the crossbenches and cast his vote as he sees fit. He hasn’t yet been charged let alone convicted – it’s not a bloody school class room, it’s the real world of politics, Iain.
And what if Thomson decided to vote in favour of an Abbott no-confidence motion, as he is entitled to? Would you then say “to think that Abbott governs courtesy of this man’s vote”? No, you’d welcome it and praise him.
(* And still you avoid any criticism of Pyne, Bishop & Brough’s role in the Ashby matter. Instead you divert away from their dirty tactics. Looks like Hockey was involved too)
PS: You need to redo your maths, Iain. Gillard could govern without Thomson’s vote.
Ray
In the very unlikely event that Thompson were to support a no confidence motion in the government and Tony Abbot were to be asked to be PM by the GG do you reall think that he would leave her digs without advising a new election at the earliest possible time?
I divert from nothing Ray because nothing is precisely what that conspiracy theory has by way of substance. I’m still waiting for you to explain what advice you would give someone seeking the benefit of your experience about either sexual harassment or fraudulent use of cab charge vouchers.
Iain, you just proved my point: Abbott would accept Thomson’s vote in the House provided he voted his way on a no-confidence motion. And so would you.
If I were in Pyne’s, Brough’s, Bishop’s or Hockey’s position (that is, a position of conflicted interests) I would say:
“Go elsewhere sleaze boy”.
Ray
while I suggested that Abbott would most likely accept Thompson’s vote in a no confidence motion the rest of my comment postulates a scenario where Abbott would then go to an immediate election (which would deliver a very workable majority) so he would not actaully be governing courtesy of Thompson’s ongoing support in the house as Gillard currently does.
How is there any conflict of interest Ray? and why would you prejudge anyone making such allegations?
Beside the point, Iain. He would accept and use Thomson’s vote to get the nod and the go ahead to form government. Hypocritically though, Abbott (and you) claim Gillard shouldn’t accept Thomson’s vote to retain support. You can’t have it both ways, Iain. Would you accept Thomson in the house if he used his new status as an independent to support your side of politics? Of course you would. You said so.
It’s bleeding obvious, Iain. Even Barnaby sees it.
PS: As for “prejudging”, that’s not the issue, either. As Barnaby said, Brough should not have been involved in aiding Ashby to bring down his rival for the seat. And Pyne shouldn’t have conspired against the Speaker. Look, you’re blowing a lot of hot air on this one, Iain, without knowing if Ashby’s case stands up. My guess is it doesn’t, and will be thrown out in the early stages.
Ray
I actually think that Abbott would not even move a No confidence motion unless he believed that he could count on either Windsor, Oakshott or both to support the motion in which case Thompson’s vote one way or the other would be of no consequence.
Actually I say that being in power because of the very crooked Craig Thompson is a measure of just how buggered Labor under Gillard is, I know all too well that Gillard won’t cut him loose even though he poisons her from his touch. The problem is all this talk about tainted votes may sound grand and principled but when push comes to shove on the floor of the house a vote can’t actually be rejected from any MP.
Ray
It is precisely the issue ray you have assumed that Ashby is lying and part of a conspiracy when you can’t possibly know either way.
That is bollocks, By the time that Ashby was seeking advice from Mal Brough Slipper had already been expelled from the LNP so Brough was in no way a “rival for the seat” any more than any citizen who could stand for election in fisher is. And further there is not a snowflake in hell’s chance that Slipper will even stand at the next poll because having done the dirty on the LNP he would be unelectable in the rather conservative seat of Fisher.
How did he conspire against the speaker?
where is the evidence to back up that claim?
As I said you are prejudging it as your comment above shows clearly. I, and the opposition are saying that anyone who alleges wrongdoing in the workplace deserves to be heard and to have their case considered by the courts, especially when they have more than “he said she said” evidence of the harassment as Ashby does.
Iain, “prejudging” the merits of Ashby’s complaint is NOT the issue. The simple point – which you fail to acknowledge – is that no Liberal party parliamentary member, or would-be member in the case of Brough, should have got involved. It smacks of set-up, Iain, and to deny that is absurd. Even Abbott is now staying ‘mum’.
At least you now concede that Abbott’s (and your) call for Gillard to reject Thomson’s vote is bullshit.
Ray
So just who should Ashby have consulted about his concerns about Slipper then Ray?
I dunno, Iain, but a solicitor sounds the logical choice.
The point is that Pyne , Brough, etc should not have got involved and should have told Ashby from the very first contact something like, “good luck with that but in my position it’s not appropriate that I discuss it with you.”
And that’s all.
Pretty simple, Iain.
Ray
Christopher Pyne has only been mentioned because he asked for Ashby’s email which given the fact that he is manager of government business is not at all untoward, especially as that email was never used.
You ahve still not even come close to explaining why talking to Brough or anyone else is problematic let alone wrong all you keep doing is asserting some vague notion that its “inappropriate” what I want to know is why you think this, in what way is it wrong?
Pyne met him 3 times, Iain. What do you think they were talking about, cruising sites?
You just keep proving my original point that you are being totally parochial and excusing the behaviour of those on your ‘side’ no matter what.
Wrong way around – it’s inapproriate for Brough et al to speak to him. Do you understand ‘conflict of interest’ or not, Iain? What’s your definition?
Try this one from Wikipedia, Iain:
The involvement only has to give rise to the “possibility” of impropriety for it to be a conflict of interest, Iain. And Pyne, Brough, etc would have known that. Pity you don’t mate.