Pairgate - MP Michelle Rowland's sick baby
From SMH
The Coalition's initial rejection of a Labor MP's request to go home to be with her sick child made ''an absolute mockery of everything the Leader of the Opposition has ever said about working women'', Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said. Maybe it is just me, but i am completely cynical when it comes politics in Australia at the moment. When i read this all i see is a beatup to make an issue out of something to distract the Australian public during budget week. We have backbench government MP, who says her baby was sick and vomiting on Sunday. She was very concerned about it, and rightly so, it is the first time her new born has been sick. She then comes in to work on Monday? Why not stay home? If the opposition forced a vote on supply it would be a draw and also it would play super bad for them in the press, so they wouldn't do it. Instead, lets submit a leave form on Tuesday with with language implying "no sense of urgency" and put it in the mix with all the other Govt MPs leave forms and wait for them all to get rejected. Then make a big deal about it. Get granted leave and then instead of going home, go do a dozen press interviews. So is it just me, or is this a beatup? |
01:04pm 16/05/13 Permalink
It's a beatup, yes. So why are you posting about it?
|
01:12pm 16/05/13 Permalink
It's a beatup, yes. So why are you posting about it? Like I said, I wasn't sure if it was just me being cynical about Australian politics or if it is a beatup. |
01:21pm 16/05/13 Permalink
It's a political story printed on (or around) budget day during an election campaign. Literally everything is a beat-up until September :P
|
01:21pm 16/05/13 Permalink
I like it how you try to make it sound like it was a deliberate premeditated trap and then turn around and say it's a beat up.
|
01:22pm 16/05/13 Permalink
They didn't reject/block her ability to go home. She could have left any time she and her bosses wanted.
They refused to sit out one of their members from voting. |
01:23pm 16/05/13 Permalink
I like it how you try to make it sound like it was a deliberate premeditated trap and then turn around and say it's a beat up. You like how I ask the question and then give my thoughts on why I think that it is a bit suss during this period of race to the gutter politics in Australia? No problem, glad I could start a discussion. |
02:39pm 16/05/13 Permalink
since Watergate ah yes, good old WatergateGate |
02:43pm 16/05/13 Permalink
ah yes, good old WatergateGate Thread creation justified. |
02:55pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Haha.
But what if there's a scandal about water? Aquagate? It's not great is it? |
03:12pm 16/05/13 Permalink
The Husband was at home with the kid ?
Women want to be treated equally but when a problem arises they reach for the pity button. You see this type of thing at Tuckshop day, not Parliament. Really, just resign if you cant do the job. No kids for Timbo and Jules to worry about, just that spare room. |
08:24pm 16/05/13 Permalink
It's a distraction from how f***ed this govt is. Don't let Gillard pull the pea and thimble trick on you.
|
09:05pm 16/05/13 Permalink
This seems like a jerk play to me, but the ALP is unpopular enough that people will probably think its fine. I Disagree. Each and every one of those members were elected to represent their constituents in parliament. Stepping down from their job, even for a week, fails to meet that commitment. She has a good reason not to meet that aspect of her job and if she explained that to her bosses (the people that vote for her) they should (I would) understand. The LNP member forced to abstain though, IMO, doesn't have a good reason to stand down. It's not their fault someone else has family issues and cannot fully complete the (admittedly large) commitment of their job. All the s*** I'm seeing from ALP is that the LNP were blocking/Stopping/Baring/denying her from being home with her sick daughter. This is false. 100% False. They couldn't stop her leaving, even if they did want to. According to; This Article; Ms Rowland's husband had taken leave from his job to take care of the child while Ms Rowland was in parliament. The kid had her father there taking care of her. Those kind of decisions that everyone who has children has to make. Mrs Rowland chose her job over being at home with her sick kid. Which isn't a bad judgement on her part, she already had her husband taking care of it. Why does the ALP (and apparently the media) assume that the Mother has to be home to take care of the kids? Seems rather sexist to me. |
09:27pm 16/05/13 Permalink
She has a good reason not to meet that aspect of her job and if she explained that to her bosses (the people that vote for her) they should (I would) understand. The LNP member forced to abstain though, IMO, doesn't have a good reason to stand down. I thought they all explained it to their bosses. They have a pairing agreement that each party signed. It's been used both ways but it seems it's only the LNP who re-neg on it constantly. |
10:17pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Really? These get approved/denied all the time. This is the first time, ever, I have heard anything in the media about it.
It's just more pertinent now because of the (lack of) majority that ALP hold. |
10:35pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Really? These get approved/denied all the time. This is the first time, ever, I have heard anything in the media about it. Really? The largest reported one I can think of would be the Thompson being in hospital with severe abdominal pain with the LNP saying they wouldn't pair him up (they did in the end though, kudos to them for following the agreement they signed eventually). Maybe because he was big in the news at the time they felt like reporting on it but I remember a couple of other either threats or not pairing. I can dig them up I guess if you want, maybe I'm mistaken... I don't remember the ALP refusing to pair up though (maybe that dang Murdoch owned liberal media decided to not report something negative against the government they're kind of trying to boot out?) |
10:52pm 16/05/13 Permalink
Can we make a bingo sheet for Faceman sayings?
|
10:52pm 16/05/13 Permalink
I admit I half assed it, but Google only tends to bring up the recent one with Ms Rowland. I did manage to find the Thompson one with specific searching, but for the birth of his son (not abdominal pain) maybe a 3rd/separate one?
Didn't see it in the media back then though, and judging by Google it wasn't anywhere near this big in the media. The point I was trying to make, Hoggy, is that one person shouldn't stop doing their job because someone else is incapable/unwilling to do theirs. It's a hung parliament, or course pairing is going to be a lot more effective/publicised. If you had a 5+ majority (and remember here, Labor punish/kick out anyone that votes against the party line) you have no need for it. |
11:18pm 16/05/13 Permalink
It's a beatup, yes. So why are you posting about it? Why let a beatup get in the way of a good Liberal party bashing? Im surprised you didn't jump on board. I'll begin. OMGGGGGGGGG MISOGYNYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY |
01:08am 17/05/13 Permalink
Why is politics getting so much attention so much lately. God damn just carry on doing your jobs without being such prima donnas!
|
04:33am 17/05/13 Permalink
It's a distraction from how f***ed this govt is. Don't let Gillard pull the pea and thimble trick on you. There is a bit more to it than that. The libs granted a pair for a previous vote (Gary Gray I think from memory), then the member who was granted a pair still attended the house and affected the numbers in a vote, which pissed the libs off who stated they would be more harsh on future requests. Hence the Rowland and now the Snowdon pair crap we are reading. Sure it's a beatup but it's a distraction that the libs have had a big hand in creating, hence Bishop admitting the mistake on tv today etc. |
07:22am 17/05/13 Permalink
I thought the comment from the Liberal Whip that "If you kid was sick, you should be leaving now, not waiting 3 more days" was fair and justified...
That being said, Labor still got the attention they were after anyway. Seems pretty sus to me. |
07:50am 17/05/13 Permalink
Can everyone do me a favour if you are ever comtemplating making a serious post about a political event with *something*gate in it
Go and slash your wrists immediately |
08:03am 17/05/13 Permalink
This seems like a jerk play to meNot really. Why do they need to sit someone out. Its not like the opposition would have had the numbers to get anything through. It is just labour playing politics during budget time. From what I've read the libs didn't stop her going home, her party did. |
09:03am 17/05/13 Permalink
Not really. Why do they need to sit someone out. Because that's the established pairing agreement between the parties, porkchop? The idea is that it maintains the balance of power as determined by the people despite the ability of the individual members to attend parliament and helps the whole grease of government work. |
09:20am 17/05/13 Permalink
