Are you serious, EB? The issue was whether Senator Kitching had leaked plans for a question time attack on a Liberal minister. If she had, then Labor pollies were within their rights to cut her out of the loop. If the Minister. Linda Reynolds, had smeared Kitching with that allegation when it was untrue, then it's shame on her.
This is not like schoolgirls ganging up on another schoolgirl because she has a bad haircut. There's no suggestion there were attacks made on her that weren't related to political needs. Maintaining confidences with party colleagues is pretty high up on the list of things that pollies are supposed to do. Doing an Akermanis and spilling the beans about team plans aint cool in footy or in politics. Another example in the footy world is Luke Beveridge's attack on Michael Talia when he believed he'd leaked game plans to his brother before the Dogs played the Crows in a final. Kitching didn't suggest that the punishment didn't fit the crime either. Her complaint was that she'd been found guilty by her colleagues when she was innocent. But correct or not, determinations about who can be trusted and who can't be trusted have to be made in politics without the benefit of criminal investigations.
By the way, SloMo sent Fiona Martin to Coventry after she crossed the floor during the vote on the amendments to the Religious Discrimination Bill. He singled her out from the other 4 because according to him (which she denies) Martin had misled him about her intentions. Party support was largely pulled from her reelection campaign which she duly lost.
Politics is all about pressuring colleagues and opponents. The very fact there are parliamentary Whips is the embodiment of that sort of pressure. Unless there's some improper personal aspect to it, such as doing a Harvey Weinstein, or some improper methods are used, then is there any issue? Politics is a tough game. Female politicians shouldn't be expected to behave like besties at morning tea just because they're female.
I'm not surprised this comes from Murdoch's rags. That's a reason of itself to ignore it.
This is not like schoolgirls ganging up on another schoolgirl because she has a bad haircut. There's no suggestion there were attacks made on her that weren't related to political needs. Maintaining confidences with party colleagues is pretty high up on the list of things that pollies are supposed to do. Doing an Akermanis and spilling the beans about team plans aint cool in footy or in politics. Another example in the footy world is Luke Beveridge's attack on Michael Talia when he believed he'd leaked game plans to his brother before the Dogs played the Crows in a final. Kitching didn't suggest that the punishment didn't fit the crime either. Her complaint was that she'd been found guilty by her colleagues when she was innocent. But correct or not, determinations about who can be trusted and who can't be trusted have to be made in politics without the benefit of criminal investigations.
By the way, SloMo sent Fiona Martin to Coventry after she crossed the floor during the vote on the amendments to the Religious Discrimination Bill. He singled her out from the other 4 because according to him (which she denies) Martin had misled him about her intentions. Party support was largely pulled from her reelection campaign which she duly lost.
Politics is all about pressuring colleagues and opponents. The very fact there are parliamentary Whips is the embodiment of that sort of pressure. Unless there's some improper personal aspect to it, such as doing a Harvey Weinstein, or some improper methods are used, then is there any issue? Politics is a tough game. Female politicians shouldn't be expected to behave like besties at morning tea just because they're female.
I'm not surprised this comes from Murdoch's rags. That's a reason of itself to ignore it.