I think Gillard should still have introduced the legislation, in whatever form (I favour betting and payout limits). She's such a crash-hot negotiator, she should have tried to come up with something workable. And if the backbench don't like it, she should have used her skills to bring them into line. That's what Labor does. That she was so quick to drop it once Slipper was on board I think shows that she was never serious. Had she persevered, she might have been defeated, but she would at least look as if she had a commitment to something other than pure politics.
And what a dope Wilkie was - he should never have announced his intention to walk away from the government if he didn't get his own way. Now he's a single-issue politician who's failed to get even a debate on his one cause. Walking away can only hurt him, because an independent who can't achieve anything at all is likely to lose his seat at the next election. He's been naive and stupid, and it's hard to think of him now as anything but a total failure to his electorate.
What I'm interested in is how both Rudd and Gillard walked away from issues when they simply go too hard – are the backroom boys really responsible? And if so, when are our leaders going to stop listening to them and start acting on their own convictions?
= new reply since forum marked as read