ICB: Are Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s pants really on fire?

VVS says:

12:35pm | 10/11/11

Whether it was technically a lie or not is irrelevant, Labor lost the trust of the general public a long time ago. And with that, the respect.

And trust and respect are almost impossible to get back once people feel you have betrayed them.

Everyone has a former friend/acquaintance who you no longer associate with because they did something to lose your respect and trust.

Sarah Louise says:

12:40pm | 10/11/11

Dude, you’ve either not read the article or you’re a bit dense. Lied means “deliberately misled”. There is absolutely no evidence that’s the case. How bout reading an article before you post hmm?

Peter says:

12:54pm | 10/11/11

Did you read the article?  Or just skipped to the comments.

Dan Morrissey says:

12:55pm | 10/11/11

Apologies.  Obviously, I left the “no” off Julia Gillard’s infamous quote.

And, yes, the irony really is quite poetic!  LOL

Nilbog says:

12:57pm | 10/11/11

Yeah, dude!

St. Michael says:

01:07pm | 10/11/11

The difference comes down to whether Labor intended to introduce a carbon tax when she said otherwise at the time of the statement.  In that scenario it would be a lie.

But if it wasn’t a lie, it doesn’t actually help her out.

See, the consequences of it not being a lie are:

(a) the disproportionate power the Greens hold in the present government in that they can force a sitting Prime Minister back on her word given only a couple of months before;
(b) the indecisiveness of the government in that it can’t make lasting decisions on policy, which is destructive to business investment; or
(c) the lack of forethought into their policies in that they’d suddenly change tack when the platform had been solid for a good year or so prior to the election.

Whether you regard it as a lie, or whether you regard it as a measure of the lack of power and consequent instability of the government, it still rightly drives votes away from Labor at the next election.

Dan Morrissey says:

01:36pm | 10/11/11

@Sarah Louise ... and, ‘dude’, I don’t need you or any other left wing Labor apologist to tell me what is and is not a lie.  I’m not dense, I fully comprehend Tory’s opinion, I just don’t happen to agree with it.  I presumed The Punch was an opinion site - or is this the new Australia we now live in, where someone can’t possibly state a contrary opinion or disagree with the glory and power of the almighty Labor Greens alliance?

The Spirit Of Australia says:

01:37pm | 10/11/11

“Never ever a GST “
John Howard 1995

On July 1 2001, Australia got the Goods and Services Tax from the John Howard Australian Government.
Coalition Voters And The Mass Media supported Howard and GST!
They supported new unwanted taxes for Australians on July 1 2000 but why not on July 1 2012 ?? They don’t know what they support. when , how, and why. They are bad news!

John Smythe says:

01:50pm | 10/11/11

Well said St Michael!!

John Smythe says:

01:57pm | 10/11/11

hahaha Spirit you are truly funny.

6 years later? As opposed to a PRE-eelction promise…and go the otherway within months?

Seriously not a good comparison.

Nic says:

02:00pm | 10/11/11

@Dan

How do you go about “disagreeing” with a fact. The fact is, it’s only a lie if it’s deliberate. Your statement simply repeats that she did say that and she turned out to be incorrect.

Thus the debate here is:

A)  She knew she’d lose majority and be forced into a Carbon Tax. Lie
B)  She didn’t and it was forced on her. Annoying but not a lie

Those are literally the only positions you can take. Your assumption is that she knew she’d elect badly and be held over the barrel by the greens? Interesting.

dovif says:

02:03pm | 10/11/11

Tory

Julia definitely lied

This is what Julia Said 2 days before the election

“Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.”

And they quote her: “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism ... I rule out a carbon tax.”

This is definitely a tax, whereby the government collect money and then redistribute it to whoever (Bribe) they want.

She also lied about the following

The Scheme would “not be triggered until after the 2013 election”. That would give people a chance to vote for it. Again we were not given a chance to decide whether we want it

Therefore another broken promise, lie, mistruth

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

jf says:

02:13pm | 10/11/11

The Spirit Of Australia says:02:37pm | 10/11/11

“Never ever a GST “
John Howard 1995

“On July 1 2001, Australia got the Goods and Services Tax from the John Howard Australian Government.”

Following an election campaign during which he camaigned on the very specific platform of the introduction of a GST. A tax, incidentally, which the ALP supported until it became politically inconvenient and said NO to for base political gain.

“Coalition Voters And The Mass Media supported Howard and GST!”

During the election campaign.

“They supported new unwanted taxes for Australians on July 1 2000 but why not on July 1 2012 ??”

If you don’t know this your opinion is worthless. However, to assist you, the GST replaced a raft of inefficient taxes with a single efficient consumption tax. The carbon tax is a brand new tax, replacing nothing.

jf says:

02:13pm | 10/11/11

The Spirit Of Australia says:02:37pm | 10/11/11

“Never ever a GST “
John Howard 1995

“On July 1 2001, Australia got the Goods and Services Tax from the John Howard Australian Government.”

Following an election campaign during which he camaigned on the very specific platform of the introduction of a GST. A tax, incidentally, which the ALP supported until it became politically inconvenient and said NO to for base political gain.

“Coalition Voters And The Mass Media supported Howard and GST!”

During the election campaign.

“They supported new unwanted taxes for Australians on July 1 2000 but why not on July 1 2012 ??”

If you don’t know this your opinion is worthless. However, to assist you, the GST replaced a raft of inefficient taxes with a single efficient consumption tax. The carbon tax is a brand new tax, replacing nothing.

lee enfield says:

02:43pm | 10/11/11

Tory is right she didn’t lie.  Gillard said there would be no carbon tax under a govt I lead.  So, we know we have a carbon tax,  therefore it stands to reason that if Gillard didn’t lie,  then Gillard must not lead the govt,  which leaves Bob Brown as the leader of the govt.

Bomb78 says:

02:49pm | 10/11/11

Every time this topic comes up some left whinger complains about Howard and the GST.
The Spirit Of Australia: I’ll take a stab and say you’re hard at work writing the national history curriculum. You are leaving out an simple and important fact about Howard and the GST - forgetting something - between his ‘No GST’ statement before the 1996 election, and the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000, there was a small matter of the 1998 election - where the stated policy of the LNP coalition was to introduce a 10% GST.
Did Gillard lie or break a promise? Irrelevant, either way she has breached the trust of the electorate and will ultimately pay the price for it. The difference between her and Howard is that Howard was prepared to take an unpopular policy to the electorate for a mandate, where Gillard didn’t, can’t and won’t.

Mark says:

03:54pm | 10/11/11

Of course she lied.  They were shitting themselves that they might lose the election and said whatever they could to get in.  She was deliberately deceptive, as was Swan.

She’s a bald-faced liar, and no-one will convince me otherwise.

“There’s more chance of me playing full-forward for the Dogs than becoming Prime Minister”.  Nice.  Employ a cute little rehearsed analogy that the little people can relate to, all the while talking absolute, unadulterated bullshit.

Argue semantics all you like, I don’t trust a word she says.  She stands for nothing except her own career, and twists and weasels to suit the situation at hand.  She’s just a symptom of the irreconcilable issues at the heart of the stinking, rotting carcass that is the Australian Labor Party.

Chris L says:

05:56pm | 10/11/11

Dovif seems to be the only one offering a factual argument against Tory. Of course people keep trotting out the “No carbon tax” line and anyone can respond with “committed to a carbon price”. The only thing different about her promise and what we’re getting is that it’s coming in early without a people’s assembly (which conservatives seem to hate whenever they happen anyway) and will be fixed for three years instead of one. It’s not as advertised and people can rightly complain about that, but it’s about as close to the truth as you’ll get from any politician.

Maree says:

06:04pm | 10/11/11

She lied ! Plain and simple. “There will be NO carbon tax under a government I lead”. Backed up by Wayne Swann. Check out the interviews.  Somebody, anyone tell me, what else this statement could mean, particuarly a few day before an election. If she did not mean it, what did she mean ? Or is it the case that Juliar has trouble giving the Australian public clear and easily understood political statements ! Next time she gives a commitment, why would I believe her ? Not a chance.

Steve Putnam says:

07:02pm | 10/11/11

@ jf As usual you gloss over a few important facts in your posting. At the election in question the Coalition polled 41,000 less first preference votes than the ALP and was well behind on the two party preferred. The Coalition targeted marginal electorates better than the ALP, but only someone whose “opinion is worthless” would consider that a mandate. Some in the ALP supported a broad based consumption tax but no-one supported a tax that included essential items such as food.
The reason a price for carbon has been imposed is a recognition of the fact that we cannot go on polluting the only environment we have.You can call it a tax if you want but it is a necessary impost to stop us shitting in our own nest. I’ll go even further than that, Gillard actually stole one of Abbott’s own ideas…..I take it you you clicked on the link and saw Abbott spell out virtually word for word what the Gillard Government has made into law(?)

rb says:

07:48pm | 10/11/11

Is everyone upset at Labour because, unlike Tony, Julia never came out and said that unless it is written party policy that it probably isn’t true.

Chris L says:

07:56pm | 10/11/11

@Maree - “Somebody, anyone tell me, what else this statement could mean” - that depends on whether you’re willing to acknowledge Gillard’s statement that she was committed to a carbon price (in the very same address) or if you want to pretend that never happened.

I know I’m repeating myself, but I’m obviously in good company.

RB says:

10:35pm | 10/11/11

You forget dear Dan that sophistry is the Labor way.  Dear Tory is certainly no example of nominative determinism, a journo with an Arts type education who has done nothing but be a journo inc a stint at that hotbed of right wing politics, the ABC.

Simply put, Tory is using the NSW Labor form of argument - I didn’t lie, check out the very specific meaning of the words used, it’s not my fault it’s your fault you stupid punters etc etc etc

mick says:

09:04am | 11/11/11

If the opposition scare campaign turns out to be nothing more and peoples lives are not ruined as suggested then I believe that the electorate will forgive and move on.  And then maybe the public will see whose interests are being served in giving back the mining tax to mega rich miners sending 81% of profits offshore.

Lets put it into perspective.  Yes Gillard lied - bad.  But then don’t think that a media protected Tony does not lie.  he just gets away with because he has the media on side.

Maree says:

09:22am | 11/11/11

Chris L: Juliars message ambiguous. You can not say one thing then say another. Clearly her message was to confuse or deceive for electoral purposes. Hence the interpretation was a lie. If it was so clear cut why did she not come out the very next day and clarify, retract, or make it very clear. She repeated the statement “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” back up verbally by Wayne Swan. Again (at the risk of repeating myself) what did she really mean at the time? If it was clear cut why so much debate. Oh, I know, most voters are not clever enough to understand. They understand alright !

Mikko says:

09:29am | 11/11/11

She didn’t lie. She said, “...under the government I lead”.  It’s obvious she’s not leading it, Bob Brown is. Case closed

jf says:

10:29am | 11/11/11

Steve Putnam says:08:02pm | 10/11/11

“As usual you gloss over a few important facts in your posting.”

Feeling a little passive aggressive there Stevie.

At the election in question the Coalition campaigned on a very clear intention to introduce a broad-based GST and won. That’s the important factt; everything else is analysis. Valid analysis but they won, they had a majority and they implemented the policies that they said they would.

“would consider that a mandate”

I picked the first definition I found on the interwebby:

“Mandate: a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative”

If the government was democratically elected having campaigned with a very clear policy to implement a GST as the key plank of their election campaign I would call that a mandate. You don’t. Fair enough. I really couldn’t be bothered debating the meaning of ‘mandate’ with you as I have a long lunch to go to.

“Some in the ALP supported a broad based consumption tax but no-one supported a tax that included essential items such as food.”

Keating did. That’s what the “broad-base” referred to. Like Keating, I think that food should have been included. Leaving food out was middle class welfare at its finest. However, the way that the cards fell required the government to negotiate. That is democracy.

“The reason a price for carbon has been imposed is a recognition of the fact that we cannot go on polluting the only environment we have.”

My beef with the carbon tax (that is what Gillard calls it after all) is that it does nothing to protect the environment. I would support meaningful policy reforms that actually did something to protect the environment.

“You can call it a tax if you want”

Thanks. Just taking my lead from the Government.

“I take it you you clicked on the link and saw Abbott spell out virtually word for word what the Gillard Government has made into law(?)”

Maybe, maybe not. I don’t agree with everything Abbott says or does.

Chris L says:

10:52pm | 11/11/11

I get what you’re saying, Maree, and I can’t argue against it. When a politician says one thing, then does another, it doesn’t engender much trust. If you’re willing to look upon Abbott and his “ironclad guarantee” with the same attitude we will be on the same page.

I’m not here to defend Labor. I’m certainly not planning to vote for them unless they do something to impress me, and the Coalition has the same opportunity. I do, however, consider this outrage over a “carbon price lie” to be confected and transparent.

Woodsy says:

12:48pm | 10/11/11

Nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.

RyaN says:

03:43pm | 10/11/11

Awesome, best ever reply.

Ptrofessor says:

05:52pm | 10/11/11

One for you, Diver!
Would Julia have been elected if she had declared she would introduce the carbon tax?
Of course she would not have, so I suggest that highlights this dissembling.

Chris L says:

06:11pm | 10/11/11

People can accuse Tory of splitting hairs. Then again, to call Gillard a liar requires ommitting the carbon price pre-election commitment, actually pretending it never happened. That takes some chutzpah!

It’s on the record. Even Andrew Bolt was spreading the word before the election.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/gillard_wont_rule_out_jacking_up_power_prices/

Mark says:

06:26pm | 10/11/11

Where’s the intent to deceive ?

Matt says:

09:44pm | 10/11/11

So its fine then that Gillard doesn’t have the integrity to keep a pre-election promise. Thanks for clearing that up Chris L and Mark.

Chris L says:

10:43pm | 10/11/11

@Matt - “So its fine then that Gillard doesn’t have the integrity to keep a pre-election promise. Thanks for clearing that up Chris L and Mark.”

Interesting you should say that in response to my comment, and I quote, “carbon price pre-election commitment”.

Did you notice the part where I pointed out that a carbon price was a pre-election commitment? No? Just made up your own idea of what you wanted me to say and responded to that? Fair enough, I understand.

Borderer says:

11:45am | 11/11/11

@Mark
The intent to deceive was that she didn’t slip and fall onto a carbon tax, it was no accident.
Since she said “No tax” before the election she either was planning on implementing the policy all along or she bargained it away for the Greens support and preferences. What part of naive stupidity makes you think that Bob and his fellow watermelons didn’t name their price before giving their support? Sure Julia could have had that down as a contingency of “If I need the Greens then I will have a carbon tax.” But the fact that she would have already allowed for such a contingency shows an intent to decieve. Intent is a wilful act, writing legislation which is forced by external forces (such as war) could be concidered accidental, this is just deception.

Matt says:

12:30pm | 11/11/11

We have a carbon tax, Chris L, in spite of it being catagorically ruled out by Gillard before the election. Therefore, your post is meaningless.

Chris L says:

03:50pm | 11/11/11

@Matt - We were told we’d get a carbon price and that’s what we’re getting. If you want to call it a tax that’s fine, we’re still getting what was promised. (if you consider them the same thing, however, you must have wondered why she said there would be no carbon tax but there would be a carbon price. Didn’t think to question that?)

PS Dismissing a point as meaningless just because you have nothing to counter it is just lazy.

John says:

12:31pm | 10/11/11

Maybe, Observer-just like you are probably updating yours

Observer says:

12:46pm | 10/11/11

Tinfoil John

Don’t waste your time stalking me.

Dave says:

01:19pm | 10/11/11

So we’ll take that as a yes, Observer.

wow to the ignorance says:

02:54pm | 10/11/11

Are you people really this dumb? The word lie has a definition, look it up and find out if that word suits the case at hand. If we are all going to speak english then it is reasonable to expect people of sound intelect to apply the definitions of the words in that language, that they use to state their arguements.

Oh wait, I remember now, in order to bark our partisan card carrying bullshit we must disengage our intellect and crap on about whatever suits our unmoving and un-evolving opinion. Super stuff.

RyaN says:

04:09pm | 10/11/11

Nup its pretty clear they are lying to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xOXhD6euwo

RyaN says:

04:11pm | 10/11/11

Whoops wrong link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xOXhD6euwo

Chris L says:

06:14pm | 10/11/11

Yes, I’ve seen that clip of half a sentence a few times, but the part where Gillard states her commitment to a carbon price always gets cut out. I guess it would be inconvenient to leave it in there.

Perhaps people consider a carbon price the same thing as a carbon tax. That’s understandable. To help out, here’s an article from the macro business blog:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/07/why-gillard-has-a-mandate/

Mouse says:

06:19am | 11/11/11

@ ChrisL, I suppose it depends on your interpretation of a CT and ETS. A CT price is set by the government and an ETS is set by the market. All the double talk, now,  about it not being a tax, ” It is an ETS with an initial fixed price period with a firm transition to a floating price regime after three years”, is just that, double talk. gillard clearly stated there would be no price set by the government, she did not want to go that way and she wanted it looked at by a people’s consensus to take to the 2013 election.  None of that happened.

I don’t have a problem with any of that. My problem is that she quite adamantly, and with great gusto, denied ever having said there will be no carbon tax in her government and she said this consistantly until she finally admitted in Feb that, Yes, she did say it. (The fact that swan also called it “hysterical allegations” a week out from elections when Liberals said that a vote for Labor is a vote for CT is amusing too, especially from a person that didn’t quite understand CT at the time!!) 

My argument is that if she had stated right at the beginning that because of the hung parliment things had to be negotiated, people may have been a little more understanding, or forgiving, and she would not be considered as untrustworthy as she is now. Maybe it would have been seen as policy change, or an adjustment, or a plan brought forward, or just something other than a lie.  She has no-one to blame but herself and the feelings against her are of her own making. For someone who is supposed to be so street smart, such a good negotiator, so politically experienced, she has not done a good job at all.  I am afraid she cannot fall back on the “I was in love and naive” on this one.

Chris L says:

10:14am | 11/11/11

@Mouse - the fixed period of the carbon price was always going to be there, it’s just that we’re getting three years now rather than the intended one year they were planning before the election. I understand people complaining about that because it didn’t come as advertised, but the fact that we’re getting a price on carbon doesn’t fit that description. In fact I have provided a link elsewhere in the comments to Andrew Bolt telling people that Labor would consider an election win a mandate for a carbon price, and he posted that before the election.

I do agree that Gillard fluffed the response. She should have either told people to refer to her pre-election commitment to a price, or brought out the “hung parliament made me do it” response. I can understand people being put off by that, but surely such people would also be put off by Abbott’s many faux pas. (I try to look past their performance abilities, which is why I didn’t join in the chorus over “shit happens” or his Women’s Day interview and such.)

Personally I don’t have a stake in either party at the moment because neither has managed to impress me (I usually vote for minor parties that suit my views more closely). The only reason I get involved in this argument is because I see Abbott’s outrage as fake. I don’t blame the average punter for not realising that a carbon price was a pre-election committment since that part always seems to be edited out of that infamous address, but that editing would have either been at the direction of Abbott, or with his endorsement.

Have a great weekend Danger Mouse!

Mouse says:

03:25pm | 11/11/11

@ ChrisL, I am in the same boat as you as far as being impressed by our current party leaders.  As I said before, I think the interpretation of a carbon price (ETS) and a carbon tax is what has caused some distension in the ranks. The fact that gillard now calls it a tax just muddies the waters even more. I really don’t think though that you can blame Abbott for what journalists do or don’t write in their columns, lol, I don’t think he has that much pull!

It will be interesting to see how this whole debacle plays out, I will watch with much amusement. Pull up a chair and I’ll pass the popcorn! :o)  You have a great weekend too ChrisL   (Danger Mouse… lol .. love it! :oD)

Chris L says:

10:47pm | 11/11/11

LOL! Yeah, thanks Danger Mouse, I do see how my comment looks like another conspiracy theory against Abbott. As I have no intention of joining those ranks I would like to clarify. When I said “that editing would have either been at the direction of Abbott, or with his endorsement” I was thinking of the clip on the Liberal website. The mainstream media, as always, will run with whatever looks most sensational and I cannot blame them for that (chasing the almighty dollar is the current religion).

The weekend is off to a good start. Me and my mate (Jim Beam) are having a good time and I just played some rounds of Left4Dead with some other, more human, mates. Hope you enjoy yours as much.

marley says:

01:40pm | 10/11/11

This has nothing to do with proportional representation.  Minority governments/hung parliaments occur in first-past-the-post governments as well.  The issue in both situations is which of your promises you’re prepared to jettison to stay in power. 

So, I’d be inclined to say that Julia didn’t lie at the time, but her subsequent decision not to honour her promise and to put power ahead of principle represents a certain flexibility of ethical standards.

Super D says:

01:43pm | 10/11/11

I absolutely agree.  However, where there is to be a fundamental change that is difficult, if not impossible (as some claim) to wind back, it’s probably a good idea to make sure you have the people onside before you push it through. 

While its debatable whether or not the PM lied, she certainly blurred the truth and she absolutely played down the likelihood of any sort of carbon pricing mechanism being introduced - certainly no one would have thought one would have been implemented barely 12 months after the election.

The other part of the climate policy that the ALP took to the election was the citizen’s assembly.  While this was probably an example of the extreme idiocy that focus group driven politics throws up the PM acknowledged that consensus on pricing carbon needed to be rebuilt.  In the end she decided a community consensus wasn’t necessary.  History will judge her on that.

I make no absolute claim that the carbon tax will be repealed.  Abbott will certainly attempt it but may lose a double dissolution on the subject.

The only absolute certainty is that if it is repealed there will never be a nationwide carbon pricing scheme until the Greens hold power in both houses of parliament and heaven help us if that ever happens.

Tubesteak says:

02:26pm | 10/11/11

marley
This has everything to do with proportional representation and whether you can form government based on what you have said and the deals you have to make.

Super D
Yes. Politicians really have to watch what they say. Even Abbott is digging himself into a hole by saying he will repeal it. How does he know that? I think the Greens will have control of the senate so Abbott’s repeal will never get through. Will Abbott give up power if he can’t do as he promised and call an election? I doubt it.

Super D says:

04:36pm | 10/11/11

@Tubesteak - Abbott doesn’t need the Greens to repeal the carbon tax.  If the coalition wins big enough then the ALP will fold - or he’ll have moree than enough spare seats to risk a double dissolution.  If the coalition win by only around 5 seats and the public view of the tax softens then it gets trickier as the ALP will be keen to have another crack at power so won’t fold forcing a dd.  If the ALP win, the tax stays.

Kheiron says:

04:57pm | 10/11/11

Let us pick the PM and our local representatives.
Give an Independent candidate the possibility of claiming the top job without having to pander and buddy up to half a hundred politicians and union bosses.
I’m not saying the current crop of Independents are great, but imagine if a bloke with no political affiliation was calling the shots.
It’d at least be interesting.

Dave says:

01:22pm | 10/11/11

Well, Mr “Core and non-core promises”, “Children overboard”, “WMD in Iraq” and “never ever”, John Howard did exactly the same thing and went on to win elections after that. Did you and everyone else stop voting for him because he lied to you? I think not. So lets tag you and all the rest of them as a partisan hypocrite who sees what they want to see and leave it at that, eh?

luke09 says:

01:34pm | 10/11/11

Dave, Howard called an election before ever implementing the GST it was voted in and children overboard was not an election promise.

Anubis says:

03:29pm | 10/11/11

@ Dave - so what you are saying is that because one party did the wrong thing by post-election classifying election promises as core and non-core then it should be acceptable that the other party be allowed to do it. I was always led to believe that two wrongs do not make it right.

Also there is the matter of personal ethics involved. Regardless of whether it was a deliberate lie (and my opinion is that it was a planned strategy by Labor when you take in to account Wayne Swan’s pre-election comments regarding a Carbon Tax/Pricing during this term of Government) then at the very least Julia Gillard is unethical and weak. Weak because she sacrificed personal ethics in order to bend over for the Greens in an attempt to gain power. The Labor policy at the time of the election was that they intended to price carbon but that before that they would seek public consensus and the resultant plan would be taken to the next (2013) election as a policy platform.

Whether a lie or just a breach of faith is irrelevant. She has destroyed her credibility with the Australian public at large. Add to this her other lies such as “I now announce the East Timor Solution” (hadn’t even bothered consulting the East Timor Government at the time) or her “I was only a member of the Fabian Society during my University years” subsequently proven that she was an active member and office bearer for that particular Socialist group right up to 2002 ) or the raft of broken promises, unachieved polices then surely she must be considered as untrustworthy and certainly not ethical enough to be holding the position of Prime Minister.

Dave says:

03:31pm | 10/11/11

luke09 - that doesnt change the fact that he changed his position and implemented a GST. If you apply the same standard as you are applying to the PM then you have to conclude Howard lied. The problem is youre not applying the same standard, youre just making up whatever suits your political view. So much for you, eh? And children overboard was a lie - or are we now distinguishing between election lies and non-election lies when deciding on someone’s trustworthiness? See my comment about making up whatver standards suit you.
Basically your opinion on this is not worth bothering with.  It might even be accurate tocall what you say about this a lie. Im just addressing you to demonstrate that fact. Game over.

Dean says:

04:48pm | 10/11/11

What cracks me up is that the people who are squealing the loudest about the so call lie, didn’t vote Labor anyway. Whether it was a lie or not is immaterial any way it didn’t change their vote. I am glad she did change her mind, for once the hissy fit throwing baby boomers didn’t get their way and as with the GST once Dr No gets in he won’t be able to undo it.
What does make me wonder is that once Tony does get in and he can’t live up to all his pledges will the same crowd screaming calling him a liar?

The Bunyip says:

07:13pm | 10/11/11

No, Dave, if you applied the same standard you would expect Gillard to take a carbon tax to an election in order to get a mandate, just as Howard did with the GST.

LeftRightOut® says:

06:59am | 11/11/11

The reason people kept voting for Howard, is because under his government, people’s lives got better. They got wealthier for a start… self interest rules.

Under Labor, everybody’s worse off, and getting worse all the time.

Competent governments can be forgiven a lot… this one his displayed nothing but INcompetence.

Dave says:

12:09pm | 11/11/11

No Bunyip, we are talking about whether if you apply the same standards to Howard, he was a liar and if so, how come all these rightwing donuts never said all the overblown hysterical shit about Howard that they are saying about Gillard. Whether there is an election or not doesnt change whether there was a lie. Howard said “never ever”, that was false. If I remember rightly he won at least one election after that before re-raising the GST.  By later re-adopting it as policy he changed his position. Was that a lie that he benefited from? If you apply the same standards, yes. Quit bveing such hypocrites and just publically acknowledge that - for you guys - a statement is a lie when it suits you to call it a lie and its not a lie when it suits you to say its not a lie. You people define the world only for your own gain. You have no other standards. YOu guys are regular Humpty Dumpties. Sadly none of you are very bright, which makes you all numpty humpty dumpties.

Tator says:

02:20pm | 11/11/11

Dave,
Howards “Never ever” comment was prior to the 1996 election.  The election you are thinking of is the 1998 election prior to the implementation of the GST in 2001.  During that election, it was a key Coalition policy to implement a GST and the election was basically fought on that policy.
http://australianpolitics.com/elections/1998/  for a review of that election.

Dave says:

03:17pm | 11/11/11

Tator, yep, thats my recollection. Howard said “never ever” because he didnt want people to vote against him in 96. Because he knew he could do that if he wanted. But “Never ever” means “never ever’ - just putting it back on the table in 98 means that he contradicted his 96 statement. When he made the “never ever” declaration did he intend to try the GST later? You betcha he did. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. Was Howard lying then in 96? You betcha, because he absolutley knew then he’d try the GST later if he could. It was a Howard special trait, that trick. The 98 election doesnt change the fact that Howard said “never ever” and then went abck on that. And he knew he would when he made the “never ever” statement.

Steve says:

04:03pm | 10/11/11

Whats the point of debating anything when you can’t believe one word that dribbles out of any Labor politicians mouth?
With Labor its either bullish*t or they fall back on “its all the Liberals fault” or the old class hate debate “all bosses are greedy psychopaths”
Labor has been around too long.

Tony Montana says:

12:43pm | 10/11/11

At least Howard and Liberals had the courage to take their ideas to an election whether good or bad for the majority of Aussies and not the Minorities which scream the loudest in this country!

CJ says:

01:40pm | 10/11/11

Tony Montana how quickly you forget - workchoices - excision of Australian territory from the migration zone - the NT intervention - and many more - none of them taken to an election.
Whereas pricing carbon was an election promise of the Gillard government - and the Greens - and they do have a majority in the Senate do they not?  Surely that could be considered a mandate.

dovif says:

02:24pm | 10/11/11

CJ

Gillard said there will be no carbon tax under a government I led

So she had a mandate for that

So if she had any integrity, she would have to resign from parliament or being branded a Liar

I am not holding my breath for the Backstabber to become honourable

Rocksteady says:

02:46pm | 10/11/11

Also CJ, a very expensive war that no one voted for and most global security analysts agree it made Australia more of a target for terrorism.

Bomb78 says:

03:07pm | 10/11/11

CJ: Using your test of a Senate majority , Howard was in the right to do the things he did in his fourth term?
If you had been listening to Howard for the two decades prior to Work Choices it wouldn’t have been a surprise. But he ultimatly paid the price for a divisive policy for which he did not have an explicit mandate.
The ALP have shown the way with their 2007 election campaign, all the LNP need to do is copy that scare campaign and change ‘Workchoices’ with ‘Carbon Tax’.

Brian of Moorabbin says:

03:11pm | 10/11/11

@Rocksteady
You mean the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that Kevin Rudd spoke in favour of, and which drew bipartisan support from both Coalition AND ALP parliamentarians?

That war?

MDG says:

04:10pm | 10/11/11

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are separate, and Labor opposed the invasion of Iraq in the absence of a UN mandate.  You may remember Simon Crean telling deploying ADF personnel that he didn’t agree with why they were going abroad, but would support them just the same.

Brian of Moorabbin says:

04:33pm | 10/11/11

@MDG
I also remember Kevin Rudd (and Kim Beazley) speaking in favour of the Iraq war…
.. and so does John Howard
“He says that Rudd wrote to him about Iraq in November 2003 “with suggestions for additional Australian involvement”. He quotes Mr Beazley as saying he was glad to see Saddam Hussein removed. He says Mr Rudd, as opposition foreign affairs spokesman, insisted before the war that Iraq had a WMD capacity.”
(source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/howards-contempt-for-labor-over-iraq/story-fn59niix-1225942467061)

Chris L says:

05:42pm | 10/11/11

Carefull Brian, conservatives have been defending Abbott’s “No to everything” position by claiming that Labor never supported the Coalition when they were in opposition. You don’t want to destroy that argument do you?

Trevor says:

11:47am | 11/11/11

Chris L

That is beautiful. Almost poetic. Watch their heads explode with that logic bomb!

Carl Palmer says:

08:17am | 11/11/11

@ Tory Shepherd says: 02:31pm | 10/11/11
What a load of nonsense, your word is your word. As far as changing circumstances is concerned, you work within the principles / policies that you espoused. You either *believe* in something or you don’t. It started with K Rudd where one minute it was the greatest moral….. to dropping it like a hot potato. He didn’t have the courage of his convictions – credibility gone, poles head south. The same with the incumbents -

According to the Merriam-Webster: “To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”.
The Oxford Dictionary: “an intentionally false statement”.

“There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” J Gillard

“No it’s not possible that we’re bringing in the carbon tax that is a hysterically inaccurate claim being made by the Coalition.” W Swan

How anyone could deduce what their intentions were by reading these two statements is beyond me. Based on these two statements – which to the best of my knowledge they have not refuted, I can only concluded that they were intentionally deceitful and misleading = lie – both the PM and Deputy PM. Credibility minus zero. Probably explains why people have “turned off”.

luke09 says:

01:38pm | 10/11/11

Tory, so you’re saying with your opinion article that Gillard is a bad PM?

Super D says:

01:47pm | 10/11/11

@Tory - its just semantics.  The point is that o one would have reasonably expected before the last election that barely a year later a scheme would be legislated.  Call it a lie, call it a policy backflip, call it whatever you like it doesn’t change the fact that the policy wasn’t on the table at the last election.

Jamin says:

01:52pm | 10/11/11

So Tory by your explanation of the analogy you admit Julia is a bad PM?

dancan says:

01:52pm | 10/11/11

Unfortunately the true intentions of a person can only be known by said person, be it Julia or Timmy’s dad

But by extension aren’t you’re saying Julia is a bad PM?

BS says:

01:56pm | 10/11/11

“Sike”???

Try “psych”

Insult fails always amuse

jf says:

02:17pm | 10/11/11

The point is, it depends on whether Australia’s PM ever intended to introduce a carbon tax but circumstances intervened - which makes her a bad PM but not a liar - or whether Australia’s PM never intended to not introduce a new tax - which makes her a bad PM AND a liar.

Thanks Tory. Well put. Incidentally, I think she is a liar. Had she called an election and campaigned on a carbon tax - no problem. Had significant new evidence in relation to AGW than also - no problem. The only circumstances that intervened where circumstances relating to her own self interest. Not good enough. Liar.

John Smythe says:

02:57pm | 10/11/11

huh Tory? Are you saying you care about honesty and accuracy in that comment?

For the anti-Gillard sentiment that has been intelligently raised in these forums, everyone has used the sheer dishonesty of her actions as establishment that she lied. TimB does another marvellous summary further down the page.

It’s only the rusted on supporters who are debating the semantics of the lie/no lie. The timing of the statements to pre-election, to what happened post-election. This is not a debate about a specific platform she ran with right up to the elections, but a statement made to win votes, her rushing it through post-election, for nothing other than to stay in power.

All of these actions are what I believe people “summarise”, if you will, as “Liar”, with that statement being the cover slip.

Like jf says above your post there, if any of those scenarios had played out, I don’t think there would be so much backlash against her. But hey, let’s focus on “something small”.....

dancan says:

02:58pm | 10/11/11

@BS - I googled it, I really did! But there were three different versions so I went with the slang term :(

xor says:

03:01pm | 10/11/11

“Little Timmy I’m going to buy you all the Christmas presents you could ever want!”

*You lose your life’s savings and are forced to resort to pulling tricks in order to scrape together a spartan existence for you and your children.*

*two weeks later*

“Sike! I didn’t buy you any, but don’t worry Timmy I didn’t lie I just broke a promise”

FTFY

. . . Actually, when you put it that way, it seems like that’s exactly what happened, right?

OMG says:

03:03pm | 10/11/11

Again I say:

Are you people really this dumb? The word lie has a definition, look it up and find out if that word suits the case at hand. If we are all going to speak english then it is reasonable to expect people of sound intelect to apply the definitions of the words in that language, that they use to state their arguements.

Oh wait, I remember now, in order to bark our partisan card carrying bullshit we must disengage our intellect and crap on about whatever suits our unmoving and un-evolving opinion. Super stuff.

RyaN says:

04:18pm | 10/11/11

@Comrade Tory: “if saying something’s a lie when it’s not a lie is just semantics, fine. if you don’t give a shit about honesty or accuracy.”

Since neither you nor any of us know the intention (but can surmise considering the personal benefit she gained from it) conversely to say something isn’t a lie when it is is just semantics, that is “if you don’t give a shit about honesty or accuracy.”

You can’t have it both ways Tory.

Super D says:

04:50pm | 10/11/11

@Tory - I’m happy to concede it wasn’t a lie in the strictest interpretation of the word.  No one except the PM herself knows whether she was intending to introduce a carbon tax.  The overarching fact is that she promised a citizens assembly to build a consensus so that a mechanism to price carbon could be developed.  She essentially took pricing carbon off the table - irrespective of the minute to midnight loophole.  The ALP did whatever they could to shut down carbon pricing as an election issue.  They didn’t seek a mandate in any form.  This was a fundamental dishonesty, either intentional or due to (fortuitously) changed circumstances.

At least the ALP hasn’t signed us up to join the Euro though it’s worth noting that the biggest supporters of the Euro are pretty mad keen carbon pricers.

AJ says:

12:37pm | 10/11/11

Yep agree. It’s losing its punch

luke09 says:

12:49pm | 10/11/11

The Gillard government with the help of Bob Brown and the greens are trying to implement censorship on murdoch’s news limited in the near future and maybe some opinion writers want a job working for a government sponsored media organization.

The labor politicians in the senate were complaining the other day how murdoch’s papers wrote the truth about some of the Gillard government failures.

John Smythe says:

01:30pm | 10/11/11

ditto to that fellas.

mick e mause says:

01:42pm | 10/11/11

What with Labor senators claiming free press knocking the Government is a threat to democracy! And guess what 70 percent of the population think the Carbon Tax is the wrong thing to do without our say in an election but you lot of the media in general seem to ignore that fact and root for this Government that cant seem to get anything right first time. I think you lot are more of a threat to democracy than the news print that apprently is slowly sinking due to new technology.

luke09 says:

01:50pm | 10/11/11

Tory, you can’t deny the government anger towards murdoch. Why is the government only critical of murdoch’s news limited and not others? It seems a bit strange for a government to criticize a media organisation reporting on facts.

Finally, I did not write anywhere that you are a Gillard supporter?

ICMB - I Call Major Bullshit says:

02:00pm | 10/11/11

mick e mause ... what part of a billion dollar media empire do you think is free?
The space for advertising surely isn’t.
And don’t try to fool anyone that the editorials are free of bias.
Shamefully opinion is no longer contained to the opinion or editorial pages.

John Smythe says:

02:00pm | 10/11/11

um ditto to AJ and Keith….Luke’s comment wasn’t there when I replied >.<

Steve says:

04:11pm | 10/11/11

Tory, didn’t your boss just lose his job for daring to question the Labor Green government??
Isn’t there a senate witch hunt into News media coming up?
Ugly times in Australia.
Not many brave journos left. Be a good girl and tow the line.

Sydneyman says:

12:37pm | 10/11/11

Dude, we only want retribution. And we will get it.

Why is that so hard to understand, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”

nihonin says:

12:47pm | 10/11/11

‘Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum’ = Julia Gillard or Wayne Swan

Cheshire Cat = Bob Brown

Seen that death like grimace (smile) lately.

RyaN says:

09:27am | 11/11/11

@Comrade John A Neve: It appears that the recent directive from Labor party headquarters is that now that the carbon tax has gone through, use the media to deceive the nation that they were not lied to. Barefaced lies are barefaced lies, the intention was to gain power through the deception of the Australian public because Gillard knew she would not stand a hope in hell if she went to an election touting a carbon tax.

It is what it is, replace her and Swann and blame the lie on them would be a far better strategy than this recent blatant attempt we have seen. The Punch seems to be quite into this propaganda considering the sheer number of posts trying to cover for this lie since the introduction of the carbon tax.

Don King says:

12:16pm | 11/11/11

John a Neve as a liar yourself I doubt you can comment on this issue. I remember your comments attacking AtM’s niece. You had hoped some of us would have a short memory. I don’t. I remembered. And you denying it makes you a liar! You are a coward and a snake.

John A Neve says:

01:02pm | 11/11/11

Don King,
I have never attacked AtM’s niece, point us to your so called attack.
You are the one perpetraying the lie, not related to Deena are you?

Adam Diver says:

12:48pm | 10/11/11

Whats your point? John Howard lied and used a euphemism, now Juila Gillard Lied. I don’t see what this has to do with anything, she lied, she is called a liar, and the only BS around here comes from Tory’s keyboard (and politicians from all sides).

Reg says:

12:55pm | 10/11/11

Howard lied. No one is pretending otherwise (except Howard of course).

Gillard is a dead duck, no one listens to her any more and the trust is gone.

Bony Toby says:

12:50pm | 10/11/11

Very good point

Sad but true.

Tony Montana says:

01:32pm | 10/11/11

Did Bob Brown go to Afghanistan representing the country to boost moral with the troops after we lost the 3 soldiers killed by a Afghanistan solider! NO….who was on the phone to the 14yr old boy in Bali on drug charges JULIAR, Who lead the CHOGM meeting in Perth last week. Again Marxist Twits twist meanings to suit their agenda. She is the figure head and will be remembered for her betrayal of the Australian people.

nihonin says:

03:33pm | 10/11/11

@Tony Montana ‘who was on the phone to the 14yr old boy in Bali on drug charges’, this was pretty much a publicity stunt, hence all the camera’s in the room to record the moment.

Ben says:

08:54am | 11/11/11

@Tony Montana - I wasn’t implying that Bob Brown leading was a good thing….

Keith Hammersmith says:

01:54pm | 10/11/11

If you want to get technical about “meaning” Tory, you must understand that you are extrapolating what Julia “meant” when she said “There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead.”  You seem to think she meant “there will not be a carbon tax under the government I lead if it is possible to do that whilst still maintaining power”
But unfortunately that is not how it came out.  You call it a broken promise,  but it wasnt a promise, it was a statement, and a statement when broken becomes a lie.

Bony Toby says:

02:09pm | 10/11/11

The point that I’m trying to make is that all pollies lie and Aussies will accept that. As others pointed out Howard had his famous “non-core promises”. But he was forgiven becuase he was right - they were “non- core” in so far as they were not major issues. But we expect pollies to stick to their word on the big issues.

While Julia may not be a “liar” by Oxford definition - she is by Aussie vernacular (mate). She went back on her word. She broke a big promise to a mate. She’s no longer authentic. She’s not fair dinkum anymore.

It’s the vibe…

John Smythe says:

02:16pm | 10/11/11

....it was a statement, and a statement when broken becomes a lie.

Well said again Keith.

fml says:

02:28pm | 10/11/11

Is changing your mind the same as lying?

John Smythe says:

03:11pm | 10/11/11

If you want to just focus on words, and words alone, Tory…maybe, just maybe you can play Oxford Dictionary with it. As many others, I believe there was a pretence to that statement that she used specifically to deceive the Australian public, or in the very least, stave off any negativity (read: would lead to lost votes, at a critical moment of a stalled election) maintaining her true goal (which is very clearly evident in post-election comments along the lines of. “what do you mean NO carbon tax??? I always said we were committed to one!).

Furthermore, (and in response to FML), we are talking about a context with very. very vested interests at stake here. This is not as simple as I’ll have the coffee, only to take milo later.

As previously mentioned way way many many CT articles ago, this is not reneging on a “promise” made by a party that was very much in the lead. This was a promise made to attract as many votes as possible to tip the balance in her favour. To try and gloss over this as if it were any other majority winning election, is just to deny the true argument at hand.

badrinath says:

03:32pm | 10/11/11

Give it up Tory. When you decide to passionately embrace an opinion and refuse to engage your brain, there is no way that one can entertain any ideas of truth that dissagree with said opinion. No matter how clear and simple you make it.

The PM haters will never see it. Because here in their fortunate, luxurious, highest standards of living, wealthy worlds they sit - and all they wish to do is whinge like old Ninnies and complain about the parts of their reality that they don’t like.

These folk say they don’t care about semantics, the definitions of actual words used, and so on - well I for one don’t care how hard done they feel (because the tax-sky is not falling), a democracy lead to this situation, no constitutional laws have been broken, the AFP has no grounds for prosecution - this is they way it stands and will stand no matter how much the whingers winge.

So to you whining folks and disgruntled moopers, I say “suck it up people and keep smiling” its been voted in and no blood oath will get rid of a thing that won’t be much of a problem by the time the election comes round. Less and less of us are listening to you anyway (no matter how many links you type up or how much vitriolic sweat and anger hit your keyboards in the commentary frenzies you have) and time is only going to soften the groan of your voices. (P.S I don’t agree with this tax, but I am not a hopeless whinning complainer with nothing better to do than get angry at my computer all day…. every day. I see that it is a beautiful day out there, I am alive and greatfull for the good things that I have.)

fml says:

04:09pm | 10/11/11

John Smythe,

I agree its not a simple topic, but i think Tory makes an important distinction when saying Ms Gillard is not a liar.

It reminds of the argument over the definition of racism that we quite often have on the punch, People swear that, what ever action we are talking about that day, is not racism and they use the technical definition of racism, which is race, and refuse to accept any discrimination based on nationality or color as an indication of racism.

Tory is absolutely correct in that respect.

John Smythe says:

04:34pm | 10/11/11

Agree there FML. This article is only correct in that it is taking the “argument” away from the topic at hand, and is being pedantic in its “new” argument (the definition). Same with your point there which highlights the whole “debate”.

Happy Virtual Friday!

fml says:

05:32pm | 10/11/11

Smythey,

Unless her argument is nothing more than the definition of a liar cannot be applied to Ms Gillard, then we are all guilty of taking it out of context :D

Phil says:

02:32pm | 10/11/11

lol at Shibby, haven’t heard that in a long time.

Tory, Its from “Dude where’s my car?” the movie.
A word that had a shelf life of maybe 4-6 months and then was never spoken again until Mahhrat dropped it. Maybe he is trying to bring it back?

Dude wheres my word says:

02:34pm | 10/11/11

Shibby is from ‘Dude where’s my car”

Mahhrat says:

04:38pm | 10/11/11

@Phil - my brother used it and I picked it up.  In his own special lexicon, he uses it when making a point he feels is self-evident, and it’s a mild form of the classic piss-take.

nihonin says:

02:09pm | 10/11/11

‘Vote against her because her word, her promises, her honour, her very reasons for being a representative of the people, can be chucked overboard the second she gets a better deal’.  At least we have a better understanding of her principles though.

Just a Guy says:

01:20pm | 10/11/11

True. But there’s backflips and then there’s backflips.

I don’t think Tony expected Julia to comprimise on the carbon tax. It was a fairly major issue in the election.

I actually think Julia’s decision was very short sighted. She won the election but handed Tony the moral high ground. She also crippled herself in the process - especially given the already-present question marks over who was the “real Julia”.

I think if they both stonewalled the Greens it would have been a far better outcome for the winner.

Tony Montana says:

01:35pm | 10/11/11

What brand of GLUE do you sniff mate, strong stuff!!!

Syl says:

02:50pm | 10/11/11

Youthenasia also sounds like Youth in Asia, should we stop using that word because of it’s racist tone?

Get a grip….

Restore the Sanity says:

03:43pm | 10/11/11

Oh the irony Tony .. someone using the moniker of a fictional cocaine dealer asking someone what are they sniffing?  High-larious!

Of course those using the term would deny its phonetic likeness to anti-semitism.

As for Syl ... euthenasia.  Get a grip?  Learn how to spell.  And there is nothing racist about “youth in asia” unless you add a derogative to it.

Of course I shouldn’t expect much when debating deniers and trolls.

Tony Montana says:

09:31pm | 10/11/11

Restore the sanity: Which Uni do you work at. Ever had a job in the real world. Only you have brought Anti-semitism into this debate. It’s you that’s playing the race card, what a pathetic attempt to give credit to your post. If Australia has lot’s of people who think like you..we are in serious trouble! Oh dear me.  Quote,‘That Alan Jones’, sounds like your a spoiled little Princess with a bone to pick with Mr Jones. Oh the Irony somreone using the Moniker of a person who has claims to be restoring sanity but is the only person in this whole thread to play race card. What a deluded joker! Has JULIAR ever had the courage to go on 2GB?? No. Did she give Aussies a say….No.

Restore the Sanity says:

10:34pm | 10/11/11

Has the Prime Minister Julia Gillard “ever had the courage to go on 2GB??”

Well yes actually.  Remember when Alan Jones castigated her for being late? 

You certainly do have a short memory.
Sadly rather than relying on facts - such as the PM appearing on Alan Jones’ 2GB show - you can resort to ad hominem attacks guessing my education/employment.
Typical of a troll.

AdamC says:

01:48pm | 10/11/11

Good call, Erick. It is rather tacky to spin furiously and deploy weasel words in a regular column supposedly dedicated to exposing and ridiculing those things.

Erick says:

02:35pm | 10/11/11

Okay, Tory. Let’s look at the word “liar”, as you have correctly defined it.

I believe that Julia Gillard was lying - as in being deliberately deceptive - when she said there would be no carbon tax under a government led by her. At the time she said that, she knew that she would be willing to do anything to remain as Prime Minister. This would include introducing a carbon tax - which, in fact, she did.

Julia Gillard knew that she would betray her promise at the drop of a vote. So her promise was a lie.

And, if that’s not enough to brand her a liar, I’ll provide two more examples.

According to a leak attributed to Kevin Rudd, one hour before the leadership spill, Julia promised to let Kevin lead until the next election. Clearly that was a lie.

Six months before Julia’s takeover, a transcript from Wikileaks reveals that Gillard was scheming to take over the leadership. Yet at the same time, she denied any such intent in public. Another lie.

The verdict is in. Julia Gillard will say anything, and do anything, to gain or keep power. Her words can in no way be trusted, ever.

TimB says:

03:19pm | 10/11/11

She didn’t ‘desperately depend on the Greens’ Tory. Julia admits this herself. She dealt with the Greens by choice. Read my post below.

Your argument relies on a fallacy.

jf says:

04:50pm | 10/11/11

“Great, you’ve reduced me to ridiculous puppy dog stories.”

And fallacious.

You loved your puppy. He bit your finger and your love died.

Now, apart from the fact that your love must have been superficial to be so easily lost, your love was still love at the time. For you, circumstances had changed dramatically and meaningfully. Had you said that your love will live forever, that would have been a lie knowing your love to be so flippantly given and thus unlikely to last forever. 

So to Gillard, she said that she would not introduce a carbon tax. Her reasons for introducing a carbon tax were so self-serving as to be a lie themselves. Thus, she lied once about the carbon tax and again about the need to abandon her promise.

Not to mention the lies about her loyalty, the likliehood of her challenging for the leadership and so on.

To be frank, I hadn’t thought much of those that resorted to the Ju-liar tax or considered it an issue of huge significance. For me, there was far more to be concerned with in relation to this government and Gillard’s leadership.

However, this article and the posts have made me give it more thought.

She is a bare-faced, pathological liar who will do and say anything to ensure that she is able to enforce her ideology on the country.

Keith Hammersmith says:

01:57pm | 10/11/11

Do you think she didnt lie Tory?  Do you think she didnt know what she was saying and that she was not held to that conviction?
Do you think the greens would have supported Liberal had Gillard not put through a carbon tax?  No the greens were always going to support labor,  gillard knows that,  that deal was done.

Super D says:

02:07pm | 10/11/11

@Tory - that is irrelevant.  She could have said no to the carbon tax.  Abbott certainly wasn’t promising one.  What if some crackpot had been elected who wanted to recriminalise homosexuality and the ALP needed his/her vote to form government.  Would that be ok?

Tony A Shakespeare says:

02:16pm | 10/11/11

Tory needs to learn the birds and the bees.
Only men get well hung.
Are you saying that the federal parliament is now male when the Parliament now has female leaders Julia Gillard Labor and Julie Bishop Liberals ???

jf says:

02:29pm | 10/11/11

Tory Shepherd says:02:44pm | 10/11/11

“So you think she knew in advance the Parliament would be hung? “

Using a circumstance driven by blatant self-interest and without one iota of urgency (even for those committed warmists) is not even close enough to be a good excuse to justify a lie about something so fundamental to all Australians.

Ryan says:

03:56pm | 10/11/11

Hung parliament? If only that were true, the current batch have done nothing but lose the trust of the people and drive us deeper into debt.  Hanging them would be a service to the Australian people.

Salec says:

04:10pm | 10/11/11

@ Tony - actually pictures, flowers and just about anything that is not a person can be hung. Some people like to think (incorrectly) that killing someone by hanging in the past tense is hanged, which it can be, but doesn’t have to be. It can also be hung.

Govt@FauxCitizen says:

12:13pm | 11/11/11

@ Tory, The polls for weeks beforehand all suggested a hung parliament, she knew what was at stake and would have had a tactical contingency plan in mind, she’s addmited as much by saying it was “due to the current plitical climate”,the fact that she was willing to do deals to win wich would break core promises speaks volumes for her lack of integrity and character.
Gillards’  “WORD” isn’t worth anything !!!

fml says:

02:34pm | 10/11/11

You ask to refrain from personal attacks then call the prime minister a traitor?

Oh thats right you didnt call the PM a traitor, Cicero did!, you just happened to bang your head in frustration on the keyboard and thats what appeared!

Tony Montana says:

03:01pm | 10/11/11

No, that is you Implying that i did you by twisting the words written by me. But I’m cool with it cos she is a traitor and will be remembered for her betrayal of the MAJORITY of Australians. Again another Marxist Commi fool, who likes to twist words and meanings to suit his/her agenda with disregard to facts. I break my rule for you, seeing you could only pick that out and ignore the facts as usual. Harden up Princess!!! Mild insult.

Daniel says:

03:23pm | 10/11/11

Spot on Tony. Spot on. Tory seems to be part of the same team that is pushing for the NWO, hence her staunch defense of the PM Ju-liar and the language semantics she is playinng with.

fml says:

03:55pm | 10/11/11

Huh?

You have a go at me for twisting your words, then say its ok, because you do think she is a traitor? I know you think the PM is a traitor, its obvious from your post.

You quite clearly made a post about our elected leaders and then inserted a quote about traitors, if the quote about traitors had nothing to do with elected leaders you mentioned earlier in the post, why put it in?

for sh!ts and giggles?

*resisting urge to insert recipe for lemon meringue pie*

tony montana says:

05:44pm | 10/11/11

fml…Juliar Gillard our elected leader….Lol. When i said resist personal attacks, i mean debate me on facts and don’t skew my words to suit your agenda. ok comrade! Nit-picky fml- looking for the high ground. Its my opinion she is a Traitor. A Welsh Traitor, can you grasp that fml
THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVT I LEAD
There’s more chance of me becoming the full-forward for the Dogs than there is any chance of a change in the Labor Party.”               

‘TRAITOR! a person who is guilty of treason or treachery, in betraying friends, country, a cause or trust.  now does it seem unfair considering she betrayed the MAJORITY of hard working Australians with a massive LIE.

Maree says:

07:16pm | 10/11/11

DocAnt: Solution, parliament moves to make lieing a crimanal act of deceipt. Any politician who opens his / her mouth and does NOT follow through with exacly what they promised is given a 12 month jail term for missleading the Australian voter. I have very little faith in politicians, but if I have to vote for them, I want the truth. I will NOT accept that its part of the game. Its a sad system that we accept lieing as part of politics, how is the average voters supposed to corretly informed if we have politicians who lie ? Otherwise lets get a new system which has honesty and direct accountability to the Australian voter.

BigA says:

05:22pm | 10/11/11

ROFL !! I honestly hadn’t thought of that but then chances are the hippy greenies haven’t either LOL !!!

Timinane says:

05:34pm | 10/11/11

The part that controls the breathing is independent of the part that makes up our intelligence.

You can never be too stupid to breath as it’s controlled in a small part of the brain near the neck I think just like most other major bodily functions.

Thinking is not a major part as if it was more people would do it and this comments section would be lovely to read.

jf says:

04:53pm | 10/11/11

So who die you vote for?

Giraffe says:

02:10pm | 10/11/11

She has the guts to fight for what she believes will keep her in power. Not what she believes, or there would ‘be no carbon tax under a government (she) leads’.

Tony Montana says:

02:34pm | 10/11/11

Matt, come on man, get off the glue mate. It is a Tax, cos we will be paying it. Oh wait were being compensated, Govt handouts = Socialism, being reliant on Govt to be your Mom & Dad. As if the polluters will worry they will pass it on. Oh mate, your right it’s not a tax…it’s a new Ponzi Scheme for the rich to rape $$ from the masses. Juliar didn’t lie…she delivered a broken promise. SAME THING MATT.  Juilar is a strong intelligent woman, no doubt about that mate….she’s also a disgusting Traitor who should be exposed for what she is A Gutless liar!!!!!!!!!!

Matt says:

03:45pm | 10/11/11

lol thanks Tony… I think… ‘We’ will not be paying it, unless Tony Montana Inc. is a top 500 polluter of the country.  If as you say government handouts = socialism (lol) I suppose you’re equally against pensioners, people on Centrelink benefits, Disabled people, stay at home mothers and everyone else that are receiving ‘Govt handouts’?

If you actually knew anything about what you think you’re talking about, and not parrotting television ads you’d realise how laughable the ‘rich to rape $$....’ comment is, as the richer people will receive no compensation at all.

chet says:

04:48pm | 10/11/11

“‘We’ will not be paying it, unless Tony Montana Inc. is a top 500 polluter of the country. “

Matt, those 500 polluters will just pass the costs on to you in the purchase price, with a fat admin fee on top of it.  That’s why Gillard is giving everyone $5b in compensation.  Thought that was pretty obvious…

“it’s a price on carbon that will eventually turn into a market.  It’s not a tax.”
From Tory’s beloved oxford dictionary:
“tax - money compulsorily levied by the government on individuals, property, businesses, goods, etc”

Is it a charge in currency levied by the government? - Yes
Is it compulsory? Yes
Do businesses have to pay it? Yes

Therefore its a TAX.  Can we quit with the word games now?

Tony Montana says:

08:55pm | 10/11/11

Hey Matt, Pensioners get a whack from the Govt cos they have paid taxes all their working life and deserve to be supported, especially War Vets and Widows. Now stay at home Mums, their choice to have kids and stay at home., to which the Taxpayer supports. You been to Centrelink lately, oh no you do online now. It’s a smorgasbord of handouts mate. Boat people must be laughing at us fools. Look up the LIMA Treaty of 1975 mate. My job moved to China. Stay home mothers do alright just ask Harvey Norman.  I’ll debate you mate..bring it with facts and not petty insults Ok! You seem to have an air of entitlement about you.

Jt says:

10:31pm | 10/11/11

Chet/Tony, do you actually understand how business works?

Companies will just pass on the costs? Yea, maybe the dumb ones. The smart ones will innovate, reduce their emissions, and not incur as much tax in the first place.

chet says:

09:29am | 11/11/11

JT - do YOU understand how business works?  I’m a professional energy economist and I can tell you 100% that these costs will be passed on.

You seem to assume there is some technological magic pudding that can replace all carbon emissions if those nasty polluters would only use it.  Where viable clean tech exists its already being used, because its more efficient and cheaper. 

Sorry, you seem to be living in the same “we can get rid of all non-renewable energy in 10 years” fantasy land that Larissa Waters is in…

Matt says:

11:30am | 11/11/11

chet some costs will be passed on and unavoidable, hence compensation, most won’t or shouldn’t be as JT said.  There is also a watchdog being set up to check that companies don’t pass on costs unfairly.  As a ‘professional energy economist’ you’re not doing a very good job if all you’re doing is passing on costs - anyone could do that.. It’s a price on carbon paid by select businesses - not all businesses, it’s not a tax and will eventually be a market.  I’d think a professional energy economist would know that seeing as though it’s the future of your profession.

Tony - you haven’t yet stated a fact to debate.. And what petty insult?

chet says:

02:36pm | 11/11/11

“As a ‘professional energy economist’ you’re not doing a very good job if all you’re doing is passing on costs - anyone could do that..”

Matt, there is absolutely no doubt electricity companies will pass this on - forward electricity prices have *already* increased by the amount of the carbon tax.

Even if the data didn’t already show that, the full costs associated with the mandatory renewable target are passed on to consumers now, doesn’t cost energy companies a cent - the carbon tax will be exactly the same. 

You also seem to be under the impression that its the job of business to minimise the impact on consumers of this.  I’d argue that’s really naive… 

“There is also a watchdog being set up to check that companies don’t pass on costs unfairly”

Passing on the entire cost incurred by the company is not unfair under that legislation - the ACCC watchdog is there if business try and pass on *more* than their direct costs…

” I’d think a professional energy economist would know that seeing as though it’s the future of your profession.”

Trading carbon certificates isn’t the future of our profession - try the financial/broking houses like Macquarie et al - they will make heaps out of this. 

For those of us working to keep the electricity supply to your computer working (ironically so you can bag me using that very electricity!), its just a new cost that consumers will pay, like solar feed in tariffs (through electricity distribution charges), the MRET scheme etc etc.

KRS1 says:

02:27pm | 10/11/11

Thanks!! that actually helped!! Plus I Lol’d

The Bunyip says:

07:16pm | 10/11/11

Are we related?

The Bunyip says:

07:35pm | 10/11/11

Legislatively, there is nothing stopping a repeal. 

Labour is saying that the LNP (a) won’t have the required numbers in the senate any time soon, and (b) there won’t be public support for a repeal by the time they possibly could control the senate.

Paul says:

02:16pm | 10/11/11

Because the Senate agreed with Rudd Tony. Greens and independants.

The Senate wont agree with Tony. He wont have the numbers.

Now you are educated.

Bony Toby says:

02:17pm | 10/11/11

Because the left control the Senate for 5 more years.

But what they’re forgetting is that if they are annihillated in the lower house at the next election then Abbott will have no problem forcing a double dissolution and clearing them out of the Senate too.

The gloating of this week may yet come back to haunt them in the worst possible way.

Blind Freddy says:

02:37pm | 10/11/11

@Bony Tony

If . . . . but . . . . when . . . . maybe . . . .he might . . . . possibly . . .if he gets the chance . . ..?

Won’t happen.

Matt says:

03:35pm | 10/11/11

Also because it will be a market by then.  Businesses will be buying credits and LNP will not have the money to compensate businesses for carbon credits that all of a sudden mean nothing.  They are deemed as personal property, requiring compensation if they are taken away, not to mention it will destabilise the economy and markets.

Rubens Camejo says:

03:46pm | 10/11/11

This is why, (I posted this in an attempt to point the difficulties to another that had the same questions in another string)

No political party will decide the fate of this tax. The tax is here to stay simply because business will not allow incoming governments to cost them the billions that they would to get rid of it.

Neither the Greens nor Labor will vote to rescind the tax in the Senate. In order to do so it will require the Coalition to go to a double dissolution election and then gain a majority of a joint sitting of parliament.  There is no guarantee that would happen.

If it did happen however, it would not be until early to mid 2015 that the tax could be repealed. By that time the tax will have been in operation for three years. Businesses in Australia would have adjusted their budgets to cater for the necessary investments in carbon credits. They will not want to see those millions wiped on an ideological and political whim.

The reality, sad as it might be for coalition supporters,  is that the powers that be are now going through scenarios as to how, with all the dignity he deserves, TA can be turfed from the leadership before the next election. That situation comes about because of his “blood oath”. He can’t go back on his word after all the claims about lies he has made.

The coalition will be squeezed by time, (their policy is to reduce emission by 5% by 2020 which would only give them less than five years to do it in) and business which will be telling them they cannot reach that target via ‘Direct Action’ and it would be too expensive to do so in any case.

So you see, If I had to bet the ‘crown jewels’ I’d be backing this tax to remain and an ETS to be implemented in 2015 with possibly Malcolm Turnbull as PM

Think about it without the anger and emotion and you’ll see that is the most likely outcome.

Bony Toby says:

04:25pm | 10/11/11

@Blind Freddy

Then keep ignoring those dreadful polls mate and keep repeating “it wont happen, it wont hapen, it wont hapen”

But denial ain’t a great strategy.

Tony Montana says:

04:38pm | 10/11/11

Hey Rubens: Nice Post mate, I’m no Liberal lover, as i remember too well Abbott’s response to a reporter a few years ago when he was asked what 2, 3rd & 4th Generation Farmers should do if the drought continue’s. His reponse - Move to the City. And lets not forget he played a role in Pauline Hanson going to jail for electoral fraud…so i don’t trust Abbott. I just feel ripped off, i didn’t vote for a Carbon Tax and our Children didn’t either. So with the Rat- MTurnbull in there, we all know where he stands as alot of this Carbon Trading Scheme’s were devised by GOLDMAN SACHS. Emotion aside..it may be game over not yet ready to wave the white flag!!!

Chris L says:

08:24pm | 10/11/11

“But denial ain’t a great strategy.” - Are you talking to Freddy or Abbott?

andye says:

03:50pm | 10/11/11

@TimB - “No matter what obscure quotes you source, or how you interpret them, nothing changes the fact that during the election Julia and the ALP *deliberately* cultivated an image of inaction on carbon pricing so as not to scare the electorate.”

Isn’t this basically exactly what Tony is doing now? The Liberal party has the same targets, its just they are planning on making the Taxpayer pay to solve the solution instead of the polluters.

You would barely know this from what he is saying, though. He is playing loose and ambiguous and focusing on the negative campaign deliberately in order to not alienate the various groups that fall under his banner, such as the “climate change isnt happening” crowd. He is many things to many people.

It will be amusing to watch him try to maintain this broad support across conflicting groups when he actually has to solidify policy and defend himself during an election campaign.

badrinath says:

04:12pm | 10/11/11

Gee wizz Tim, you claim Tory bases her arguement on fallacy above and your reasoning is?

Fisrt you have some great angry opinion:

“For starters, I don’t give a damn about terminology. Price, tax whatever. There’s still a cost involved. The point is, there wasn’t going to be one. At all.”

Then some fair stuff here, but stuff that cannot be taken as definition of intent to go against her promise after the election (intent required for the lie definition):

“Convinced Rudd to shelve the ETS because it was killing Labor in the polls.
- Deliberately talked down the possibility of a Carbon tax with her (and Swannies pledge)
- Acknowledged there was no consensus on the ETS issue and pledged to get that consensus before taking her policy to the people in 2013.  (The ‘Citizen’s Assembly”)”

All true no doubt.

Then some great bullshit about Julia not needing to deal with the greens because they magically would already support her regardless - on every vote that came up????

And a nice bullshit refference to a tele article that does NOT say Crook was going to support her, rather it says that she “thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” - sure she made choices, but these choices were limited and in context.

And then you wind on with a conclusion. Super, your not a lawyer are you mate, no intent proved, facts loosely pieced together and assumtions galore which include a little liberty with your quotes:

“Ms Gillard said she could have become Prime Minister by forming a deal with conservative independents Tony Crook and Bob Katter, but she chose to ally with the Greens and accept their demand for carbon pricing because she believed it was right. “

-this is a quote of Claire Harveys words (the tele reporter) who doesn’t quote Juilia saying that, she only quotes Julia stating:

“In the 17 days (after the 2010 election) I had discussions with a lot of people - with the Greens, with (Rob) Oakeshott, (Tony) Windsor, (Bob) Katter, even some discussions with (WA National Tony) Crook. I thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” she said.

Thanks heaps Timmy, as usual you have truely enlightened us all.

nossy says:

04:17pm | 10/11/11

@TimB heres your hero supporting a Carbon Tax - Dr NO in all his glory! Glory, glory hallalujeh Tony the Backflipper goes marching on! Ohhh how sweet it is TimB - and he now has a 57% dissatisfaction rating - you stick with him fella on his journey to nowhere.  hahaahahah ICB TimB.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

Mr Denorris says:

04:26pm | 10/11/11

@TimB, couldn’t agree more.  Gillard’s tortured explanations haven’t helped her either.  “No it’s not my fault we have a Carbon Tax it’s all the hung parliament, I can’t be blamed for breaking my promise.  But I made the decision willingly and it’s a great policy, even though I said I would never do it” etc.

Chris L says:

08:41pm | 10/11/11

@TimB - “For starters, I don’t give a damn about terminology. Price, tax whatever. There’s still a cost involved.” - So, when she said she’s committed to a carbon price (in the same address as the “no carbon tax” quote) you knew exactly what you were getting and therefore she didn’t lie (which is the point of the article).

She did say she was going for a people’s assembly. I would think the fact that this did not happen would please you, given the endless complaining we hear about every other assembly Labor has ever had. It’s still a fair point though so apart from that snide remark I’ll acknowledge that one.

“No-one who voted for Labor did so under the assumption that they would get a carbon price/tax/whatever” - Demonstrably untrue. Even Andrew Bolt was telling people before the election there would be a carbon price. I also linked an article to the macro business blog in a comment above that spoke about the writer’s expectation of a trading scheme after the “no carbon tax” announcement was made.

“Do the Greens go and offer their support to Tony Abbott? Not a chance in hell.” - Possibly true, then again much was made by bloggers about a potential lover’s spat between the Greens and Labor before the last election. Maybe that was just conservative scare mongering. Maybe not.

“And of course Julia *didn’t* have to deal with the Greens to retain government anyway. She herself acknowledges this.” - No need for me to add to Badrinath’s response to that.

So far your best point is that we didn’t get that people’s assembly. I can understand your disappointment at that.

PS. I’m not saying there’s nothing wrong with this government (has everyone forgotten internet censorship?!), but I do urge people to pick their battles more carefully else cry “wolf” and wonder why no-one listens.

TimB says:

08:02am | 11/11/11

@ Andye

“Isn’t this basically exactly what Tony is doing now? The Liberal party has the same targets, its just they are planning on making the Taxpayer pay to solve the solution instead of the polluters.”

The polluters are going to be passing on the costs. They’re not paying squat. The only peoople actually paying this carbon tax are the taxpayers who don’t get fully compensated. i.e the “rich”. Wealth distribution disguised as (futilely) saving the environment. What a crock.

@ Badrinath:

“Then some fair stuff here, but stuff that cannot be taken as definition of intent to go against her promise after the election “

The intent is proven by the fact that she went down the carbon pricing road when she didn’t have to. She was not forced into it. The difference between the ALP and Greens on various individual votes aside, when push came to shove the Greens would *not* have supported Tony Abbott to form government over the ALP. You know that.

And as for the quote.,you acknowledge that she said this: “I thought it was always going to be possible for us to structure arrangements so that we would get support in this parliament,” she said”. That clearly indicates the deal with the Greens wasn’t critical. All Claire Harvey did was reword Gillard’s quote, the meaning is the same.

The point is Gillard *didn’t* need to legislate a carbon tax to retain government. And you’ll be very hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

@ Nossy, Abbott is comparing between an ETS and a Carbon tax there, and simply making a choice between those two. Choosing niether wasn’t raised as an option. It’d be like me choosing to eat a piece of broccoli or being eaten by sharks. Just because I choose the broccoli, doesn’t mean I’m in favour of eating broccoli in general. 

@ Chris L

““No-one who voted for Labor did so under the assumption that they would get a carbon price/tax/whatever” - Demonstrably untrue. Even Andrew Bolt was telling people before the election there would be a carbon price.”

I wasn’t aware Andrew Bolt voted for Labor. But sorry your right that was worded poorly. What I should have said was, that there were many (not all) who voted for Labor under the assumption that they wouldn’t get a carbon price.

Bolt saw through Gillard’s deception. So did I. And I’m sure there were ALP voters in favour of a carbon price who did as well.

But not every voter possesses that level of insight. They don’t pay as close attention to politics. They take things at face value.And like I said quite a number of people who voted for the ALP at the last election actually did believe Julia when they thought they wouldn’t be getting any form of carbon pricing. The ALP went to great pains to downplay the possibility and remove it as an election issue. The campaign wasn’t designed to trick Coalition voters. It was designed to reassure ALP voters who were thinking of swinging to the LNP over the issue.

People *were* decieved. Had the ALP not campaiged on this deliberate deception, there would have been some votes folowing from Labor to the Coalition as evidenced by the polls when the tax was announced. There *are* people who voted Labor last time who do NOT want this tax.  Julia Gillard and the ALP tricked those people, and as a result of this deception we *all* have to suffer this horribly flawed policy.

Chris L says:

10:56am | 11/11/11

I get what you’re saying TimB, but it’s a bit like me saying that Howard lied because I heard him say “Never, ever” regarding the GST and didn’t notice the part at the next election where he said he would bring it in (I actually voted for the GST myself but I also liked the idea when it was Keating’s consumption tax). Of course the situation I describe is less likely because the media and the opposition made sure we heard about the GST before the ‘96 election. In this case, when Gillard committed to a carbon price the media just didn’t seem to want to run with it. Bolt pointed it out as a warning to his followers (no, I don’t think he’d vote Labor in a pink fit. I suspect that even if the two parties swapped names he would swap votes just to avoid voting for a party called Labor) and there were a few other mentions, but it was mostly quiet. Therefore I understand how people got the perception there would be no action on carbon, but I don’t see that as Gillard’s fault and I most definately disagree with characterising it as a lie.

I also disagree with your interpretation that Gillard could have formed government without the Greens. She said she was confident that she could form government, but I always took that to mean she felt confident she could get the Greens to support her. I saw no mention of her saying she could do it without them.

Hava good weekend.

TimB says:

12:09pm | 11/11/11

” get what you’re saying TimB, but it’s a bit like me saying that Howard lied because I heard him say “Never, ever” regarding the GST and didn’t notice the part at the next election where he said he would bring it in “

Not really. The GST issue was front and centre in the 1998 election, everyone knew exactly where Howard stood. Julia’s position on carbon pricing was deliberately muddled.

“but I always took that to mean she felt confident she could get the Greens to support her. I saw no mention of her saying she could do it without them.”

Well sure, I agree with that too. What I don’t agree with is that backflipping on the carbon pricing issue was necessary to secure that support. Had she put her foot down on that, she would have got their general support anyway. She clearly didn’t want to put her foot down.

Here was a perfect excuse to do what she wanted (despite her election pledge) and then pretend she was ‘forced’ into it. She was forced into nothing. Her excuses just add to the general stench of deception IMO.

If anyone is really holding a gun to her head on anything, it’s Wilkie.

TimB says:

03:15pm | 11/11/11

Clearly you lack the ability to read. Again for your slow illogical mind.

Before the election Julia deliberately downplayed the ALP’s Carbon pricing policy. She told Kevin Rudd to drop the ETS earlier in the year before she knifed him. She created the Citizen’s Assembly policy citing the need for a national consensus before moving to any form of carbon pricing. She promised that we, the people, would get a say on the issues. She futher fostered the impression that the ALP would *not* price Carbon any time soon with her “There will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead” declaration.

These are all documented events. These are facts. They happened.

After the election, she needed to negotiate in order to form government. The Carbon tax was *not* a critical deal breaker for this process. Julia was quite able to negotiate her way into government without having to change her policy. This is also a fact, acknowledged by Julia herself.

Therefore the critical fact here is, after the election ,she willingly chose to break her word.

Deliberate attempt to convince voters she wasn’t going to put a price on Carbon + Deliberate willing backflip *to* put a price on carbon= Intent to lie.

She lied to retain office. She backflipped once that was achieved. The Australian people get no say.

She is scum. As proven by facts.

Chris L says:

04:16pm | 11/11/11

“Clearly you lack the ability to read. Again for your slow illogical mind.” -

Ouch! Now you’re getting nasty!

Ok then, let me post the link to your hero Bolt quoting Gillard about her commitment to carbon pricing. Try reading that line where he says “Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term”.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/gillard_wont_rule_out_jacking_up_power_prices/

PS. I suspect that post I’m responding to was someone impersonating TimB as he doesn’t usually dilute his message with pointless insults. If so, shame on the perpetrator!

TimB says:

09:45pm | 11/11/11

@ Chris L, no sorry that *was* me. But those insults wern’t aimed at you. It was aimed at Martin further down the page (and assuming he is who I suspect he is, deserves all insults recieved and then some). I posted in the wrong spot, that’s my fault. I’m all over this page today, hard to keep track

Regarding that post you quote, Bolt quite rightly points out that her statement was the day before the election. And may I add in one newspaper only. Which doesn’t have that high of a circulation.

Considering Julia’s antics during the election, I’d consider Julia’s statement in that article to be the equivalent an 11th hour addition of fine print.  Hardly a sterling defence.

Chris L says:

10:27am | 12/11/11

@TimB - Yes she didn’t get the message out there and she certainly fluffed her response to people questioning her. I’m not endorsing Labor here as I don’t think they’ve had much in the way of talent since they lost Keating, but I still don’t think of the “no carbon tax” as a lie. Being a politician, of course she’s a liar (as were Howard and Keating) but it strikes me as ironic to call her a liar over the carbon tax because she was actually being about as honest as we can expect from a politician (in my view).

PS. Were you calling Nossy out? He amuses me, but I do suspect he is one of many aliases.

John Smythe says:

03:21pm | 10/11/11

true enough FML, though not right on topic   no biggie though as a lot of my own comments aren’t always on topic

TimB says:

03:37pm | 10/11/11

“Are not the only people that should be allowed to complain be the ones who voted labor because Ms Gillard said there will be no carbon tax? And how many of these people are there?”

Enough of them to swing the election. They exist. The polls confirm it.

She stole the election with her lie. That’s why we’re complaining.

fml says:

04:02pm | 10/11/11

No not quite on topic i agree, but i think pertinent, to say that she “won” the election on a lie, we have to determine for a fact that there were enough swing voters towards the coalition winning.

TimB,

It was hung parliament and it may have well made quite a difference, it also could have gone the way of a full victory to labor if people swung to the coalition because of what Ms Gillard said. Unfortunately we dont have the stats to prove it.

What i am saying is, i agree people have a right to disagree with the policy, but i think the people who should be most angry are the ones who changed their votes because of this one policy, not the ones who voted for the coalition as they were not duped or lied to as they were able to vote for the party against it.

Mattb says:

05:45pm | 10/11/11

Fml

Sshhh, dont say that, the conservative twits on here might realize they’ve actually got no real reason to be outraged at the government over the carbon pricing scheme. Can’t have that can they because they’d have one less thing to whinge about, thus one less reason to exist. And every modern society needs its conservative whingers, if we didnt have them we’d have not one to laugh at, taunt and make fun of…...

Martin says:

06:40pm | 10/11/11

What lie? Where’s the intent to deceive?

TimB says:

08:15am | 11/11/11

“It was hung parliament and it may have well made quite a difference, it also could have gone the way of a full victory to labor if people swung to the coalition because of what Ms Gillard said. Unfortunately we dont have the stats to prove it.”

Yes we do. When Gillard gave the impression to the electorate that there would be no carbon tax (regardless of how many people did or did not believe her, we had a hung parliament due to relatively equal Coalition & ALP votes.

When Julia announced clearly that we would indeed have a carbontax, the polls swung sharply to the Coalition. That’s all the stats you need right there.

Had Julia been open with her policy to price carbon during the election, instead of deliberately downplaying the issue and using word games (tax vs price), she would have lost the election.

“What i am saying is, i agree people have a right to disagree with the policy, but i think the people who should be most angry are the ones who changed their votes because of this one policy, not the ones who voted for the coalition as they were not duped or lied to as they were able to vote for the party against it.”

Considering that we’re being affected by that same lie, then yes we have a right to be angry about the result, regardless if we personally believed it or not. Enough people believed it to give Gillard government that she wouldn’t have won without the deception. Gillard’s lie has resulted in legislation we wouldn’t have had without said lie, therefore we are justified in our anger.

If she had lied on a minor issue that had no real effect on the election, then yes you would have a point. That is not the case however.

“What lie? Where’s the intent to deceive? “

Intent is proven by her actions before and after the election. Deliberately downplaying carbon pricing to win the election (convincing Rudd to drop the ETS and her ‘citizens assembly’ policy), then deliberately pursuing it the second she won office.

Oh and let’s not forget the fact that they’ve deliberately acted to make it as diffuclt to rollback as possible. If that isn’t a big ‘Screw You’ to voters, then I don’t know what is.

Martin says:

11:30am | 11/11/11

You don’t know what is? That’s easy. Not having any policies and just saying NO to everything is. Don’t you love the way Tim “proves” everything by citing nothing but his fanciful “opinion”, even the “intent” of others. No wonder Tory ends up having to write articles like this to try to explain it for Tim and his ilk.

TimB says:

12:38pm | 11/11/11

Martin, her actions before and after the elction are on the record. These are facts. Not opinion. And these facts prove intent.

I can see why you with your slippery grasp on logic (are you AASQ?) aren’t able to extrapolate the meaning of these facts like intelligent people can.

BTW having no policies isn’t a ‘screw you’ to voters unless you’re actually in government, so fail again.

Martin says:

02:07pm | 11/11/11

What actions? What facts? Giving voters nothing worth voting for is why the Coalition lost the last two elections.

Chris L says:

07:21pm | 11/11/11

@TimB - you forget the number of people who voted Greens in place of Labor, and there were a lot of them. Why did they vote that way? Who knows. I could form a theory, but we’d be debating in a vacuum.

TimB says:

09:49pm | 11/11/11

@ Chris L, not really. Given that most of the people who voted Green ended up preferencing Labor, the majority of those votes came back anyway. Votes swinging the other way however would not have.

Chris L says:

11:53pm | 12/11/11

@TimB - Fair enough. I can’t claim to really understand how our voting system works. I think it was intentionally designed that way.

Tony Montana says:

03:03pm | 10/11/11

Standing Ovation Sir…..Golf Clap!!!!!

Rubens Camejo says:

03:36pm | 10/11/11

Hundreds of Billions?! Try an estimated $11 over three years before an ETS kicks in.

That type of exaggeration is what makes people like you, with wild accusations and figures, a target for derision by anyone with a brain and makes you not worth listening to.

You say 85% voted against the policy? How? The policy was a no to the tax and the other side didn’t offer a policy either.

15% voted for a price on carbon via the Green’s policy but the other 85% voted to pay for carbon pollution one way or another.

Those that voted for the coalition voted to pay for it via their taxes with Direct Action being implemented by Abbott.

Those that voted for the Labor opted to support the paying of the carbon pollution via the shops as the polluters were always going to pass on the cost of the carbon credits needed under an ETS, via the price of their goods

The Green’s tax also would have resulted in us paying via the shops as this tax we now have will force us to do.

So, in fact, at the last election, if you look at the official result at the AEC website, on a two party preferred basis, by the tiniest of numbers, more people voted their preference to pay for CO2 emissions via the shops. Ant THAT is what they got.

chet says:

04:19pm | 10/11/11

“Try an estimated $11 over three years before an ETS kicks in.”

Its $11b in the FIRST year Rubens - if you are going to criticise my numbers at least get yours right - whos “a target for derision by anyone with a brain” now?

The policy Gillard brought in without a mandate is carbon pricing until at least 2050, with the costs escalating by more than inflation each year, in less than 10 years that’s a hundred billion - and there’s well over 30 years of the scheme to go - that makes *more* than 1 hundred billion, or hundreds of billions.  Sorry if the maths is too complex for you.

“15% voted for a price on carbon via the Green’s policy but the other 85% voted to pay for carbon pollution one way or another.”

How many voted for a *carbon tax* Rubens? I know the article encourages you to play silly word games rather than address the important issues…

GB says:

04:05pm | 10/11/11

<Yawn>. If you plan on boring us all into submission with your bullshit, congratulations you’re well on the path.

chet says:

04:32pm | 10/11/11

“If they hold that the PM is a liar then by default, they are calling themselves liars.”

I have never promised the population of any country not to impose a tax on them and gone back on my word - how exactly does that make me a liar Rubens?

“The PM has pointed to the fact that as you put it, she inherited a ”bastard mongrel of a Government” as being the reason for her actions.  “

The minority government was entirely negotiated and put together by her!!!  If its a mongrel its because she made it into one.

“makes no difference to those infected by Alan’s petri dish bugs.”

Petri dish bugs?  I think you better go take your medication…

“People that keep calling the PM a liar are just short on IQ”

Short on IQ like people who try and claim that the carbon tax will cost $11 over 3 years?

(in case you don’t get it, I’m referring to your comment above Rubens)

jf says:

05:00pm | 10/11/11

Yes being delayed because you are in a car accident is exactly the same as willingly reneging ona promise for base political expediency.

Fuck a duck.

Tony Montana says:

03:38pm | 10/11/11

Horns up \m/....shouldn’t you be on Blabbermouth.net or The Metal Forge Lol, Heard the new Megadeth Album?? Awesome \m/.

Horns Up says:

05:01pm | 10/11/11

Tony, haven’t heard it yet but I will give it a whirl, thanks for the tip.

By the way, say hello to your little friend!

\m/

Tony Montana says:

05:55pm | 10/11/11

Horns Up: In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. Metallica and Lou Reed record -Lulu, what were they thinking man…sorry wrong forum. Lol. All the best mate \m/.

Horns Up says:

07:31pm | 10/11/11

lol

\m/

Mark says:

06:46pm | 10/11/11

Thank goodness for the magic words which saved them. “Tony Abbott”.

Chris L says:

12:35am | 13/11/11

Pink Batts - two extra rafts of regulations brought in to ensure safety, ignored by shoddy businesses. I don’t think there were Labor MPs installing those batts. Do you?

School halls - all reports on this matter consider the BER a success. Granted they are taking into account that much of the intention was to keep industry running during the GFC. Still counts as far an I’m concerned (employment is looking pretty good).

Border Protection - There you have them. I was hoping Labor would be true to their message and treat asylum seekers like people (like they should treat anyone), but no, they actually manage to make the Coalition look better on that front. Point acceded.

Solar Tariff - You can have that one by default ‘cause I haven’t actually researched that one, and for that I have no-one to blame but myself.

Carbon Tax - Gillard said she was committed to a market based mechanism. That’s what we’re getting. There’s a few points of difference in that it’s happending earlier, the fixed price period is three years rather than one and there’s no people’s assembly. If you want to argue those points I’m right there with you. If you just want to repeat sound bites about “Juliar” then you, along with Allan Jones, achieve my disdain. I realise that means little to you (which would be fair enough), but I have to also wonder how much facts and honesty mean when such slogans taken so willingly and uncritically.

chet says:

04:26pm | 10/11/11

“I think an interesting issue is the way the Australian public - to the detriment of our national interest - doesn’t let our politicians change their mind. “

I think Australians are ideological in that they believe in democracy, they believe in having a say in how the country runs.

Contrast Howard and Gillard - Howard won an election on the GST, he got a mandate.  People liked to criticise him a lot, but not generally on the GST as he did the honourable thing and got the people’s say on the matter.

Gillard has a mandate for the exact opposite of what she did.  You may get away with that on little things (like Rudd’s fuel and grocery watch debacles), but not on something as monumentally significant as this.

I have no problem with politicians changing their minds - i do have a problem with them promising one thing to get themselves into power, then doing the exact opposite - it always rings back to the “don’t worry, we’ll change it all when we get in anyway” comment by Garrett…

chet says:

04:37pm | 10/11/11

Not the all knowing dictionary!

Call it what you want, Australia is still burdened with billions in taxes it specifically voted against.  Invent a new word if you must, I’ll still be voting her out of power at the first opportunity…

Horns Up says:

07:30pm | 10/11/11

So every economist in the land is so self serving and greedy they’re lying.

Weak rationalisation at best.

I’d say nice try, but I wouldn’t mean it.

\m/

chet says:

09:21am | 11/11/11

Not every Economist (I am one myself) in the land supports this Horns Up.  I dare say I know a LOT more of them than you, given I’ve been a professional economist for 2 decades.

How many have you actually seen making public statements?  I’ve seen less than 10 individuals, and they were all linked to financial institutions, energy companies, or were paid 6 figures by the government to advocate it. 

There is a LOT of money to be made in this, energy companies in particular don’t want direct action, as there wont be a market for them to profit out of (as told to me by the head of energy trading at the 2nd biggest energy retailer in Australia).

Of course people like the OP twist that into “all economists” to try and give their argument credibility, much as the IPCC turn 40 contributors into “every scientist on the planet”.

Why do you think Malcolm “Macquarie” Turnbull is such an advocate?

I’d call what you wrote an argument, but wouldn’t mean it…

Horns Up says:

12:32pm | 11/11/11

You’d support a plan to give our taxes directly to big business and cross our fingers and hope over a market based mechanism?

I’d say i take your credentials seriously, but I wouldn’t mean it….

\m/

RyaN says:

01:45pm | 11/11/11

@Horns Up: Perhaps its not one or the other

Horns Up says:

02:08pm | 11/11/11

@RyaN - I’d say you were clever, but of course I’d be wrong…

\m/

chet says:

02:51pm | 11/11/11

“You’d support a plan to give our taxes directly to big business and cross our fingers and hope over a market based mechanism?”

Ok here’s the two scenarios:
1) government gives Hazelwood power station money to convert to gas.  The station is converted, no one’s power bills rise, the money comes out of consolidated revenue.

2) government increases the living costs of the entire country, creating a new market mechanism for financial firms to make lots of money in.  Power bills increase by 50-100% (depends on whos estimating right now), generators and banks make a lot more money - and somehow power stations change to more sustainable fuels.

Which one sounds “hopeful” to you?

“I’d say i take your credentials seriously, but I wouldn’t mean it….”

And I wouldn’t care.  Though I’m happy to trade business cards with you if you don’t believe me.

What are YOUR credentials by the way?

Horns Up says:

09:54pm | 11/11/11

“Which one sounds “hopeful” to you?”

Your misrepresentation of both scenarios to make a point.

\m/

chet says:

04:54pm | 14/11/11

“Your misrepresentation of both scenarios to make a point.”

Neither scenario is misrepresented.

I’m yet to see you contribute a single fact to this discussion.  If you feel I have misrepresented the market based mechanism, how about you explain to us how the Hazlewood power station would be replaced under a market based mechanism.

Still waiting to hear what YOUR credentials are Horns Up?

Bleary says:

12:59am | 11/11/11

Very harsh,but sadly true.
Did you really write this dross Tory?

John Smythe says:

04:48pm | 10/11/11

OK, I’ll play that game.

Now if you all give me $100, I’m going to invest it in something that will not only generate a 20% return on your investment but, will continually supply you with a separate income stream.

<after I’ve flown the country> Oh sorry, I changed my mind. (Thanks for the $$$)

I wasn’t lying, nor was I being deceitful. I seriously was going to invest it for you, but well, the horses didn’t look good that day.

This entire article is a waste of space really. It would serve better to be focussing on why it was better for the “haters” to refer to her as deceitful rather than “liar”.

FML showed just how pedantic it is with the fair comment on how people try to avoid the “racist” card.

jf says:

05:05pm | 10/11/11

Please have this tattood onto your forearm immediately Tim for when you decide to hold the Opposition to account for using metaphor or hyperbole or adjusting policy in reaction to legitimate and meaningful circumstances.

Tim says:

05:27pm | 10/11/11

My god, what sort of analogy is that? Criminal fraud is a slightly different situation, don’t you think? On the balance of probabilities your analogy would illustrate clear intent. I’m pretty sure at the time of saying ‘no carbon tax’ Julia didn’t have devious intentions other than what she said. Try again.

chungo mung says:

06:39pm | 10/11/11

what he said. shmeh to all this arguing.

nossy says:

07:07pm | 10/11/11

@Walter you mean THIS Carbon Tax that Tony Abbott also absolutely supported did you Walter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12PN66IBoPs

Tony Montana says:

05:46pm | 10/11/11

GET UP TROLL

Will says:

09:35am | 11/11/11

CAPS LOCK MONKEY.

Super D says:

05:22pm | 10/11/11

Yeah nossy, the new government won’t be as desperate for hard currency as the old one.  Perhaps the government will pay to have Nauru covered in solar panels so we can buy carbon credits from them and then they won’t be so keen for detention centre rentals.  Frankly I’m surprised that the dingbats running the country haven’t thought of that already.

Shane says:

06:52pm | 10/11/11

Didn’t you vote?

Tony Montana says:

08:33pm | 10/11/11

Take a Bow Scott…..Bravo. I can only laugh at some of these wannabe Elitists here on the punch. Applauding the deceit by JULIAR, Browneye and Co. They are the ones who probably work in Uni’s and media, e.g Ch7 etc, e.g Mark Riley!
They know what’s best for us Sheep, as Punch writer Sophie Mirabella lovingly described anyone with a different view to hers on Qantas on Nov 1st. Yes Juliar had no courage to take it to the Majority to vote on right!
2nd.You Howard Baggers, (I’m no Fan, but I’m fair), took policies to an   election for the people to have their say…right? Forget Core/non core BS
People won’t forget cos an anti- Gillard/Labor/Greens movement is in motion and is growing by the day and the Masses will realise they were duped and sold out to the bankers, we will get our payback at the polls….count on it.

Martin says:

07:33pm | 10/11/11

Liberal Troll.

Reader says:

07:40pm | 10/11/11

I love you Lieberal c….s who claim to speak for ‘the majority’ of ‘us’. I will never be of you, mate, so who is this ‘us’ !!??  This is what the modern paradigm of politics has become and we are seemingly stuck with this whole ‘us’ & ‘silent ‘majority’, bullshit. The politics of poor us. Poor you. Woe is me I live in Australia and Labor are in, poor me. F**k you I say! Howard was the biggest liar we ever had and and another thing he sold was hate. He for 11 glorious years based largely on hate. Hate of Labor, workers, unions, boat people, all foreigners really, Muslims, etc etc etc. And as unhealthy as it is a generation have grown up with some of that hate. Firstly those that adopted those views and secondly those that hate Liberals. Also denote the parties name is an oxymoron. It’s the Aus (Conservative) Party or the Australian Fascist Party. I f**king hate Liberals more than most things, you people are absolute scum and left unfettered you’d drag the world towards something resembling Feudalism!

Tony Montana says:

10:58pm | 10/11/11

WTF- Reader, what a load of Shit! During Howards 11yrs he managed to pay down some serious debts thanks to the Keating years. Alot of people prospered under Howard. You f…... hate Liberals, i bet you were better off under Howard than you’ll be under Gillard/Brown in 2012/13. What a Tool. Howard was the biggest Liar we had..Lol Quote,’ He for 11 glorious years based largely on hate. Hate of Labor, workers, unions, boat people, all foreigners really, Muslims, etc etc etc. And as unhealthy as it is a generation have grown up with some of that hate’.
Quote:
I f**king hate Liberals more than most things, you people are absolute scum and left unfettered you’d drag the world towards something resembling Feudalism!

You sir, are the Biggest Moron ive come across on this website. No wonder Australia is Fucked, cos of Morons like you. Are you apart of that Generation of hate by chance. Fair Dinkum please…God help us!

Against the Man says:

05:59am | 11/11/11

I’m not your mate Miss Reader. And you can join your minority mates in that tiny corner and cry all you want. I’m a winner that is winning and you guys hate it that this little carbon tax broken promise is going to destroy the ALP/Greens till kingdom come. Have a great weekend because I know I will

Ree Der says:

08:28pm | 11/11/11

Biggest load of shit ever? Yea the truth is inconvenient isn’t it! labor is in government so don’t know what winning side you’re on AtM.

sunny says:

08:54pm | 10/11/11

And what’s more (yeah I said it) people who de-cry the carbon price are weak! Don’t you have the smarts to know the world is in trouble. We’ve got to take action on this problem. If you don’t think there’s a problem you are one ignorant mother fucker. Do some Goddamn reading. Jesus F***ing Christ. But peace to you all - we’ll all be good mates in the next life!

sunny says:

11:27am | 11/11/11

Sheesh posting this actually pretty weak. Sorry if I offended anyone. Think->Post.. yeah now I remember that’s the right order.

RM says:

09:08pm | 10/11/11

Couldn’t have said it better myself *applause*

sunny says:

09:03pm | 10/11/11

@Joan - she is saving both you and me (and our great grand children) from a hot sweltering existence. ‘Tough as nails’ - yeah that’s about right, she has my vote!

Joan says:

06:51am | 11/11/11

Thanks for the laugh Sunny-  Australia more likely to be hit by a meteorite than Gillard Carbon Tax to change World Climate.

sunny says:

11:30am | 11/11/11

@Joan - maybe you’re right but we’ve got to at least try. I wish a meteorite would hit me sometimes.

sunny says:

11:24am | 11/11/11

I think that’s the most stupid thing I ever posted esp. the part about poverty stricken people. Apologies if anyone took offense.

DocBud says:

10:30pm | 10/11/11

“Who cares if she lied”

I do.

“Take action yourselves, you lemmings.”

No thanks, I’ve got a life to live and a carbon footprint to grow.

Dave says:

05:11pm | 11/11/11

She also promised to tackle climate change, and under the minority government that was pretty much the only solution.

its a very reasonable excuse when you consider the circumstances. Politics doesn’t run like perfect clockwork you know

TC says:

11:45am | 11/11/11

Disgusted you disgust me with this pathetic and untrue rant.

Tony Montana says:

06:46am | 11/11/11

Yeah dream on Stephen, once the tax kicks in from mid next year and the people start feeling the pain from it they will get their payback at the next election and Labor will become as relevant as the Democrats. You ain’t seen nothing yet….so tell all your Get Up Commi mates.

Govt@fauxCitizen says:

11:50am | 11/11/11

OH YES, Technically Gillard didn’t lie, her words were “no carbon TAX” she never said anything about a carbon PRICE, and as I said before in another post, it’s a bit like Clinton stating he never had “sexual relations” he just didn’t say he’d received a free knob polishing.
People will remember her doublespeak and I’m sure it will feature in opposition campaign ads. come election time.

TC says:

11:41am | 11/11/11

I remember my Leftie friends constantly telling me Howard was a “liar.”

TimB says:

07:26am | 11/11/11

That’s ridiculous. We all know Swannie lied through his teeth too. The difference between Swannie and Julia, is that Julia is the PM and made the ultimate decision to go back on it.

She cops the majority of the heat because she’s in charge. Not because she’s a woman.

Is anyone else getting tired of this reverse sexism where any and all (justified) criticism of Julia’s perfomance in the job is defended by ‘You’re only picking on her because she’s a woman’. No we’re picking on her because she’s shit. Being female should not shield her from criticism.

TimB says:

07:22am | 11/11/11

No she said they were going to shelve their carbon pricing scheme until they could get a consensus from the electorate, and we could vote for it in 2013.

Didn’t happen. She lied.

John Graham says:

09:28am | 11/11/11

@Simon:  Why do apologists have to prevaricate about what Ms. Gillard said - the videos of the two occasions are available everywhere.  You can state “Gillard might have said we wouldn’t have a carbon tax” but we know that Ms Gillard did say we wouldn’t have a carbon tax.  You even want to argue that “we don’t have a carbon tax at all”, when even Ms. Gillard admits that we do. 
Sophistry might impress the true believers, but the public know it was conned - it is this that has bought Ms. Gillard down. 
The apologist line is that the public is stupid and has been conned by Abbott and the Murdoch press, rather than correctly informed by Ms. Gillard, the ABC and the Fairfax press.  Unfortunately the alleged communication problems really relate to mistrust engendered by broken promises and coverups - what you tell people will not affect their behaviour if they do not believe you.

palone says:

05:06pm | 11/11/11

Tim B.. John Graham.. Ant… BD… and Brett   and heaps of others, you are liars.  And Brett, who untruthfully says he is ready to expire from disbelief , the lies of Howard and Abbott in taking this nation to war without consulting us, and which resulted in our lads dying, is, I think, a tad bigger deception than any foisted upon us by any, repeat any,  Labor politician ever.                                                          Ask yourselves, which is more important? A penalty for over pollution, or our boys dying for the glorification of an oil baron and his family and friends, which includes the Bin laden clan. Mum, Dad, brothers and sisters.  Just so that the weasel can ingratiate himself with the Pres. I suppose you are aware that he was the consummate liar, aren’t you? No? Best then that you vote Liberal. We don’t want you, we don’t need you .  And really, nor does Australia.
You mob are great Australians, aren’t you. Real proud.
By the way, mention was made here of the conspiracy between world figures and the Vatican, Probably more right wing garbage, but who has sworn, (lifelong), first allegiance to the Vatican?  Apart from Howard, the other religous cultist, who would be thinking along those lines?  You’ve got it.
Beware good folk. Be very aware.

marley says:

05:53pm | 11/11/11

@palone - did I miss something? Haven’t the vast majority of Aussie deaths in Afghanistan occurred under the Rudd and Gillard governments?  So, if our boys are still dying for “the glorification of an oil baron and his family and friends,”  the ALP is even more at fault because the deaths have occurred on their watch.  But perhaps the situation isn’t quite as simple as you seem to think and perhaps Rudd and Gillard saw deeper into the issues than you do?

TimB says:

05:59pm | 11/11/11

“Tim B.. John Graham.. Ant… BD… and Brett   and heaps of others, you are liars.”

That’s a big accusation Palone. Care to tell me what I’m lying about so I may defend myself?

Oh and on the topic of lying, I’m still waiting for this mysterious announcement that was going to destroy Tony Abbott and the Coalition you spoke of. It’s a few weeks late now. Seems like you’re the liar here Palone. Which explains all the other baseless and despicable insinuations in your post.

Ant says:

01:41am | 12/11/11

Palone - cool your jets turbo! How do you know that the people you are bagging out aren’t actually veterans of the war that you are using to prop up your argument? Just because you are so close-minded, don’t make threats to people exercising their right of free speech. How un-Australian of you… for shame!

Chris L says:

07:26pm | 11/11/11

You love it Tim and we all know it!

John says:

02:02pm | 11/11/11

Is that the only reason you voted for Labor?

RyaN says:

01:12pm | 11/11/11

@Paul: no offense mate but that doesn’t even come close to an analogy of the situation.
In this case its more like you invite a friend over and they say they are going to be there, they don’t show up and when you call them to find out what happened they say “I told you I wasn’t coming!”

mona says:

12:51pm | 11/11/11

they all telling lies but really Julia must be the worse.

Cameron says:

10:57pm | 11/11/11

katter sure does, he has a whole platform, promotes Australia and a smaller government in a very real way, theyl be at the next election! check them out
http://www.ausparty.org.au

Richard says:

09:01am | 12/11/11

Thanks Cameron, but I think he’s just a stooge for the gun lobby at the moment. Pity.

Cameron says:

07:09pm | 15/11/11

Richard, there was never a secret about gun lobbies backing him, its just another convenient smear campaign that thought it appropriate to release it now. His gun laws ideas, were always there, THEN the lobbies backed him. Its only wrong if someone dictates policy on how much money they can earn. His policy was there long before lobbies took an interest, so yeah. Also if I hear one more person going off about the ox one of his members shot….exotic reserves are kept going from breeding rare animals, and selling a certain amount of exotic hunts. they dont run on charity. also take note…those animals are african…so clearly theyr on the reserves for a reason