The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lies, promises and mandates > Comments

Lies, promises and mandates : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 30/8/2011

The Opposition Leader routinely denounces the Prime Minister as a liar: with tacit support the media fail to challenge his claims.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
To put it bluntly. Never ever believe what a politician says! and to be especially careful when a politician says that they are telling the truth.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 2:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you are far too generous in your opinion of politicians. The only sensible way to look at it is that the intention was to lie all along.

In your world, one can never prove a lie, so there are no lies. That's carte Blanche to promise anything and everything and then say oh we didn't know the state of the books after the election. Heard that one before?

I'm comfortable with the assumption it's pre-meditated. As Mr Garret said, 'We'll just change it all when we get in'. Never a more honest word spoken.

'These issues call for thoughtful examination by journalists and opinion writers'

Why? Most of the public want simple heros and villains. You even state it'd be unsatisfactorily proven one way or the other anyway. The public understands the concept, they don't need to hash over the pros and cons of political survival of minority governments.

'It has long been a convention of the Westminster system that a minister who lies to the representatives of the public in the House must resign.'

Not since Ros' whiteboard. I can't remember anyone resigning recently. That's old hat man, like walking when you're out in cricket.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 3:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have noticed the constant assertion that spin is not lying, and ridiculous assertions about the future do not constitute lying. The majority of people value honesty, and do not countenance this smart alec, dishonest, approach.

Max wants us to be legalistic, and exonerate Julia on the technical ground that the statement was about the future, and she cannot be held to account for lying, when technically what she did was break a promise.

Most people would consider that making the statement was lying about her intention when she made no appropriate qualification such as:
“unless the only way I am able to seize and cling to power is to ditch this promise, so that I am able to thwart the will of the electorate, who obviously did not vote me in, and recruit the backing of turncoats who will go against the will of the people who voted them in, in order to back me.”

No one could reasonably be expected to assess her statement on the basis that she had such a treacherous capacity, and if they had been so informed, they would not have voted for Labor.

No one proved that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there was reasonable evidence that they were there, but no one pointed out that the “beyond reasonable doubt” test had not been passed, in relation to John Howard, before calling him a liar.

Why should the test be applied to Julia?

Reasonable people are satisfied that she is a liar, Max, and your playing with words will not convince them otherwise.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 4:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only an academic, & probably only a lefty academic at that, could possibly claim that Julia is not a liar.

Tell me Max, do you actually believe she is not lying when she has the hide to claim that "only the big polluters will pay the carbon dioxide tax"? It would be nice to get a handle on how far you are prepared to go with this justification effort.

People like Max are going to feel quite aggrieved when the general public cries enough, & refuses to see our taxes wasted on these people, & the institutions that breed them.

Too much more of this garbage mate, & it won't be too long coming either.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 5:55:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is right that failing to keep a promise does not necessarily constitute lying. But there is no significant change in circumstances or information to explain a change of mind on the part of the government. Given the political expediency of the pre-election promise not to tax carbon, and the speed with which the government changed its mind on regaining office, the most plausible and straightforward explanation is that it intended to break its promise – in other words, it lied.

John Howard was accused of lying when he proposed the GST after saying he would never introduce one. The difference between the two – and it’s a huge one – is that Howard announced his change of heart before an election and took the GST to the electorate. If this government had a genuine change of heart on the carbon tax it should do the same. That it will not do so is a further sign of its lack of integrity, and is another reason why it should not be given the benefit of the doubt on whether it lied.

Incidentally I support a price on carbon, though I have some reservations about the government's model.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 5:58:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW, fascinating article & comments everybody.

"Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

Loony Left wing politics is the art of telling deliberate premeditated lies & deluding yourself into thinking it is OK, as in the ends justify the means.

Always has been, always will be.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12537#216719

Hasbeen, i am with you on this one, if this guy is the best a university law & ethics school can produce then we have the answer as too what is wrong with the land of OZ.

How many impressionable young minds has this evil thing infected in his career?

How many bongs did he have to suck on before coming out with this drivel?

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW, thank you Jo & Graham Y for your editorial courage in publishing this excellent example of how trajically deluded the closet communists truly are.

The chutzpah/hubris is genuinely breathtaking.

Their is no hope for them now.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:52:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, well said.

It's long been my view that if you give a commitment to someone and circumstances change then the onus remains with you to attempt to meet that commitment or seek permission from those you gave the commitment to for a change.

It may be hard to prove after the event if it was pre-mediated or just treating commitments to others as disposable however both can and should give reason for your honesty to be in question.

Julia has not made a credible attempt to explain the change in circumstances, she has declined to allow the Australian voters the opportunity to vote on it, she has failed to propose an alternative which might in someway give a mandate for the change (no suggestions of a test of direct democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy ).

I'm uncertain if Julia intended to deceive the voters or just grabbed the opportunity and ran with it, either way I don't consider it honest.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Max, but the pedantic/semantic approach will wash. Of COURSE politicians need to change their minds from time to time. Good ones do it continuously, and earn respect for it. Lousy ones do it too ... but there’s a difference.

If you pledge to do ‘A’, you’d better not do ‘B’; that’s lying. Unless, that is, you have very good reasons. Circumstances change, new information comes to light, priorities shift. People understand that. Even if they don’t buy your reasoning, they can respect your judgement, or your right to weigh relevant evidence differently. If you DON’T have a sound reason for ditching ‘A’ and doing ‘B’, though, the default assumption is that you lied. Happens all the time.

Voters didn’t want a Carbon Tax prior to the last election, and Gillard’s unequivocal promise not to propose one garnered votes she would otherwise have forfeited. Abbott would be PM today but for that pledge. So ... what are Gillard’s good reasons for changing her mind?

What she has said in answer to that question, repeatedly, is: ‘It’s the right thing to do.’ That doesn’t constitute a reason. Ethically, it doesn’t come close. It suggests that she doesn’t think she needs one, and no one should expect THAT to go over well in a democracy.

Fair-minded people might think more deeply. They’ll assume she HAS a reason, but doesn’t want to discuss it. Breaking her pledge has been costly, and unless explaining her rationale would make things worse, she’d be keen as mustard to explain herself. Bizarre.

Far and away the likeliest reason for her change of mind, and her refusal to provide a rationale, is that she promised a Carbon Tax to Bob Brown in exchange for the Greens’ support of Labour in a minority government. If that’s the case, then she lied: breaking a promise to voters in exchange for a benefit to her Party is not ethical, full stop. If she has another reason, she’s morally obliged to reveal it. That, or accept the very reasonable judgement of voters that she’s lied.
Posted by donkeygod, Tuesday, 30 August 2011 9:37:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The last comment by Donkeygod merits a response because he says he understands the distinction and agrees it is important. He is, however, convinced, for reasons he explains, that Gillard lied. I did not express a view because my aim was not to defend Gillard but to remind readers, and especially journalists, of the need to examine the reasons for breaking this promise, as Donkeygod has done. But even he does not seem to understand that, while it is wrong to break a promise for no good reason - and any politician who does so can expect to pay a price - it is not a lie; it would be if there had been no intention to keep it. This is not a semantic distinction and we should respect it, even those tempted to see all politicians as inveterate liars.
Posted by maxat, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 10:13:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12537#216763

maxat, Juliar was in "socialist forum" with Lee Rhianon, Bob, Christine & all the others.

It is impossible for any human being on the planet to have been stupid enough to have not known that the RED/greens would hold out for the carbon price/tax/ets, let alone a person with her intimate knowledge of Loony Left politics.

She lied with intent, knowing full well the RED/greens would have withheld supply until they got "the precious".
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 3:13:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most people agree with Tony Abbott, that Julia Gillard is a multi-faceted liar who lacks integrity.

We are not in a court of law, so she has to accept that in the field in which she is engaged, public opinion has a significant effect.

The belief by the public that she is a liar is the most important factor. She has made every effort to qualify for the appellation, and richly deserves it.

A nit picking argument by Max, that just one of the elements characterised as a lie is, in reality, a broken promise, has little relevance.

What has great relevance is that in the collective opinion of the public, Julia is a liar.

Perhaps the public have followed the lead of the United Nations, which changes definitions to suit its assertions. “Climate change” is defined by the IPCC as “Climate change arising from the effect of human emissions”, although there is no scientific basis showing that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

It is not surprising that an assertion made, as to her intention, by such an unprincipled person is regarded as a lie. It is only one more example to add to the many instances of her lying, in any event.

Even our Labor biased Press pay some attention to the views of the public that they are meant to serve. They do not wish to appear too ridiculous, to their clientele, by differentiating between a reprehensible lie, and the reprehensible breaking of a significant promise.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 6:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Maxat!

You have a point, but... Ethically, this discussion could get a bit convoluted.

I think my comment conceded that not all broken promises amount to lies. If I read you rightly, however, you’re asserting that, in the absence of actual prior intention to state a falsehood, it’s impossible to lie. I’m not convinced that’s a tenable position.

Suppose I borrow $1000 from you, and promise to pay back $100 every week for ten weeks. If, after three weeks, I call you up and say I can’t pay you back, you’ll want to know why. If I explain that my house burned down, you might be sympathetic, you might be upset, but you wouldn’t say I lied. If I tell you spent the money I owed you on a holiday in Phuket, you’d likely say my promise was not serious. You’d say I’d lied, and ethically, you’d be right. So also if I refused to pay, and gave no reason. It wouldn’t be a defence to argue that I just ‘changed my mind’.

I can know nothing of Gillard’s mental state when she promised ‘Not under any government I lead’. Motive can only be inferred a priori: what I cannot observe or experience, I must deduce. That’s why it’s vital for her to be up front about her reasoning. She promised there’d be no Carbon Tax because it was politically astute to do so. If she later broke her promise for political gain (e.g. Bob Brown’s cooperation), then she lied.

Ethically, Gillard can no more refuse to discuss her reasons for breaking her promise than I could refuse to discuss why I won’t pay the debt I owe you. Silence, in such cases, amounts to disdain, or fear; what else can a rational being deduce a priori? It’s no good asserting that she may have intended to live up to her promise, but ‘changed her mind’. I can forgive a broken promise if I can infer good motive. I think your reasoning is backwards; you want me to infer good motive, given only a broken promise.
Posted by donkeygod, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy