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 > Truth and falsehood the new divide? > Comments

Truth and falsehood the new divide? : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 3/9/2012

Would it be a positive move in public life if truth vs falsehood did replace the old dichotomies?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
SPQR: lie .
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.

Thank you SPQR.

Examples Alan. Although I can't point a finger at anyone specifically, I can give some examples of promises that have never materializes or have eventually happened but 40 or 50 years after the promise was made. Then claimed by the incumbent Government as being their project, "so vote us in again."

1. the new Railways Workshop at Stuart in Townsville.
First promised in 1952. Delivered in 1995.
2. The new Railways Station in Townsville.
Promised in the 1960's. Delivered in 2000.
3. The Power Station at Abbotts Point.
Promises around 1980. Still not delivered.
4. the new Rail Line to Scarbourgh in Brisbane.
Promised around 1920 something & two Elections ago. Still not delivered.
5. The new Highway to relieve the congestion on the Cunningham Highway West of Brisbane.
Promised in the last two Elections. Ain't never gonna happen in my lifetime.

I'm sure there are many more. This is all I could think of in the spur of the moment. I'm sure there are others here that could add greatly to this list.

I don't particularly care about which side of Politics you sit, Alan. You have raised the Question of whether Politicians lie or not, then seem to assert that they never lie. What I & others here assert is that they do. Using the standard provided above by SPQR.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 8:52:25 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 Alan,

<<Now, which statement in that series of clips to do you regard as a blatant lie, SPQR>>

Well here’s one for starters: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"

NB the lack of qualification –lack of qualification--lack of qualification.

It was NOT a case of: no tax, as long as I get a majority.

It was a case of “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"[Full stop]

NO means NO -- haven’t you learnt that yet, Alan?

And your little ex post facto excuse: << Ms Gillard did not succeed in gaining power at the last election as leader of a majority Labor Government>>
was/is believed by no one –not even Julia (leastways, till she was briefed (brainwashed?) by the party’s faceless, shameless men to used it!)

Prosecution exhibit No 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8rsyg0lkkM&feature=related
Where Julia tries to explain away her lie.
NB that at NO point does she use your excuse -- the sock puppet hanging by her side does (what a archetypical Yes Minister clone he it!) --but Julia, does not.

And as to, did she <<make a statement … which she knew at the time was untrue>>
Absolutely!
Prosecution exhibit No 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
Here you have both Julia & Wayne Swan, killing their political careers with the no carbon tax lie ( two birds with the one stone so to speak!)
NB,the flutter of Julia’s eyes at the 4 second mark – a sure sign she was lying.

And, If you still can’t see it – the prosecution humbly suggests that you follow this link: http://www.specsavers.com.au/eyecare/eye-exam
It might enable you to see things our way!
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 9:44:56 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
Thanks, SPQR,

Yes, have seen those links. But you’re still confusing promises stymied by factors beyond the control of the promisor with blatant attempts to deceive, aren’t you?

Laurie Oakes is right. It’s a blot on her record. And remains so until she gets a parliamentary majority and delivers the cap-and-trade scheme she wants.

But you cannot call it a lie.

Do you remember the extraordinary horse-trading in 2010 after that bizarre election? Remember Abbott telling Tony Windsor, "the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd give serious thought to it"?

A carbon tax was clearly Greens policy. Once the Independents agreed to back Labor and the Greens, policies had to be abandonned.

You referred to Howard’s GST promise.

Was John Howard's Government legitimate after he broke that promise? He had a majority in both houses, remember? So no-one forced him to change his stance.

His exact words:
Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Howard: "Never ever. It's dead."

He did NOT say "maybe if we take it to the next election, campaign on it and the voters approve."

So was his Government legitimate after 1998?

Are you claiming that it is because the 1998 election intervened? Then why not accept that the hung parliament, political impasse and formation of the Greens/ALP/Independents coalition intervened in 2010?

Your next problem is that Labor is still committed to an emissions trading scheme. The promise taken to the last election remains ALP policy. But temporarily unfulfilled because of Canberra realpolitik.

So questions for you, SPQR:

1. What was the intervening issue or event that caused John Howard in the run-up to the 1998 election to abandon his promise, “no GST, never, ever”?

2. Can you find just one example of an outright lie – a false statement made knowingly – from Julia Gillard equivalent to that of Tony Abbott when he said he “couldn’t recall” a meeting the week before with the Cardinal? [excluding the leadership challenge two-step and matters of opinion such as climate science.]

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 3:09:40 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
Ahhh Alan

Here is a statistical truth for you.

The Gillard Government is less popular than when Whitlam was sacked.

And another statistical truth.

Tony Abbott is more popular than Malcolm Fraser before he was elected as PM.

Have you evaluated Gillard's current backflipping on carbon floor pricing yet?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 6:53:13 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
AA: Yes, have seen those links. But you’re still confusing promises stymied by factors beyond the control of the promises with blatant attempts to deceive,

Are these promises given knowing full well they won't be delivered because of extenuating circumstances? Of course they are.

AA: Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Not out loud. "Of course, if circumstances change."

Julia: "No. There's no way a Carbon Tax will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Not out loud. "Of course, if circumstances change."
or words to that effect.

Actually you have confused me I have no idea where you stand on your subject.

So, are you saying it not a lie if they don't deliver on a promise knowing full well that circumstances will change?

Are you saying that a promise made by the conservatives is not a lie but one made by Labor is?

I have given you a list of Political Promises made by various Governments over the years. You haven't remarked on those.

Here is another. The Bradfield scheme. Promised in the 1920's a watered down version was built in the 80's, but no Hydro Electricity plant. The space that was made for it has been now filled in with concrete. Another 10 meters needs to go on the top of the wall & the water diverted to the West. Oh! circumstances have changed. Hmmm.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 8:06:28 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
"Can you identify any point blank lies – like those, above, from Tony Abbott and John Howard – from Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown or Kevin Rudd? Or Julia Gillard?"

The author obviously has a selective memory. What about the lies of Kevin Rudd re "the greatest moral challenge", and Julia Gillard re "there will not be a carbon tax"?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 11:34:04 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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