A great effort at dissembling, Max, I am sure some people will be misled.

Gillard happened to be right, and should have had the support of her cabinet.

Julie Bishop was right in asserting this, but I suppose that she should have acknowledged that if one is the leader of the Labor Party, and gets something right, then one should not disclose it, and expect to have support.

It is reminiscent of Costa, when he told the truth about climate change, and was attacked from all sides by his own party, for getting something right, and telling the truth about it. He has an obligation to go along with the AGW Fraud, because he is a member of the Labor Party.

Gillard must be careful, not only to lie, but to do the wrong thing, when the opportunity arises. It is her obligation as a member of the Labor Party, and more so, because she is the leader.

Well, Julie Bishop is only saying what has been coalition policy, for as long as there has been a coalition.
Disunity is death!
Disunity and its handmaiden, leaking, never ever serves personal political ambition!
It can however, virtually destroy a political party or movement, or the very vehicle one was relying on to serve that personal political ambition!
In my view, ultra conservative and extremely autocratic Meg Lees, may well have been wrong to allow the still hated granny killing GST through the Senate, against the expressed wishes of the Democrats' rank and file; and or, 87% of polled Australians?
However, if her party had simply accepted the fait accompli and closed ranks behind their leader, let the dust settle and then rewarded her with a spill, and a new less domineering more inclusive leader, there might still be a democratic party!
Rhrosty.

Disunity is death!
Rhrosty,
In that case Australia is on a suicide plan !

Rhrosty, the Democrats were doomed to extinction by a thousand cuts from the day their previous Female LEADER who was sucked into bed by Labor guile and deserted her ship mid term.
That LACK of LOYALTY still turns my stomach, and I wasnt a Democrat Party member! Can you imagine how devastated they must have felt.
That female still flosses around pretending to be a real quality human apparently with no understanding or shame for all the damage she did to politics and other humans particularly other women.

Max makes much of following one's 'conscience' in matters of 'principle' - quoting a 1774 speech by Edmund Burke which included: 'his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to ..any man'. Would that our politicians were universally so 'enlightened'.

Max in effect argues that this should be an inviolable 'rule' - offering only partial exception in matters deemed (by unspecified mechanism) to be matters of 'policy', but not necessarily of 'principle'. There appears a 'fine' distinction operating here. For example, how is involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan more a matter of principle than of policy?

The reliability of individual 'conscience' is also open to question. Surely, conscience is not static, pre-ordained or inherently perfect - but rather subject to evolution through experience, study, and contemplation of the example set by others.

Case in point: Leo Lane posted the following (regarding Gillard's wish to vote against the Palestinian motion to the UN, while Bob Carr opined it deserved support, and Cabinet favoured abstention - hedging its bets or sitting on the fence?):
>>Gillard happened to be right, and should have had the support of her cabinet.<<

Fact is, I disagree with Leo, and with Gillard, in this matter of 'principle'. Or, was it of 'policy', of both, or of neither? Is Leo's opinion, or conscience, more 'valid' than mine?

Burke stated: 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.’ Hence, our leaders (parliaments) should lead, and not just blindly follow the 'opinion' of the masses. In matters of both principle and policy?

'Conscience' is not necessarily reliable, and the canvassing of Cabinet (and parliament's) 'opinion' is democracy at work, and potentially more reliable. Public (parliamentary) 'conscience' votes should be confined to populist matters - no one voice rules, no one faction 'accountable', no great harm done.

Julie Bishop was just 'playing politics'. (Of course Tony listens to Shadow Cabinet - and Julia must be deafened by the cacophony.)

Acting on conscience means acting on your own judgment - taking the trouble to find out the facts and acting on your own sense of what is right. This is all Burke means. Presumably it is how Saltpetre decided that Gillard, Bishop and Leo were wrong on the question of Palestine’s status. It doesn’t require politicians to be ‘enlightened’, merely diligent and honest.

One’s judgment may, of course, change over time but this true of everyone, including Gillard, Bishop and Leo. It does not make one's judgment less ‘reliable’. The question is whether Carr was right to stick to his guns or whether, as Bishop argues, he had a duty to follow the leader.

A ‘matter of principle’ is one governed by moral values such that the wrong decision will violate someone’s rights. Examples are the Iraq War, the apology and recognising Palestine. The decision is either right or wrong. By contrast, issues of policy serve the community by providing benefits. We argue over whether a policy works, whether it is affordable, and whether some other goal should have priority. A ‘wrong’ decision may be poor government, but it does not violate our values.