Mirko
You are correct we all lie in certain circumstances often to protect others but Mr Abbott's admission while truthful, was not in any way honourable.

Yes, we all know that politician's lie whether they openly admit it or not. However the act of lying should be judged on intent and context.

Asking "does my bum look big in these pants" is not the same as asking "what is your policy for health reform or tax reform".

Politicians are elected to serve the people and to represent their electorates in which there is an expectation of transparency in regard to policy matters. Under our current system politicians seem more beholden to party loyalties than to national ones.

I guess in this context it is no wonder that lying is seen as acceptable as a normal part of politics.

We are looking at this from the wrong end and should be instead asking why is it that politicians feel the need to lie, to procrastinate or to evade direct questions.

What about the obligations to those who voted for them and to the greater national interests. Ideally we don't want people we vote to represent us to then turn around and lie.

Give the people some credit and just tell the truth.

Abbot's gaff was quite amusing. Being "straight up" is one thing, but admitting that he often speaks rubbish and lies to look good in certain conversational situations is very naive!
There used to be a thing called "principles" and "idealism" was not seen as the flaw that it is today. This means that sometimes your principles will look good, sometimes not.
Obama's decision to allow drilling looks good in discussion's about oil, energy security and national independence (all except Greens like this in current climate)...but since the spill it looks pretty bad. Had he said "no" by sticking to environmental principles he'd be looking pretty smart, but if the spill didn't happen he'd just look like a politician with unusually strong principles (which Greens would like but the Right would criticise).
Doing the right thing is tricky for a politician. Their opponents play with the media to strengthen or weaken particular positions (e.g. the relentless "boat people" scares for the Right, environmental scatres for the Left.) What Abbot actually said was: "I have no principles except what is official "holy writ" party line. Expect me to BS my way through any discussion by remaining shallow to look good, forget getting a real opinion if it might let me be judged."
Pretty spineless, but a good summary of the "Conservative" Christian position on life!

Don't be confused about Abbott. Lying or not lying he is still a feckless person with little merit as a person and absolutely none as leader.
What we have all seen of this man is all you are ever going to get. He has taken the Liberals a few points up the ladder in the polls. With Murdoch's ulterior objectives one can dismiss the News Poll totally. But even blind Freddie could have taken the coalition forward because they all know that there is a worthwhile leader in the wings, who came back from possible retirement after much pressure from intelligent observers who realised that they will never win under a knave like Abbott and there never will. His agenda is too well known by the voters who still wish to see Australia as a secular country not hinged at the hip to the Roman gnomes as is Abbott, weak and corrupted.
So if Turnbull doesn't get a run soon, it is Labor again for another three years. Ask around. Abbott is a joke and as an Australian leader on the international stage he would be a laughing stock, and that's gospel.

Absolute rubbish and cow droppings. Abbott was nailed by Kerry O and stuffed up. How can you possibly say it is honest to say "I lie". It's an oxy moron and so are you, less the oxy.

While I am no particular fan of Tony Abbott, I don't think that many politicians deliberately lie. This may be seem a naive attitude, but situations change so quickly in political matters that what seemed a good idea at the time is altered by changing circumstances. If a financial circumstance changes and there is an obvious lack of money or a new priority raises its head, what seemed set in concrete previously, has to be compromised. It is bad enough trying to forecast forward estimates in a global context only one year ahead let alone three. It s almost but impossible to set out an accurate budget as it is only guess work.

What I object to is hasty decisions where so much money is wasted when a little common sense and consultation with people other than bureaucrats would be more propitious.

Political promises will always be broken but these things, given mostly sincerely at the time, are often found wanting and of course the electorate never forgets. In the same way Keating was never allowed to forget his L-A-W Law promise and Rudd hasn't been able to deliver on his climate change polemic or child care centres

and Mr Rudd claimed to be an economic conservative and that global cooling (sorry warming was it?) was the biggest moral challenge of the century. The Abbott haters really no nothing about shame or hypocrisy.

What a waste of bytes this article is. Politicians must always be judged on their lies and intent to mislead the public and marked below those who are more honest (that is, less prone or willing to lie)- the top of the ballot should be a fightout among the most honest individuals we've got- over to whom you most strongly agree with- Abbot and Rudd shouldn't even factor in unless you're a dunce.

Anything else discussed in this thread is not important.
Any debates trying to make Abbot/Rudd look better than the other are flat-out stupid.
That's all.

Mirko you quoted the following,
"A study by Friends Provident showed more than 80 per cent of people admitted to telling at least one lie a day",
"Cornell University showed respondents lied during a quarter of their social interactions".
"60 per cent of people lied at least once during the course of a 10-minute conversation".

Why bother to defend a truism. Abbott was telling us nothing new regarding the fact that politicians promise the plebs things without guarantee of commitment in their own minds, they lie.

The issue is not what Abbott said, but the fact that the fool said it. Abbott was the only hope for those who did not want a carbon tax imposed on Australia unilaterally, and he did the job. But all that has transpired since then has been disappointing. What sort of right wing fool would go on the 7.30 report with the likes of O'Brian and not be able to turn Kerry's question around 180 degrees and start where they began it, with Kevs lies.

Many moons ago when Howard was opposition leader Kerry had him in a similar situation of blatant pot calling the kettle black. Howard admitted nothing, but said whether I am guilty or not, we are talking about the deceits of the Prime Minister of Australia not a mere minister....and then hooked into Keating, Kerry had nowhere to go, and Howard continued dissecting Keating. Abbott is a lightweight.

This Labor government got to go; another three years will sink our great grandchildren. Abbott is no talent, he is a plodder ready to take the kicks and follow guidelines, a caretaker. The important bit is that the Libs can manage debt and the administration of our funds a million times better than Labor, hang on, that should be 20 billion times better than Labor.

We could have the proverbial drovers dog as prime minister, & the world would not laugh as much as it does at the pretentious peanut we have in that position now.

Talk about hanging a dead weight around our necks.

If Rudd is not going off half cocked, [big mining tax] he's cocking up again, [pink bats anyone].

He's got no idea where the next back flip will land, & thinks you announce the thought of the moment as policy, then negotiate with those effected, before the inevitable backflip. If the party don't start sitting on his head soon, to keep his fool mouth shut, they really will be history.

Abbott is a paragon of virtue compared to this clown, but of course so would be that afore mentioned dog.

"Yes, if it is a means to improving the greater community good by removing an incompetent government."

And we end up with an endless chain of lies.
- No doubt many saw the previous liberal government as incompetent on many front's.
- No doubt many governments see the opposition as incompetent (eg were Bligh's lies about the sale of public assets etc justifiable on the basis that it kept what she perceived as a worse government out of office?

In contrast to Rudd world of spin, Abbott's willingness to be upfront about his own weaknesses is refreshing. That does not make him a great potential prime minister but it does bring into contrast what we seem to have learned to accept from those holding public office.

R0bert

What to say about an article (the latest in a series) that argues that morality and ethics are all relative. How do you argue against a profoundly cynical view that in an given situation people will (naturally) act in an expedient and unprincipled manner.

The answer is to see how most people actually do act, in a thousand little ways, every single day. If you look around you will see people acting with honesty and decency and care towards others (if they have a choice). We live in a world full of civilized values, and 100 posts to the contrary (like the one above) will not make an iota of difference.

Tony Abbott's remarks were blatantly honest & only someone with an agenda against commitment to decency would exploit the easily misconstrued context of his words. It's a sad indictment of Australians indeed to see that bandwagon so overloaded.

This is too big a subject to be covered by the over simplistic definitions of lies and truth. We all experience multiple forms of lies, omissions, spin, distortions, obfuscations, misdirection, redefinition and false intent.

I can accept, as Mirko points out, that there is an element of relativity and circumstance however, these mechanisms are all intended to “deceive” in some way. Some of us it has to be said want to believe certain things and even the biggest “porkies” can be acceptable or excusable.

So the issue of relativity must also include a personal disposition on any given topic. Some of us chose to “believe” in religions and some do not. For the non-believers, one or more forms of deceit are in play. For the believers it is seen as “truth”, no deception.

Likewise in politics, some of us chose to believe or excuse that which others see as deceit. I do not believe that our government intends closing Howards “White Elephant” (Christmas Island), or that pink bats was the fault of contractors, or that K.Rudd has “got it” and will save the insulation industry, or that the BER is value for money and not ripped off, or that Childcare centers will be built, or that indigenous housing will happen, or that funding and GST changes will have any positive effect on Healthcare, or that we will be back in surplus by 2013, or that trade centers will be added to schools, or that a resource tax is good for mining and all Australians, or that the blame game will end, or that the $43bn NBN will ever be commercial, or that we will take Japan to court over whaling, or that we will take Iran to the international court, or that Global Warming mitigation was ever a great moral issue.

What can be said is that a lot of Australians do not see any of this as deceit?

As to Tony Abbott’s indiscretions, may I mitigate on the grounds of comparative relativity.