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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.