Julia Gillard “betrayed her boss”? Perhaps. But differently from the way other leaders replaced their predecessors? No, not really.

She “lied to the Australia people regarding the carbon tax.” No. That was the outcome of the horse-trading after the electorate rejected the government Gillard had hoped to lead.

“She has had virtually unchecked power.” No. She has had the most tenuous grip of any leader in living memory.

“The failings of her government evince an incorrigible policy vacuum.” No. despite her Government’s wafer thin majority she has succeeded against all odds to get almost all of her proposed legislation through. Count ‘em.

"Labor under the Gillard government can't do the last two stages.” Yes, it can. Australia now has clearly the best-managed economy in the Western world. Bar none. It has clearly the strongest combination of economic growth, low taxation, stable unemployment, low debt to GDP, low inflation, low interest rates, high superannuation, sound health care and social services of all comparable democracies.

“Australia produces 1.4% of the world's total greenhouse emissions. If we closed down all of our industries, this would result in a non-measurable temperature reduction.” Sure. And let’s abandon seat belts, speed limits and alcohol controls at the same time because the lives saved will only be 0.0000023 per cent of the world's population.

“Australia has negligible international power and authority.” No. Economists here in France, elsewhere in Europe and in the US are in awe at Australia’s extraordinary management of the problems presented by the GFC since 2009. Everyone is watching. Google ‘Stiglitz Nobel Prize Australia’.

“And Gillard can't even deal efficiently with no-brainer piffle issues, such as gay marriage.” And who can? Australia’s Federal Opposition? Wait and see on this one, perhaps.

Very disappointing article. There are important issues to be confronted in difficult times. Australia needs valid analysis based on sound data. OLO should be able to do better than this. Leave the shallow sloganeering, cheap point-scoring and political spruiking to the Murdoch press.

see that little white lies
only get bigger..and bigger

here is an idea juliar
fix..*the huge*..lie

its worth noting..re quote
that boils-down to lies..
on-top of right royal
governer spin

with all this
platitude[ingratitude]....re ab-origonal insult
lets rub..real salt..
into the wound

my reply
to sense
[quote/quoted from]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4941&page=0

some common/sense
[for once]..to quote..

""The nation of Australia..was actually born
on January 1st,..1901.""

wether it was vandiemens land...new holland...
or simply the great south land's..australia didnt egsist..
till it was created..[or granted..to egsist by its people]..

and its people
have denied it..[..*howards referndumb!..lol..remember]

some other foreign
[colonising]..british govt's act
[australia act]...DOTH NOT A NATION MAKE..!lol

austr-alien?
lol..you are..a colon[y]

get your own act
dont take insult..its time to consult

there is no flag
described..in its colonial constitution

we still have..an armed occupation force*
CONTROLED..by a representative..of the british queen

who serve..to protect..*the queen..and her heirs/suckseizers
we teqniclly cant even claim..a flag..of our own
hence the convoluted double/tripple crosses..
in the corner..lol..of the southern cross

cause we arnt even..a self aware..
self declared independant nation
maybe at best a colony...

[lets face it..the australia ACT...had to be
ratiefied..by british govt]..see the joke..right there..

look at..who gives order's
commisions/honours..to the armed forces?

a british queen's govener..[general]...lol..!

if anything..the flag/nation/colony
stands..for ignorance

we are a funny convoliution..of states gov/generals
and a federal gov/general..who has final yeah or nay

indeed teqniclly you..cant sign..[ratify]..*any law...
but by by..the queens governing generalities/mark

[thus cant even..join
the united nations..unless ratified..by hrh]

that hasnt happend
but..other things have...[funny how lies..only grow bigger]

""This inauguration..date
was legally and constitutionally proclaimed by Queen Victoria on 17 September, 1900...This is our true birthday as a nation.""

lol..if nation we be
or colony..or collective of colonies

""December 31st..should also be made a public holiday
as it was on December 31st,..1900.""

till we direct...the gg to leave
we are a colony..under occupation..forces!

that deserves more thinking
than blustering..[spin]..by an anti monarcist pm

I confess to being disappointed with the Gillard government too, but I think Mr Bagaric is taking an extremely narrow view of the situation.

As Alan Austin observed earlier on this thread, managing a "coalition" whose fringe-dwellers are basically constituency-based, local-issue-driven mavericks was never going to be easy. The result has been a perpetual merry-go-round of compromise after compromise, not with another political party, as in the UK at present, but with individual "personalities", each with their own highly-localized barrow to push. The number of occasions that the will of the good people of Bundook or Mortons Creek, for example, reflects that of the nation as a whole, is likely to be random and unpredictable.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the best thing for the country might well have been for a courageous politician to create the situation where we all had to go back to the polling station, and try again.

Sorry, that's just silly..."courageous politician?" I must be hallucinating.

The least reversible broken promise is that concerning a "big Australia".

Changing the deck chairs on the Titanic is not a solution to Australia's lack of high impact policies that can improve Australia's social, economic and environmental well being and its place in the world.

Australia needs constant innovation of policies and new leaders who have the capacity and track record of delivering better outcomes for Australia. The concept of a safe seat is a thing of the past.

It is time for new leaders to emerge in Australian politics. At the last election, there was a string of new talent that joined the Australia Parliament. These young people should be promoted to the front bench. The system should have low tolerance for people who can not deliver real solutions that advance Australia. For too long special interest groups have held back Australia and this must change if we hope to move forward as a nation.

Watched a Doco the other day, there was this harmless little guy up on a podium demanding that the present Govt had lost its way and was illegitimate and that a new election should be called and if that result was not to his liking, then yet another election should be called as his party was the only party that was good for the country in the present circumstances.
Be careful what your bias and delusions wish for people!
Who was the harmless little guy? Joesph Goebbels, he was speaking almost word for word, what we hear 24/7 from today's bias and corrupted right wing media commentariat! Remember when fascism comes to your country it will have a bible in one hand and a flag in the other.
Sinclair Lewis 1935.

Please Mirko, bring back Rudd, you've got to be kidding.

While I realise it must be hard for someone like you to simply say, "toss the whole bunch of w4nkers out", that is the only solution.

Yes Julia has no idea, or ideas, but Rudd, god save us. He's proven totally incompetent, vindictive & self serving, even more than the little lady.

Unlike Julia, clueless & idea less, Ruddy has lots of ideas, all too often & too close together. Not only that he implements them with a few minutes consideration, to make way for yet another half backed idea come policy.

The worst thing about Rudd flying anywhere was that he would land with at least 3 more flashes of his kind of destructive brilliance.

The main thing we must do, for the next 18 months, is to try to prevent Julia or Ruddy having any more ideas, or implementing any they do have. With their track record, anything this government does will be another disaster.

Possibly, Macedonian advocacy.

>>It is time for new leaders to emerge in Australian politics. At the last election, there was a string of new talent that joined the Australia Parliament. These young people should be promoted to the front bench.<<

But how many of these do not owe their election to parliament to a "faction"? What exactly will make them different from the current crop?

I suspect - but feel free to correct me with examples - that they all arrived there through the same corrupt system of insider dealing and "preselection", organized and blatantly manipulated by powerbrokers who consider the voters' interests entirely irrelevant.

We are poorly served by the system as it stands. I think an appropriate description would be that we are muddling through a post-democratic phase, having lost the script entirely. Who feels properly "represented" by our government, I wonder? Certainly not Liberal supporters. And a goodly percentage of Labour voters might be somewhat confused as to what our "democracy" has served them up, too.

Mirko has put together a very cogent article (though he should get someone to check his grammar - but one or two little annoyances don't disqualify his message).

As for the 'fringe-dwellers', Gillard set up the government, and the terms, and it has always been up to her to 'manage' the situation effectively and responsibly. She has failed to do this. The fact that it was always going to be difficult to manage such a cliff-hanger minority government - because of the disparate vested interests involved - is no excuse. She went into it with her eyes open - determined to form government, to take her place in history, not only as the first female PM, but even more importantly as the first female PM to win re-election - a double honour; a double disaster in the making.

Honour? The behind the scenes wheeling and dealing by both major party leaders in the scramble to form government 'at any cost' proved there was a distinct lack of honour - and this reality has been soundly confirmed ever since. Oakshott, a traitor to his espoused affiliations; Windsor, sold his electorate to the highest bidder (with NBN promises the jewel in the crown - and since confirmed); Wilke, seduced by promises; Brown always 'in the bag', but with a few hefty strings attached. Katter, withdrew, with honour intact. Abbott - offered all, threw honour out the window, for 'the cause', for Liberal/National ideals, but most importantly in a last ditch effort to 'save' the nation from an inevitable Labor-led plunge into wealth redistribution, deficit budgets, resource mis-management, and whacky fringe-dweller-induced spin and ineffectual poster-boy legislation.

I disagree with Mirko that the next election is a done-deal; Abbott's poor performance has made Gillard look way better than she deserves in the polls - and he may yet succeed where she has failed, and give her the next election, 'on a plate'.

Rudd? Is history.

Pericles:"I think an appropriate description would be that we are muddling through a post-democratic phase, having lost the script entirely."

I agree. Neither party has the confidence of the people, because neither party can be trusted to make decisions based entirely on national interest considerations. That disenfranchises us all. I feel ever more justified for saying "a pox on both your houses" last election and not bothering to vote.

The author simplisticly forgets how much worse Rudd was

"If Rudd does return, the temptation will be to have a more inclusive, consultative government"

Rudd relied on a inner circle of 3 other politicians (which included Gillard) and two advisers. This lack of democratic style brought blanket complaints from Labor Ministers and backbenchers.

Rudd can also be identified as the main reason for the carbon tax - as he made that odd tax a believable need for most powerful voting, bloc the swinging voters who voted Greens.

Abbott with his divisive, (Cardinal Pell instructed) rightwing Catholic policies would be worse.

A late challenge by Turnbull, a moderate Liberal, is about the only forseeable hope in the next two years.

Pete

Can any-one really see Tony as a statesman. His mouth says it all. He would have the world rolling in fits of laughter. After what he said on Australia day, and now trying to shift the blame, shows how desperate this man is. I honestly do not know how the liberal camp can put up with him. He is a disgrace to politics in Australia. Has not contributed one idea for the betterment of this country. He will make a name for himself as the most negative coalition in history.

Do some not realise that Rudd is not like that at all in fact? He was portrayed that way only by the wooden ducks who are now the government because he saw through their wooden duck ness.

They coasted on his coat tails and did nothing and then destroyed the smartest man in the room.

Not very smart.

As do I, Antiseptic.

>>I feel ever more justified for saying "a pox on both your houses" last election and not bothering to vote.<<

I'm almost disappointed that they haven't come after me, so that I could dispute and protest the penalty. But then I thought about the masses of red tape that would entail, and decided it would be better to keep schtum.

If Rudd's the smartest man in the room, the room's got to be full of women

Funny how people start talking about 'both parties' and a pox on 'both your houses' when Labor is in power. When Howard left people felt we needed a change but that he led a competent government, run for the majority by a man who had firm beliefs - whether you agreed with him or not.

Now we are left with the 'dregs of the working class'. Apparatchtiks lacking talent, lacking belief and lacking competence. Blundering from crises to crisis. All the time damaging the political and social fabric of the nation. What a disgrace.

And then we get people talking about 'both houses'. What rubbish. What is it with leftists and self delusion? Whitlam was a disaster but at least he believed in something. This rabble don't believe in anything except power.

Dane, its because both houses are lost in an egotistic power complex, and its nothing to do with the left, in fact do we have a political left in Australia.
We have become a selfish lot and the pollies play up to that, and sod those less fortunate.

Kipp,

11 years coalition government Australia = paid off 96 billion of Labor debt and 46 billion in bank
4 years of Labor with best terms of trade in 100 years = 130 billion debt.

We most certainly do have a left in Australia.

I've noticed that many people who only read fairfax papers seem to think they are centrist. That's the sort of self delusion that I'm talking about.

only a leftie Government would be so stupid as to introduce a carbon tax and use junk science to support its deceitfulness.

Dane,
Howard had beliefs alright.

He believed the interests of his Party were more important than those of the nation and later believed his personal interests were more important than those of his Party. His personal desire to break some sort of political record eventually cost his Party government - plus the fact that he had no ideas beyond introducing the GST and creating social division to keep power. Throw in a couple of unwinnable wars and he was seen to be a failure.

I'm also guessing you weren't even around during the Whitlam years and have little idea what Australia was like before the changes he introduced.

I'll stack up all the long-standing achievements of those "incompetents" against everything done by the do-nothing Tories any day.

Rudd's problem was he was a political coward and preferred not to take on powerful interest groups in lieu of short-term populism, particularly the mining companies.

I also see that the GFC plays no part in your assessment and the rest of the world is doing just fine too.

Wobbles, I'd agree with most of what you say, but your analysis of Rudd's weaknesses seems way off the mark.

His problem wasn't that he was 'afraid' to take on interest groups.

Actually, that was one of his most admirable traits - he did take on the mining industry - they claimed his head.

And they were able to do so, because of his real weakness - his ego, and the fact that he couldn't cooperate with his own ministers, and he was loathed by them. This meant that when the polls evaporated, so did the support from his party. The rest is history.

He wasn't afraid to take on interest groups - he just didn't have any friends to back him up when he did.

When you make a promise and break it, it is called a lie. The "hung parliament" justification is an excuse that does not absolve the lie.

Juliar had the choice to gain power by breaking an existing promise to the electorate and making a promise to Wilkie that she had no intention of keeping or maintaining her integrity. She chose the former.

Australia has one of the strongest economies in the world, not the best managed.

The carbon tax is the largest in the world and economically completely unjustified. The all or nothing comparison with seat belts is infantile.

@Shadow Minister, are you sure this is fair? “When you make a promise and break it, it is called a lie.”

Really? Don’t you agree it depends largely on whether or not you actually have it in your power to deliver?

It seems that after the electors rejected a majority Labor government in 2010 in favour of a motley bunch of Greens, Labor and independents, the electorate could not then expect Labor to follow through with its entire program.

The same would have been true had the Liberals formed a coalition with the Nationals and any other minor party (DLP, One Nation or whatever), would it not?

In terms of morality, technically speaking, a lie is a statement made by a person who at the time knows it is false. Ms Gillard claims she still intends to implement her preferred carbon option – a cap and trade system – but later rather than sooner now, as a result of the whims of those whacky voters.

Now, if you want an example of a real solid straightforward outright lie, here’s one for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYzLIywCiA

AA,

Gillard promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she lead. Are you suggesting that someone held a gun to her head and forced her to subject Australia to a carbon tax? If it was within Juliar's power not to pass a carbon tax and she did because it was expedient, then she deliberately lied. As far as what her intentions were at the time she made the promise they are relevant only in that when she made the promise, she had no intention of keeping it.

When Juliar signed the contract with Wilkie, she didn't promise to try hard, or subject to the independents, she promised to pass the legislation. It was then incumbent on her to do whatever was required to get the independents on side. Considering that the Wilkie proposal was ditched before draft legislation was even proposed, indicates that it simply was too inconvenient, and with Slipper as speaker, she simply no longer needed to try.

Trying to say the coalition would have done the same is a furphy, as it is completely hypothetical attempt to attribute the coalition with Labor's ethical vacuum.

Yes, that’s pretty much the reality, SM. But without actual firearms.

No, I don’t think it was political expediency so much as trying to get the best outcome for the environment given that the electorate had rejected the ALP’s preferred option of a cap and trade scheme.

On the ethical vacuums of the various parties, SM, did you see the outright porky by Tony Abbott on Lateline? This was clearly a statement he knew was untrue when he made it.

Can you think of any such examples from other party leaders?

Alan Austin your posts highlight just why no thinking person should vote ALP.

You can rationalise any lie, justify any con job they do. This makes obvious the lack of any ethics they, & so many of their supporters, exhibit.

There has never been a mob so committed to "the end justifies the means" philosophy.

I do find it amazing that Richardson, who started the rot, or at least developed it to an art form, is now repulsed by how bad it has become.

AA,

The only ethical vacuum I see is Labor. Abbott didn't do whatever was necessary to gain government. He didn't promise the world when he knew very well he couldn't deliver. He didn't sign an agreement he had no intention of keeping. He negiotated in good faith with the independents but they fell for Julia's lies.

I have no sympathy for Wilkie either. He supported a women who lied to the Australian people. He can't complain when she turns around and knife's him in the back too.

Wobbly,
It sounds like you are the classic Howard hater. Well Howard was our second longest PM - a record the current trash has no chance of matching. What does it say about you that so many Australians voted for Howard for so long, yet you so despise him? How out of step with mainstream opinion, how delusional can you get.

Dane,

Lots of people made up their mind about Howard a few years back - quite decisively as I recall. His party may still have won if Costello had a spine and did what was politically necessary.

It's somewhat delusional to believe those days will magically return.

While I'm no fan of 21st century Labor but knowing what I know about the alternative, how they work and what their aims are, I'm in no hurry to go back there myself.

TurnRightThenLeft,
Very good point and I tend to agree, but he folded on too many other things before the miners came along to claim his scalp. Considering the hung Parliament Gillard has actually won some significant victories but they seem to be ignored in lieu of personal attacks.

Well the main thing I don't like about Gillard, is that she just lacks.......

@Hasbeen, yes, this is a vital point: “There has never been a mob so committed to ‘the end justifies the means’ philosophy.”

Pragmatism. Getting the outcomes desired. This is an intriguing subject of political philosophy, in Australia and elsewhere. The evidence seems to suggest all current parties in Australia are guilty, but some are worse than others. In recent years I don’t think you can say Labor is worse than the conservative Coalition, however.

The fact that most of the ‘Juliar’ criticisms refer to the ‘no carbon tax’ promise is instructive. Because there is an excuse in political morality for that failed outcome - as attempted, perhaps clumsily, above.

There is no such moral excuse however, for John Howard’s abandonment of the ‘no GST never ever’ promise before the 1998 election, is there?

@Dane: No, I think all the evidence suggests the opposite is the case.

All three key independents – Wilkie, Oakeshott and Windsor – actually came from conservative electorates and were expected by all observers to back the Coalition. The prime reason they gave for backing Labor was that they ultimately did not believe Tony Abbott would honour his promises to them. They based this on the recent form of the Liberal party generally and Mr Abbott personally, which are pretty well-documented.

And, yes, Mr Abbott did indeed promise them the world. As Tony Windsor recalls it, Tony Abbott begged the independents by promising everything they asked for. And joked, "the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse - but I'd have to give serious thought to it".

Remember, the nickname ‘the Lying Rodent’ was given to John Howard by a senator within his own government after yet another blatant lie to his party.

So my question remains: apart from bold policy promises which turn out impossible to deliver, or the mantric ‘the leader has my total absolute undying support’ can you think of an outright lie from Ms Gillard or anyone else in the Government like that of Mr Abbott speaking to Tony Jones, linked above?

"There is no such moral excuse however, for John Howard’s abandonment of the ‘no GST never ever’ promise before the 1998 election, is there?"

Except that Howard took the tax to the electorate, there would have been no excuse if he'd said no GST then found he had a change of circumstances which let him implement it.

There is a big difference between taking a changed policy to the electorate and what Julia did with the carbon tax.

R0bert

AA,

You need to pick up a book on how democracy works. Howard didn't break any promise at all. He said would not introduce a GST but when he changed his policy he took it to the electorate FIRST. That is called honesty. That is called having integrity. That is called democracy.

Did you seriously ask if I can think of any lie by the Gillard government? Please, just crawl back under your rock.

So true RObert. Of course these people can lie to themselves almost as well as Julia can lie to us.

They can rationalise anything, no matter how blatant, given enough time.

Hi again Dane and Robert,

How democracy works is precisely what some of us are discussing here. This is important because political philosophy seems to be in a state of profound change in Australia, here in France and in many other places. The books are being rewritten as we speak.

One powerfully destructive factor today is the Murdoch media which in Australia, the UK and the US has pretty much succeeded in promulgating many myths. Some have become deeply embedded in popular perceptions. But are untrue nonetheless.

Mr Bagaric regurgitates several of these in his article here on OLO, which is why his contribution is so disappointing.

The issue of disposable promises, political pragmatism and outright lies is a fascinating subbranch of political science.

My observations (since the early 1970s) are that conservative parties and leaders in Australia and elsewhere are much more prone to misrepresentation, broken commitments and outright lies than reformist politicians and parties. (Although no party is completely free of them.) There are intriguing theories as to why this is so.

So three questions on the current issue remain:

1. What was the crucial intervening issue or event that caused John Howard in the run-up to the 1998 election to abandon his earlier promise: There will be no GST, never, ever?

2. What circumstances actually do justify abandoning earlier commitments?

3. Are there examples of direct outright lies – false statements 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 genuine opinion such as climate science.]

Thanks,

AA

How is this about the ultimate porky from Juliar and Whine Swan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

And where Juliar has to face the public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeeXVz2zSOE

The difference with Howard, is that he didn't steal an election with a Lie. He had the integrity to admit he was wrong and then take an unpopular tax to the next election and let the public judge him and his party on it. Juliar promised no unpopular carbon tax and then went ahead anyway. Then to top it off tried to convince us it wasn't a lie. What rubbish.

No one trusts her any more.

PS,

With regard Abbott's so called porkie, given the context that the election campaign was only 6 weeks and he was meeting hundreds of people and working 20 hrs a day, it is entirely possible that in response to an unprepared question that he didn't recall a meeting more than 2 weeks previously falling within the campaign period.

It is entirely your assumption that Abbott has a perfect memory and that he chose to lie.

"My observations (since the early 1970s) are that conservative parties and leaders in Australia and elsewhere are much more prone to misrepresentation, broken commitments and outright lies than reformist politicians and parties."

And my impression is pretty much the direct opposite, the socialists saying whatever it takes to try and win elections and doing everything they can to make telling the truth way to politically risky. Dragging the wole thing down.

I don't think either side regularly use lies that are easily provable after the event, more the kind of lie that if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt there is some space to do so.

Did Bligh and co really not have any idea of the state of the Qld economy when they went to the last election, only discovering weeks after the election that things were so bad that they would have to sell off assets and drop the fuel subsidy despite denials of those plans during the election cmapaign? In Julia's case I suspect that she didn't expect to be able to implement her tax, when she got the chance keeping a committment was less important than power.

R0bert

@Shadow Minister, do you realise how ridiculous you sound?

John Howard promised there would be "No GST. Never, ever." He clearly broke that commitment and abandoned that promise in the run-up to the 1998 election – without anyone forcing him to do so in any way whatsoever. Yet you describe this as him having “the integrity to admit he was wrong”.

But when Julia is forced by a cliffhanger election, a hung parliament, a potential constitutional crisis and the demands of the independents, the Greens and her own party to break a commitment and abandon a promise, you say she “deliberately lied.”

And do you truly believe Tony Abbott “could not recall” his meeting with the cardinal at the presbytery the week before? Really? Did you see the clip?

We are laughing at you, not with you, SM.

@Robert, regarding this: “I don't think either side regularly use lies that are easily provable after the event, more the kind of lie that if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt there is some space to do so.”

I am yet to be convinced both sides are equally guilty, Robert. But open to persuasion based on evidence.

Here is another example which would seem highly relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

So again, do you have examples of blatant lies – false statements made knowingly - from Julia Gillard or other reformist MPs equivalent to that of Tony Abbott’s blatant porkie on Lateline? [excluding on leadership challenges and climate science.]

Anyone?