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.