Good morning all,

@Joe. You are doing it again. Are you just messin’ wit me? You write again: “why was Bob Carr knocked back, and then offered the job?”

Joe, it is not true that Bob Car was knocked back by the PM after her initial offer to him. This is the central lie in the front page of The Australian Wednesday of last week. That is what Ms Gillard said was "completely untrue". That is the assertion Mr Abbott made when he lied to the Parliament.

Why do you still believe it? Any evidence – apart from claims in The Australian?

Yes, the NSW right wanted Carr, as did Gillard. Other ALP people wanted other candidates. Something like 20 names were considered. Most certainly, the forces at work would have been energetic.

Regarding Arbib's next plum job, as a reward for getting out of the way: good question, Joe. Have pondered this myself. Had he served longer, then an ambassadorship maybe. But at his age, perhaps not.

Will be intriguing to see what eventuates here. Excellent question.

@579, agree with your observations entirely once again. Let’s see what happens in Parliament Tuesday.

@Imajulianutter, misleading Parliament seems only to apply if it’s done knowingly – which means it will be difficult to prove in Mr Abbott’s case. He can always say, “Hey, I thought it was true! I read it in The Australian.”

It’s also an offence mostly confined to government rather than opposition members. So the threat to Mr Abbott arising from this is probably greater within his caucus. His several past admissions of lying, being believable only when reading from a prepared script, his many changes of policy position and so forth have not gone down well. So last Wednesday certainly won’t help him.

No, Keith, I have said nothing about “how good and righteous are the Labor rabble”. My focus is on misrepresentation in the media and how this impacts political discourse. If I’m lecturing at all, it is simply to urge that we value and defend truth over falsehood. Everyone gains from that. No?

Cheers, AA

Hmmmmm Alan

'If I’m lecturing at all, it is simply to urge that we value and defend truth over falsehood. Everyone gains from that. No'

Of course we do ... but it can't be onesided, non?

So can you direct mr Imajulianutter to the many papers, or even one, you've writteen condemning a lying 'No carbon tax under the government I lead.' Gillard?

Nutter it's an offense to lie in parliament, not on the street. Besides that Julia said when it became clear when we had a hung parliament, all promises are off. And that was on TV news. But the noalition followers disregard that statement as usual.
Julia had to negotiate with the independents, and of-course they wanted concessions, Just the same as Toni negotiated with the same people, but the independents wanted to join the labor camp.
What annoys me the most is, Abbott put the Australian paper ahead of the PM. He knew what happened, right or wrong the PM's answer did not count.
Then the extended speech condemning the PM over something that was lies.
It remains to be seen where the paper got these accusations from, they certainly had external help.

Hi Keith,
Still working on a stand-alone article on politicians' falsehhods. So nothing published yet - apart from in the thread here:
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13249

Latest refinement of categories is as follows:

Straightforward, direct, looking-down-the-camera barefaced lies- like Mr Abbott's "not that I can recall" to Tony Jones - are Class A.

Blatantly false statements made by parrotting other fabricated sources, like Mr Abbott and Ms Bishop last week quoting The Australian: Class B.

Promises broken for political expediency with no external factors forcing their abandonment: Class C. Examples are Ms Gillard dudding Mr Wilkie recently. And Mr Howard’s no-GST-never-ever which he abandoned before the 1998 election.

A class C broken promise may, of course, be ratified by an election. If this succeeds, as indeed happened with Mr Howard and the GST, then it becomes less offensive. Say class D.

Commitments made in good faith but prevented from being implemented despite the government’s genuine best efforts – by a hostile Senate or the High Court or a hung Parliament – could be class E. These include all promises made before the 2010 election which had to be abandonned when the electorate gave neither side a majority.

Promises prevented from being implemented by changed economic conditions – such as Paul Keating’s L-A-W-law tax cuts – could be class F.

Promises deferred by changed economic or political conditions – such as Labor’s no carbon tax – could be class G. (Keating’s L-A-W tax cuts also turned out to be G.) Ms Gillard still wants a cap and trade scheme eventually. So that may be Class G eventually.

Assurances of loyalty to the leader by putative challengers deserve a special category. Say class I. (I for inevitable? Inavoidable?)

Refinements and other comments most welcome.

Alan,

The answers to both questions was a simple no. There was no need to compound and highlight the nature of your stances.

Hypocrisy.

That sums up your contribution.

'Spin' is something all you labor blokes seem to want to wear as a badge of credit ... and of which we the punters are heartily sick and tired.

You don't seem to have got that yet Alan. Which is great because it is what will keep all you labor blokes in opposition, State and Federally, for a very long time to come.