Helen hi,

'The hard lesson here is that those who have recourse to the narrative of ‘broken promises’ are more likely to be ignorant of politics and of the actual record of politicians and their parties. The popularity of this narrative is itself an indication of a troubling wide ignorance about democracy and its workings'

That Helen is entirely correct and accurately describes the Australian media political commentators.

To me it is re-inforced by the fact only one commentator, Denis Atkins, actually came close to predicting the ALP seat losses. Atkins predicted between 7 and 15 to be returned.

I, as a complete amateur, having no inside knowledge nor contacts, after reviewing all the pre-election poling, observing the activities of the parties, after handing out htv cards at pre-poling went on the public record poling eve and predicted Labor to hold only 6-9 seats, Newman to win Ashgrove easily, The Greens and Katter to get no seats. I said Bulimba could be lost, a seat held continueously by the ALP for 80 years, and would definately go to preferences for the first time ever.

I have asked others and myself why I was almost 100% accurate yet the experts were so wrong.

One nedia jock told me, 'it wasn't about me and that I had 'tickets' on myself'.

I pointed out my 'tickets' were blue and winning ones and asked what colour were his losing ones? He hung up.

The media commentators, in my opinion, seldom are in touch with the realities on the ground and seem incessently intent on talking with each other and seem to form judgements after that limited exposure.

I have a view of what has gone 'wrong' with labor in Queensland. It is complex and involves much more than broken promises and federal issues.

In my opinion at it's heart is the spin, the competence and the unrepresentative nature of Labor Leaders and Labor Politicians as well as the emphasis on policies of little import to the aspirations of traditional Labor voters.

It extends across all Australian States and Federally.

Yes there is and was a lot of spin pre and post the Queensland election! None more so than the incumbent Federal politicians up here and displaying their profound ignorance or endless, we'll all be ruined spin.
Boiled down, it was a state result that displayed the voters' displeasure, with the attempted centralisation of a largely decentralised state; the urbanisation of Koala habitat, the millions wasted on the Traveston travesty; the incredible arrogance on display, which would brook no public opposition; the privatisation of income earning state assets, particularly when there were other options; and the massive empire building bureaucratisation of a formerly lean and mean govt, which handed on good surpluses and a public health system the envy of virtually every other state!
Are there lessons for Federal Labour? Yes, but given the patent spin and dialogue; they're are not listening. But then that's nothing new; given they believe that all they need is a better salesman to sell their message, when what they really need is to start to really actually listen; not so they can debate and or dismiss the objections; but rather, so they can understand and actually act on them. Rhrosty.

Don't you just love it when some academic presumes to tell you what you think, & why you think it, & why you took the actions you did. That it is a hobby of Labor leaders & academics, tells us something about both of them, & their arrogance.

Come off it Helen love, just because you have a muddled thought process doesn't mean we all have. You're even further from the facts & the thoughts of the population, than the Labor party have proved to be.

Perhaps to put you on track here's my thinking.

I did not care about asset sales, but do care about lying, & incompetence.

Therefor some of the swings pf my baseball bat were for Anna, for lying,& trying to con us.

Some were for Beattie, because we missed him last time.

Some were practice shots for another lier, Julie. Boy am I going to enjoy the real thing.

Some were for academia & the ABC, for being part of the con job.

I really have to doubt your academic ability, or your sincerity, when you spend much of your article talking about the US, & Obama. There is only a very vague similarity between their system & ours, so why go there.

We have none of this presidents policy put out to the public, then the president trying to win the necessary vote from a rather independent house. Here the vote is behind closed party doors, & the result known long before the public hear of anything.

To then suggest we could only have voted as we did, because we are ignorant, shows someone who is supremely ignorant, & it sure ain't us.

Get off that high horse love, before you fall & hurt yourself, you're out of your depth.

Do you think you could hide this bit of rubbish, before it destroys your reputation, even amongst academics?

I'm surprised hardcore Labor supporters - all dozen or so of them - are even acknowledging that the ALP in Queensland lost the election, such is the level of fingers-in-ears denial over the last few days.

" If candidates say in the electoral campaign that they are going to do something, then that is very very likely what they will try to do. ... Those politicians who will do anything to keep their promises can sometimes turn out to be more dangerous than those who do not."

The claim made in the first sentence certainly does not apply in respect of Julia Gillard who blatantly and unapologetically broke her election promise not to introduce a carbon tax.

Indeed, the claim in the second sentence applies in respect of federal ministers who have taken extreme steps so as to keep their promise of a budget surplus. As confirmed during the recent public argument between the Rudd and Gillard camps, the primary motive for legislating the carbon tax to apply from 1 July 2012 was not to reduce man-caused carbon dioxide emissions, but to raise billions and billions of dollars of new tax revenue, so as to achieve a 2012-13 budget surplus. As a result of being penalised with the world's highest carbon tax by far, thousands and thousands of Australian businesses will lose their comparative advantage, and millions and millions of Australians will have their standard of living reduced. Should one expect that those afflicted would be comforted by the thought that their suffering is in aid of achieving that rare goal (for federal Labor) of a budget surplus?

I'm just so sick & tired of these academic experts waffling on about why Labor lost the Qld election.
It just proves that academics aren't that intelligent at all. Even our average local village idiot will tell us that Labor lost because they're just too incompetent.
Broken promises ? My lilly white butt. You had to be a moron of the highest order to take them serious in the first place. Thank goodness everyone except the academics have come to see that, hence the outcome.

This article definitely has that academic whiff about it of disagreeing with popular opinion for the sake of disagreeing.

hp/quote..""There is also a salutary lesson here for voters,""

for voters?

thought it was alp/obama problem?
or the NON MENTIONING..of their true agenda

not making promise[nor revealing their real adgenda]
or rather keeping secret promises it made to lobby mates
like..[no mention of the smoking tax/sellking asset for pennies../or clive palmers lnp/railways]

im really angry about the sale outright
of the forrest reserves[within one hour of bris gpo
for 800 million...[when at 'real land values..as house blocks]
38.000 hectares would have cleared the whole debt]..

even under 'harvest clauses'on the land[after felling the tree harvest...they could have created..better than logan city..[and reaped the windfall]

but its also the water selloff/de'sal plants to their mates
doubling the price of electicity/to claw back a far to generouse powwer buyback[plus so much more]..but ONGING/'lie by ommision' ..is right up there

""candidates promise..will try very hard to deliver""

yep PROMISE TO MATE's...
or lawsuiters..[like clive palmer's]
who reaped his windfall..65 billion mine[with ana's help]

peter beatups..deals..like the half bill to NOT build a magnesium plant in gladstone[plus howards half bill to BAILOUT..the same "mates/promises'

""Those politicians..who will do anything
to keep their promises""...[deals to mates]..""can sometimes turn out to be more dangerous..than those who do not""

yes your right
in part

Before you can say Labor lost you had best see what you replaced it with. If CN does not deliver, or finds it just can not happen the way he thought. SE qld has a problem, what is his solution. It's all very well to wash the cloths, but if you have more dirty work to do , it's little point.

While Bligh herself may not have made the promise, it is clear that Labor's position was that there were to be no asset sales. This then looked like a deliberately broken promise when the asset sales were announced days after the election.

This was an issue of broken trust, for which the voters correctly punished QSW labor, and for which Federal labor will be held to account.

The other issues you raised is reminiscent of Howard's core and non core promises.

2 days into his Premiership Campbell Newman was giving his LNP mates plumb positions. He and the LNP were extremely vocal on jobs for mates by Labor - he had broken an implied promise that the media is not howling about.

Newman will rapidly take Queensland back 30 years with the dismantlement of environmental schemes. He will lead us back to the Joh era of the white-shoe-brigade. Already the police union and Newman seem to be confused about the separation of powers that Joh into such strife. I am tipping that like in the Joh era, protesting in Queensland will become illegal again - we will become the laughing stock of the reset of Aus.

Campbell Newman has broken his implied promise from the very beginning of his reign.

I predict that by the time of the next state election, the miners will have had a free hand with minimal environmental concerns, law and order will have a political tint, corruption will have tainted the govt, and many of the people who voted for the LNP will have lost their jobs and many will find their real wages are reduced.

Why aren't the media berating Newman for his broken promise.

'Newman will rapidly take Queensland back 30 years with the dismantlement of environmental schemes.'

Most Queenslanders will hope so. They have seen through failed socialist dogma that increases Government and does over everyone else. They have also voted on the mother of all environmental dogmas (carbon tax) that anyone who can think at all would reject.

The director generals of departments are political appointees that are expected to implement the policies of the incumbent government. Trying to claim that appointing coalition supporters in this role is as ridiculous as trying to claim that the cabinet should be bipartisan.

I suppose Bligh's husband being appointed head of the dept of the environment was bi partisan by Bligh? That Newman hasn't fired him is an act of conciliation that Labor has never shown. Appointing mates to jobs that are supposed to be independent is a Labor tradition. Nearly all the FWA appointees are ex union.

The Labor corruption and incompetence is to be swept away, and along with it all the planning money that filled Labor's coffers.

Thank you for the comments. I have been thinking about this question again in light of these comments and others eg from Graham Y too. Like most commentors, I value trust and honesty in politics (and even more so outside of politics). However, I also think that 'broken promises' as an explanation for voter choice and for electoral outcomes generally is lazy shorthand. It also doesn't catch the problem of politics, which is that people are not all of one mind. This is not a problem as such (in fact it is one of the delights of life on earth) but it does mean that carrying through on any 'promise' or undertaking a candidate might make has then to be negotiated through other people's different views, and perhaps the promises/undertakings that they have also made. It is true, as hasbeen (or should I call you hasbeen darling, to match your condescension?) says, that we do not have a US system, doh I think I vaguely remember that from Government 101. But we do have a Senate that is frequently of a different colour from the ruling party, and even now a House of Reps that does not have a clear majority party. So yes, it's not the president vs congress, but it is a similar problem of how to achieve a program in the face of (democratically elected) opposition to your program and promises.

(continued in next...)

(continued...)

A hypothetical: would you complain about a politician's breaking a promise or undertaking if you were opposed to what they had promised?

Let's say I am opposed to the detention of refugees in any circumstance.
Then let's say that Gillard promised in her campaign speech to detain refugees indefinitely.
Once elected, Gillard then releases all refugees and says she will no longer detain them in any circumstance.

Would I then turn around, mumble 'Gillard's broken promises' and vote against her because she had broken a promise?

Of course not. If anything I would be MORE likely to vote for her, perhaps on the grounds that she has begun to see reason (or at least what I understand as reason :).

This hypothetical doesn't PROVE anything, but it does SUGGEST that the narrative of 'broken promises' is kind of parasitic on a primary opposition to a policy or program, and is not an independent assessment of politics.

Sorry for capitals, I can't do italics in comments!

thanks again for comments, I always learn from them,

Helen

i think..the two parties...
should occupy..the lower house

the upper house should be representative of everything else
[not two party related]

lets face it..its all about getting the cash
back to those who lobbied the party into power

the senete [in each state]..should be a peoples house
till i see new lol man..move to restore the constituted way

any govt in qld is a defacto govt
unconstitutional..[that invalidates federal govt too!]

its a mess...end the two pary franchise
if the new law/deed/gift/grant..is good
both houses will agree

if not
well thats democracy
no-one..can control it all...[no one/no party/no intrenched *too party*..beurocracy]

bring back qlds upper house
[senete equivalent]...open to non two party nomination for representative[declared]... members

Helen,

The scrapping of grocery watch and fuel watch, which were obvious bad policies was the right thing to do and greeted with relief from the voters. Labor suffered a bit in the competence ratings, but not so much in the trust ratings.

The carbon tax lie was perceived as a betrayal in several ways, Rudd's back flip on the tax (with the prompting of Swan and Juliar) after Copenhagen showed that not only global and local momentum on carbon tax had collapsed, but that it was no longer the moral imperative it used to be.

In 2010 with support for a Carbon tax collapsing, Juliar made an absolute promise that there would be no carbon tax under her government, and Swan backed her to the hilt.

The breaking of the promise to impose an unpopular tax, was seen as a further betrayal of the voters, because the reasons it was imposed was not seen as for the benefit of Australia, but simply to gain the Green vote of Bandt, and to achieve power.

helen/quote...""Let's say I am opposed""

to the detention of refugees
in any circumstance.

Then let's say that...""{Gillard promised
in her campaign speech to detain refugees indefinitely.""]

Once elected,..Gillard then releases
all refugees and says she will no longer detain them""

lol...""in any circumstance."

Would I then turn around, mumble
""'Gillard's broken promises'..and vote against her..because she had broken a promise?

Of course not.""

...""If anything I would be *MORE likely to vote for her,*!*!*!

oops that bought a flash back
THAT is what she dun
for the same reason

that obtained by lie or trick
cany hold lawfull accounting

""perhaps on the grounds
that she has begun to see reason""

to say:
"NO CARBON TAX IN ANY GOVT I LEAD"

so we thought THE SAME!

""(or at least what I understand as reason :).""

at the time*
but in hindsioght was poll driven non core lies

juliar
wont survive past ju/lie..

why
the PERSEPTION..that she lied
cause we are mugs..and think the dogs dont got spots

till the paint washes off

[this labour'ratite..false thinking..comes from the time the qld nats took over the alp...[things like the goss/gloss..or the peter beatup..lawyer for sir joe]

you know when tom burns
was going to romp it home[qld]

and bill..federally hawked..
[alp faceless men...a*gain]

a spin win
sin bin

so much more was to be expected*