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*