The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Truth and falsehood the new divide? > Comments

Truth and falsehood the new divide? : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 3/9/2012

Would it be a positive move in public life if truth vs falsehood did replace the old dichotomies?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Alan is to the left of the Democrats. Hardly a creditable commentator.
Posted by DavidL, Monday, 3 September 2012 11:04:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Highly unlikely.

"Incumbent President Barack Obama, in contrast, is generally depicted as a politician who tells the truth. Will this distinction between the two sides be a factor with the voters in November?"

As the Washington Post article points out...

"...journalists will sit back and name winners and losers without regard to who is telling the truth, ...[while] voters are too ignorant to care about the truth."

Although, to be fair, it is not so much a matter of ignorance as anomie. Created by the long procession of politicians who constantly and shamelessly break the compact with their constituents, by voting exclusively in their own pecuniary interests.

Journalists are simply feeding this feeling of disconnectedness, by tapping directly into the individual's prejudices and fears. C'mon, they have to earn a living too. After all, if politicians lie in order to keep their particular gravy-train a-rolling, why should journalists put their families' livelihood on the line by sticking to reality?

Closer to home, we have our own Alan Jones, performing the same slight-of-hand with the facts, and earning an extremely comfortable living while doing so.

Monkey see, monkey do.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 September 2012 11:26:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Allan: The difference in the way the two sides are characterised on this issue in the US is challenging the old cliché "all politicians lie".

I don't think you can say that, Political Correctness an' all.

It's not that they lie. It's that they colour the truth. It's not only Politicians. All the Hierarchy do it in order to advance their particular stance on their own hobby horse. All advertising is a lie. Someone once said, "Don't sell the product, sell the hype." That's what happening in everywhere including Politics.

Didn't they just pass a Law in Queensland allowing Queensland Politicians to, "Not tell the truth" They are still not allowed to "lie." but now they can, "be loose with the truth" What sort of a world are we living in nowadays when this can be made a Law.

Corporations retain Law Firms to find ways around any Law that restricts them from colouring the truth about their product. Just take Labelling for example. They claim it'll cost too much to change the label on a product to comply with the Law & want Compensation. Have a look at any labelling. It changes at least twice a year, usually claiming to be an updated product when the only update is the label.

The only way to put a stop to all this is to make the Law "Black & White" with penalties for attempting to thwart the Law. But, they won't do that.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 3 September 2012 11:30:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truth vs falsehood is not a new dichotomy but a very old one. The old dichotomies provide a realistic basis on which to argue cases. “Left” vs “right” once referred to the arrangement of seats in the French national assembly and grew into the invented political terms which are used by the unthinking and by charlatans to duck the questions of right vs wrong, just vs unjust, true vs false.

Thus when Alan Austen proclaims the idea of analysing political behaviour in terms of truth vs untruth he immediately draws an obscurantist attempt to place him on a scale as “to the left of the Democrats” rather than come to grips with his argument. Pterodactyl politics - left wing, right wing and scales.

The real dichotomies have plenty of room for difference over what constitutes what, but discussion framed in them relates to reality. Mindless pterodactyl labelling does not - indeed when you see the “left-right” labelling look for the intent behind its use. One can guarantee that it is not to elucidate anything.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Monday, 3 September 2012 12:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politicians have always lied; the only difference now is that we have the tools to record what they say and test it against reality now and at any time in the future. What we will find when we do this comprehensively, I suspect, is that they lie just about as much as anyone else whose job involves marketing something to the public, whether that's PepsiCo or Greenpeace or the Catholic Church or the AWU.

If we punish lying by politicians, then for consistency we should also punish lying by the representatives of advertisers, religions, union officials, law enforcement agencies, pressure groups and government departments. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 3 September 2012 12:20:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Alan I think politicians can definitely be classified as those who often lie (e.g Abbott, Ryan) and those who generally don't (e.g. Gillard, Turnbull). I'd add a third category, those who are always clear and truthful; Tim Fisher may have fitted that category. I also think society is increasingly classifying them thus, though some don't care if pollies do lie if they are delivering what they want. (it's this group that's a worry).

I'm optimistic that the many truth seeking internet news sites and free, uncensored internet blogs (such as this one) will enable society to become more discerning of honest vs lying politicians. But mainstream media has to be called to account for promulgating lies by more rigorous media oversight (I reckon Finkelstein had the solution to this). But my hopes of this happening before the next election are fading. With competent unbiased media, their highlighting of politicians' lies would be punishment enough to keep them in line. (e.g. Leigh Sales' recent interview with Abbott on ABC).

PS Amazing that even "Rupert's Foxy Propaganda" network pointed to Ryan's deceit. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall - if they promulgate too much bullsh-t even the 'plebs' will stop watching / buying and that means less dollars for them.
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 3 September 2012 2:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
suddenly Alan believes in absolutes. What a surprise and no doubt an affront to his philosophies.

'Can anyone recall a direct lie from John Hewson, Tim Fischer, John Anderson, Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown, Kevin Rudd or Warren Truss – to name just nine past or present party leaders?'

Please give us a break. When someone dumps the biggest moral challenge of the century on advice from Gillard. Hatred does blind to the truth.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 September 2012 2:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

One day you might desist from the habit of ascribing "hatred" to those who hold an opposing opinion to your own.

Not very Christian and all that.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 September 2012 2:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are several problems with this approach, but I see three as most important.

Firstly, as Pilate said, “what is truth”? Many political “facts” are not data but interpretations, and so there is no absolute benchmark for determining what is true. When we claim to use the benchmark of truth or lies to judge a politician we may really be saying, “which side do I believe” – and that, of course, will be the one whose policies you are most likely to agree with. So this just gives a sanctimonious overlay to a process of reinforcing our preconceptions (the vitriol cast on recent US presidents of both political stripes by their opponents seems to me an example of this).

Second, to be a liar means not just saying something mistaken but something you know us untrue. Did Howard know that there were no WMDs in Iraq, or that refugees did not throw their children overboard? Perhaps, but can we be sure?

Third, the theatre of politics is such that politicians are routinely cornered – often by the press – into making categorical statements and commitments that they are not always able to fulfil:

“Will you promise that a Gillard/Abbott government will never do X….”

And often the promise is often forthcoming, because in good faith the politician believes that they will never do X. But once elected, X turns out to be the right thing to do. Should we then want them to continue with bad policies for the sake of keeping their promise, or change their mind for the sake of the country? For example, many governments elected before the GFC would have promised the keep budgets in surplus. But given the need for fiscal stimulus and bailouts, and the drop in revenue from reduced economic activity, almost every developed country went into budget deficit
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 3 September 2012 2:51:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting discussion. Thank you. Just a few responses:

@DavidL: Re “Alan is to the left of the Democrats”.

Is this a compliment or an insult, David? What does ‘left’ mean these days?

@Jayb: Re “It's not that they lie. It's that they colour the truth.”
And @Rhian: Re “to be a liar means not just saying something mistaken but something you know us untrue.”

When Tony Jones asked Tony Abbott if he had met with Cardinal Pell and Mr Abbott replied “Not that I can recall”, did he know it was untrue when he said it? Was that a lie or colouring the truth?

Or from John Howard in 2001: “The Government’s position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice ...”

This was a statement made after Defence Minister’s adviser Mike Scrafton had told the then PM: “I left him in no doubt that there was no evidence, that there were no children thrown overboard.”

@Jayb: Re “All the Hierarchy do it in order to advance their particular stance …” and
@Jon J: “Politicians have always lied …”

Really? Are you sure? That is pretty much the point of the article. Can you identify any point blank lies – like those, above, from Tony Abbott and John Howard – from Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown or Kevin Rudd? Or Julia Gillard?

I mean actual staring-down-the-barrel-of-the-camera bare-faced lies – not just unfulfilled promises.

@Jayb: Re “The only way to put a stop to all this is to make the Law "Black & White" with penalties …”

Why not just make it a firm practice simply to vote out the liars – say, after two direct lies? Would this fix the problem?

@Roses1, did you read this re Rupert’s propaganda in Australia?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

Do you agree?

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 3 September 2012 6:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Roses,

<<Yes Alan I think politicians can definitely be classified as those who often lie (e.g Abbott, Ryan) and those who generally don't (e.g. *GILLARD*, Turnbull)>>

ROFL

Surely you josh, Roses!
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 8:18:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan: Or from John Howard in 2001: “The Government’s position remains that we were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice ...”

This was a statement made after Defence Minister’s adviser Mike Scrafton had told the then PM: “I left him in no doubt that there was no evidence, that there were no children thrown overboard.”

So, was Scafton there at the scene? Scafton, DM's Advisor or PC Advisor?

Anzac day & Reunions are good fun & informative. You get to talk to servicemen who were actually at the scene when things happen. And, as I have been reminded on many occasions, when given information by the IO, “The Secrets Act Form you signed when you did your Service still holds.” All veterans have "D" clearance, some have "E" & higher, depending on the position you held. I have been told on more than one occasion, by Service men, some Officers, that the children were definitely thrown overboard & there was Video of that happening, but it quickly disappeared after the Politically Correct Crowd got involved.

Howard acted on advice he received first up. Then the Politically Correct crowd got into the argument & that fact had to be then withdrawn. So, a truth becomes a lie when it interfered with Political Correctness. It was turned into a lie so as not to vilify the illegal boat people.

The problem that Governments have is with truth interfering with Political Correctness. It is a big one. Unfortunately Governments have been persuaded by the Do Gooder Crowd to err on the side of PC. The Issue, whatever it is, then becomes a farce.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I, for one, never take any notice of Political Promises.

For some strange reason ;-) everybody in Australia seems to misinterpreted just what was meant by the Promise made at the time. Or, It wasn’t a Core Promise, or, circumstances have changed, or, the other Party lied to us & now we know the real position. Oh, another one. It’s no longer a Critical Issue & can be left for a later date. (never going to happen.)
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 11:16:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here’s how to secretly spruik the biggest fibber we’ve ever had as a PM, while pretending it’s all about truthfulness

Start off with a innocuous thesis: it aint about left of right anymore, it’s about who is honest and who’s not.

Give banner prominence to the story that Republican Paul Ryan is deceitful.
Give the second paragraph over to a similar charge against Mitt Romney.

Rebadge your sources so they sound objective:
Mother Jones a left-wing magazine becomes an “Alternative news outlet”
And,PolitiScoop a left-wing blog becomes s an “ Influential website”

Fail to mention any similar stories about Obama or the Democrats.


Then, comment how difficult it is, to position leaders on the political spectrum. Mention that even our own Malcolm Fraser was “characterised as a right-wing extremist”.Fail to mention that it’s a common charge against liberal leaders.

To make it appear that you are unbiased run off a list of names of politicians of all persuasions whom you declare to be honest
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:44:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now cut to the chase:
“John Howard was called a "Lying Rodent". “several [of his] assertions …were shown not to have been truthful” [guilty]

Then a concede that Julia Gillard has been characterised …as "Ju-liar" [but hedge] “Whether or not there are excuses for this based on the election outcome – which did not deliver a Labor majority – seems a matter of hotly-contested opinion. [unproven]

i) “The Opposition Leader … now well-documented…lied point blank to ABC Lateline's Tony Jones in response to a question about a meeting with Cardinal George Pell” [guilty]

ii) “Later, [The Opposition Leader] changed his own position on carbon emissions from what was once clearly in favour of "a simple carbon tax". Why?” [guilty]
iii) “Mr Abbott's struggles with the truth were discussed at some length in a memorable interview with Kerrie O'Brien in May 2010.” [ guilty ]
iv) “Yet they have continued. Just last week, veteran journalist Laurie Oakes in the Herald Sun commenced his column with the withering opener: "Let's not beat about the bush. Tony Abbott tells lies” [guilty]

Yep. The new paradigm might be all about truthfulness …but journalism still has a ways to go
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good morning all. Hello again. Thanks for these responses.

SPQR, welcome aboard.

Now, the question is: “Can you identify any point blank lies – like those, above, from Tony Abbott and John Howard – from Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown or Kevin Rudd? Or Julia Gillard? I mean actual staring-down-the-barrel-of-the-camera bare-faced lies – not just unfulfilled promises.”

I have read carefully your responses, Jayb and SPQR. I take it the answer is No.

No?

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 2:51:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Alan,

<< Now, the question is: “Can you identify any point blank lies…I mean actual staring-down-the-barrel-of-the-camera bare-faced lies” >>

Here you go, Alan, can't get much more staring-down-the-barrel-of-the-camera than this: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCNYb3XWVTE

Footnote: As much has you would like it (and no doubt fantasize about it) we will NOT appoint/designate/coronate you some kind of word-pontiff.

The word “lie” has a meaning –and fortunately-- Alan Austin is not sole arbiter as its meaning (nice try though!)

lie .
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lie
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 4:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again SPQR,

Yes, those are helpful definitions. No problems with any of those. Thanks.

Now, which statement in that series of clips to do you regard as a blatant lie, SPQR?

Couldn't spot one myself - as in a statement the PM knew to be false when she made it.

Do you have any others? Not including aspirations which were expected to be fufilled at the time they were expressed. Not including matters of personal opinion on climate change. Not complex definitions such as what 'power sharing deal' may technically mean. Not speculation about unknowables such as future party leadership ballots.

The examples in those clips all tend to prove the general point made in the article: all political leaders express aspirations and intentions should they gain power. Often these are not delivered - for a range of reasons.

But as you know, Ms Gillard did not succeed in gaining power at the last election as leader of a majority Labor Government.

No leader will ever be capable of delivering everything they want in a hung parliament, will they?

And all MPs have a range of personal opinions on contentious issues - many of which will be contested by others with differing opinions.

Those examples tend to support the claim that the present Government has actually been remarkably free of blatant untruths, don't you think, SPQR?

So do you have an example of an actual direct lie from the PM - a statement she made which she knew at the time was untrue? Like the numerous ones on the record from John Howard and Tony Abbott.

Thanks, SPQR.

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 5:16:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR: lie .
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly•ing (l ng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.

Thank you SPQR.

Examples Alan. Although I can't point a finger at anyone specifically, I can give some examples of promises that have never materializes or have eventually happened but 40 or 50 years after the promise was made. Then claimed by the incumbent Government as being their project, "so vote us in again."

1. the new Railways Workshop at Stuart in Townsville.
First promised in 1952. Delivered in 1995.
2. The new Railways Station in Townsville.
Promised in the 1960's. Delivered in 2000.
3. The Power Station at Abbotts Point.
Promises around 1980. Still not delivered.
4. the new Rail Line to Scarbourgh in Brisbane.
Promised around 1920 something & two Elections ago. Still not delivered.
5. The new Highway to relieve the congestion on the Cunningham Highway West of Brisbane.
Promised in the last two Elections. Ain't never gonna happen in my lifetime.

I'm sure there are many more. This is all I could think of in the spur of the moment. I'm sure there are others here that could add greatly to this list.

I don't particularly care about which side of Politics you sit, Alan. You have raised the Question of whether Politicians lie or not, then seem to assert that they never lie. What I & others here assert is that they do. Using the standard provided above by SPQR.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 4 September 2012 8:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

<<Now, which statement in that series of clips to do you regard as a blatant lie, SPQR>>

Well here’s one for starters: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"

NB the lack of qualification –lack of qualification--lack of qualification.

It was NOT a case of: no tax, as long as I get a majority.

It was a case of “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"[Full stop]

NO means NO -- haven’t you learnt that yet, Alan?

And your little ex post facto excuse: << Ms Gillard did not succeed in gaining power at the last election as leader of a majority Labor Government>>
was/is believed by no one –not even Julia (leastways, till she was briefed (brainwashed?) by the party’s faceless, shameless men to used it!)

Prosecution exhibit No 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8rsyg0lkkM&feature=related
Where Julia tries to explain away her lie.
NB that at NO point does she use your excuse -- the sock puppet hanging by her side does (what a archetypical Yes Minister clone he it!) --but Julia, does not.

And as to, did she <<make a statement … which she knew at the time was untrue>>
Absolutely!
Prosecution exhibit No 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ
Here you have both Julia & Wayne Swan, killing their political careers with the no carbon tax lie ( two birds with the one stone so to speak!)
NB,the flutter of Julia’s eyes at the 4 second mark – a sure sign she was lying.

And, If you still can’t see it – the prosecution humbly suggests that you follow this link: http://www.specsavers.com.au/eyecare/eye-exam
It might enable you to see things our way!
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 9:44:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, SPQR,

Yes, have seen those links. But you’re still confusing promises stymied by factors beyond the control of the promisor with blatant attempts to deceive, aren’t you?

Laurie Oakes is right. It’s a blot on her record. And remains so until she gets a parliamentary majority and delivers the cap-and-trade scheme she wants.

But you cannot call it a lie.

Do you remember the extraordinary horse-trading in 2010 after that bizarre election? Remember Abbott telling Tony Windsor, "the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd give serious thought to it"?

A carbon tax was clearly Greens policy. Once the Independents agreed to back Labor and the Greens, policies had to be abandonned.

You referred to Howard’s GST promise.

Was John Howard's Government legitimate after he broke that promise? He had a majority in both houses, remember? So no-one forced him to change his stance.

His exact words:
Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Howard: "Never ever. It's dead."

He did NOT say "maybe if we take it to the next election, campaign on it and the voters approve."

So was his Government legitimate after 1998?

Are you claiming that it is because the 1998 election intervened? Then why not accept that the hung parliament, political impasse and formation of the Greens/ALP/Independents coalition intervened in 2010?

Your next problem is that Labor is still committed to an emissions trading scheme. The promise taken to the last election remains ALP policy. But temporarily unfulfilled because of Canberra realpolitik.

So questions for you, SPQR:

1. What was the intervening issue or event that caused John Howard in the run-up to the 1998 election to abandon his promise, “no GST, never, ever”?

2. Can you find just one example of an outright lie – a false statement 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 opinion such as climate science.]

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 3:09:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahhh Alan

Here is a statistical truth for you.

The Gillard Government is less popular than when Whitlam was sacked.

And another statistical truth.

Tony Abbott is more popular than Malcolm Fraser before he was elected as PM.

Have you evaluated Gillard's current backflipping on carbon floor pricing yet?
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 6:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA: Yes, have seen those links. But you’re still confusing promises stymied by factors beyond the control of the promises with blatant attempts to deceive,

Are these promises given knowing full well they won't be delivered because of extenuating circumstances? Of course they are.

AA: Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Not out loud. "Of course, if circumstances change."

Julia: "No. There's no way a Carbon Tax will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Not out loud. "Of course, if circumstances change."
or words to that effect.

Actually you have confused me I have no idea where you stand on your subject.

So, are you saying it not a lie if they don't deliver on a promise knowing full well that circumstances will change?

Are you saying that a promise made by the conservatives is not a lie but one made by Labor is?

I have given you a list of Political Promises made by various Governments over the years. You haven't remarked on those.

Here is another. The Bradfield scheme. Promised in the 1920's a watered down version was built in the 80's, but no Hydro Electricity plant. The space that was made for it has been now filled in with concrete. Another 10 meters needs to go on the top of the wall & the water diverted to the West. Oh! circumstances have changed. Hmmm.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 8:06:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Can you identify any point blank lies – like those, above, from Tony Abbott and John Howard – from Simon Crean, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Bob Brown or Kevin Rudd? Or Julia Gillard?"

The author obviously has a selective memory. What about the lies of Kevin Rudd re "the greatest moral challenge", and Julia Gillard re "there will not be a carbon tax"?
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 5 September 2012 11:34:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Alan,

We wont be side tracked by little red hearings like:
*What about John Howard...*
*What about Tony Abbot...*
*What about the Tooth Fairy...*

The question here is did Julia lie?
That others *might* have lied too does not excuse her.

You turn things inside out in your endeavour to write an apologia for her : <<promises stymied by factors beyond the control of the promisor>>
This might have been true if she had a carbon tax on the table but had not been able to get it through.
But in reality it was the reverse, there was no carbon tax on the table and she decided to invent it.

It was a question of integrity –she had a clear choice
i) Whether she held foremost a commitment made to the Australian electorate , or
ii) Whether she held foremost her status as PM.

Guess what she chose?

Marcus Junius Brutus might have said: “ not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more”

Marcus Brutus Gillard demonstrated she loved playing Caesar
(forgive me noble Caesar for associating you with Gillard) more than she loved Rome.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:15:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction

We wont be side tracked by little red hearings like...
S/B
We wont be side tracked by little red HERRINGS like...
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good morning all,

“Are these promises given knowing full well they won't be delivered because of extenuating circumstances? Of course they are.”

How do you know, Jayb? Pretty sure that’s not correct. Just look at the grief it has caused.

Regarding broken promises, Jayb, Raycom and SPQR, try this:

All parties have made promises they have not delivered. The question must be: Why not?

In the UK now there is a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Many Government programs are the direct opposite of what the Conservatives promised, and many are the opposite of what the LibDems promised.

But the Poms don’t have their knickers in a twist over this. They understand neither party won an outright majority. So neither side can expect to deliver everything they promised. There must be give-and-take.

Many here in Europe find the labelling of your PM as Ju-Liar quite hilarious.

She promised a cap-and-trade scheme rather than a carbon tax before the election. Had she won a majority, that’s what would have been delivered. In fact, that is still Labor policy – which observers expect her to deliver if and when Labor gets a majority.

But she didn’t win a majority in 2010. Hence several of her policies had to be abandonned. That’s how democracy works. Everywhere.

Yes, it is a broken promise. No question. But it was broken because of the deal brokered with those ornery Greens and independents.

In contrast, John Howard said “there would be no GST never, ever” and then decided to restore the GST to his party’s platform soon after. What forced him to abandon his earlier commitment? Absolutely nothing. It was a blatant change of position which was not forced on him by any external factors whatsoever.

See the difference?

Now, direct lies – saying something is true which you know to be false – is another moral category altogether.

Hi Keith,

The election is still too far away for poll numbers to matter much. Did you see Ms Gillard is now ahead of Mr Abbott as preferred prime minister?

Did you note the trend?

Cheers, AA
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 6 September 2012 5:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AA: All parties have made promises they have not delivered. The question must be: Why not?

I say again. These promises given knowing full well they won't be delivered because of extenuating circumstances.

Let me get this straight AA. I was encompassing all Political Parties anywhere in the world in that statement. I have no affiliation, nor love of any Political Party.

Some Political promises that are made are just plain crap. Our Job is to sort the wheat from the chaff around the time of Elections. As you should know there is a lot more chaff than wheat. All Parties are guilty of deception & sleight of hand, without exception.

Getting you knickers in a knot because of one party or another doesn't solve the problem of political honesty. People have to hold Politicians accountable regardless of their valued Party or affiliations.

I do my bit occasionally. If I receive a reply that is more than two paragraph long I know it's Political claptrap & I tell them so.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 6 September 2012 9:23:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy