All,

There is a serious issue of credibility here – and it ain't about Ms Gillard.

Here’s Alan Austin on another recent thread telling us why we should NOT source material from the Murdoch press:

<< Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication, except sports results and arts reviews.[It's] Almost certainly untrue or seriously distorted>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13993#241885

But a short time later, on the current thread, we see Alan linking to the Murdoch owned Courier Mail to bolster his argument:

<<@Shadow Minister: just wondering if you have had a chance to consider this treatise thoughtfully:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786 >>

And in this case, I don’t think Alan can point to any extenuating circumstances like needing to form a coalition -–to quote Graham Richardson it's more a case of “whatever it takes”.

Yes, I'm afraid so; it is evident that Alan is a mouthpiece for the ALP and therefore slots right in with the other political cowboys [or in Poirot's case, cowgirls] who comment.

The attention to Jones is grotesquely disproportionate compared to the destruction which the Gillard government is doing to this country and the defects in her personal history and her egregious values make Jone's character defects seem like minor skin blemishes.

A Murdoch newspaper giving support to the ALP, its enough to have the rightwingers buying the "Green Left !

Poirot the most important difference is that the Australian people had a chance to vote on the outcome of that change of mind before we got the consequences. Howard went to an election with the GST spelt out as policy and as far as I'm aware it was implemented as close to the announced policy as they could get through, some exemptions but mostly the announced package. Despite years of Labor scare mongering to the contrary there were no mid term hikes in the rates of GST either.

Most of us have had reason to have a change of mind at times, sometimes despite some really strong earlier certainty. That parts normal, the part that makes the difference in the kind of person we are is how thats dealt with. Howard gave the voters a chance to have their say before the GST became part of law and government revenues, Julia told us there would not be a carbon tax in a government lead by her in the lead up to an election and introduced a carbon tax in a government lead by her without going to the polls.

I don't mind a change of mind as long as the one changing their mind does not then take advantage of that to the detriment of others. Btw, Newmans failure to honour his commitments about not sacking public servants would appear to be in the same category, he should not have not made the committment if he was not prepared to keep it or go back to the polls if he could not keep it.

Changes not announced at an election but not denied in the lead up to the election are a tougher question, the warning for politicians wanting to impliment big policy initiatives that were not announced might be the electoral fate of Howard.

R0bert

RObert,

Yes, I appreciate that aspect.

But SM is going to the purity of statement - and I can see no appreciable difference between his undertaking and that of Julia Gillard's in that respect.

Drat!

To clarify:

That should be "...and I can see no appreciable difference between "Howard's" undertaking and that of Julia Gillard's in that respect."