And of course the IPA has direct links to the AEI and if effectively an Australian franchise of the USA Right Wing Noise Machine.
Sharon Beder describes it all in great detail in her book Global Spin.

During the election campaign there was a posting on this topic on an internet forum run by opus dei. It was interesting to notice that many of the opinions thus expressed basically supported the perspective on fact checking that Chris Berg and the IPA promotes.

It is also interesting top note that the IPA has direct links with opus dei too. One of the IPA's senior talking heads is the founder/director of a prominent right-wing Christian publisher which I suspect is an opus dei outfit. Namely Connor Court

Thank you Alan Austin.

Hopefully we will see a fact checking entity established soon. That is one practice we could usefully import from America. However it is akin to a last resort, as our political culture is now so debased.

I think that there is great value in the publication of evidence where public lies are told.

I am however very sceptical of the practical effectiveness of the tool and the committment of many ofnthe fans of fact checking to an even handed dealing with truth.

Inconvenient facts are dismissed as unimportant or met with spin by some claiming to be concerned with truth.
Julia Gillard was not met with an impossible situation in regard to her committment on carbon tax. She had options,
- Labor could have been lead by someone else. She hardly got the resounding majority to suggest the voters wanted her to lead the party.
- We could have gone back to the polls.
- Abbott could have had the chance to try and form a better deal the the Greens to form government (which probably would have given Labor a better shot at a majority in the election which would probably have followed)

Howards statements made about a GST are in a very different league to Gillards commttment given Howard made is change of mind clear in the lead up to an election and went to the election with the GST as an announced policy. Putting the two together is an attempt to confuse the issue.

The gendered lies and distortions of the gender studies crowd who continually misrepresent DV are ignored and dismissed by some who are apparently concerned about truth yet a Sydney shock jock creates outrage in the same crowd supposedly because of the gendered nature of his falsehoods.

A lot of the fact checking starts to look a lot like a fundy rligious type talkng about truth, only rally interested in convenient truth, not so committed when it does not fit their priorities.

R0bert

There is an element of black comedy to this, except that it is not at all funny. Why?
The IPA runs an outfit which purports to defend and promote the values of Western Civilization which simultaneously laments the erosion of these values. Related to this is an essay by the Furedy's in the current Quadrant in which the authors lament the fact that the kind of teaching now done in Western universities has changed from some kind of Socratic dialogue/investigation (teaching students how to think), to a situation in which sophistry now rules (teaching students only what to think). As if Western education was ever much more than teaching students WHAT to think.

That having been said Chris Berg is the now archetypal ignorant sophistic nerd. He is an in your face example of how degraded some Western opinion makers have become. He was once the editor of the IPA Review. Furthermore it seems to me that the IPA is a haven and breediong ground for sophistry. Perhaps it should be renamed Sophist Central.

It also seems to me that most (but not all) of the writers who are featured in Quadrant are rank sophists too, including, and especially its current editor.

In order for wealthy minorities to remain wealthy, they have to:

1. Create Republicanism
2. Tell a lot more than 1000 lies to fool the majority of real human beings into believing they should remain poor and powerless.

Romney was an Angel compared to past & present US & Australian politicians.

If you want true democratic justice and equality then Shakespeare said it best in Macbeth (Another Republican!) :

SON
Was my father a traitor, Mother?

LADY MACDUFF
Ay, that he was.

SON
What is a traitor?

LADY MACDUFF
Why, one that swears and lies.

SON
And be all traitors that do so?

LADY MACDUFF
Every one that does so is a traitor and must be hanged.

SON
And must they all be hanged that swear and lie?

LADY MACDUFF
Every one.

SON
Who must hang them?

LADY MACDUFF
Why, the honest men.

SON
Then the liars and swearers are fools, for there are liars and swearers enough to beat the honest men and hang up them.

No One is ever given power. it is ALWAYS taken! Lies are an integral-energy part of THAT sublimation.

The BIGGEST lies today are temporarily-indulging women & migrants, creating OVERPOPULATION to "get the rich-party started". This infinite aspiration on a finite planet is INSANE. To make it seem plausible, PRIVATISATION & GLOBALISATION & FRACKING are good lies! But they are not and will never work. Within one generation, these idiocies aim to create 9 billion 1st world citizens. That would require 12 planet earths. Yet the LIES still go on! The hatred people feel towards Gillard & Abbott has firm foundations here. Not just because they are liars but they are so clumsy about it.

As Shakespeare would say: Lies, damned lies. It stinketh to high heaven! For in rushing to rebuplic-cliff's edge 75% shall not return in one pieceth!

How amusing you are Alan:

"(b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver due to external factors, such as Julia Gillard's carbon tax commitment stymied by the hung Parliament,"

Impossible to deliver of course is the guiding principle of this government; and equating Abbott's 'lie' about a meeting with Pell with, well you haven't even mentioned these lies:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_fourth_file_goes_missing_from_court_archives/

As for Romney's "porkies" why no mention of Obama's lies about Benghazi.

Really Alan, your political and ideological bias is too apparent.

@Cohenite:

One who relies on Bolt's blogs for his facts really doesn't know or value the meanings of words such as truth and fact.

Oh touche John, how clever of you to attack the messenger and ignore the evidence of rotteness in Gillard's state [to paraphrase the Shakespeare quoting other waste of space on the thread]; of course, Bolt must be wrong; and the material about Gillard is NOT missing from the Federal court registries; is that what you mean?

Alan, your wilful resistance to the truth makes you an unsuitable author for an article purporting to support fact.

Did you even read the nonsense asserting that Romney was other than factual: Romney said that “he should be elected in order to prevent "four more years of trillion dollar deficits in Washington.".

Believe it or not, that is one of the statements asserted by the truth challenged author of Austin’s reference, to be evidence of Romney’s prevarication.

Either the fellow is an imbecile, or he considers that his readers to be completely lacking in comprehension.

Romney spent a considerable part of his career gaining experience in turning around bankrupt companies. He was highly successful at this work, and would have been ideal as President of the financially challenged US.

This support of nonsense comes from Alan Austin, who in the same article suggests that Gillard is not accountable for the breaking of her promise of no carbon tax. He considers that her corrupt machinations left her no choice, if she was to pervert the democratic process in order to enable her to lead a government. She should never have been PM, and the Australian people have paid a terrible price.

Of course fact checking does not work, when the fact checkers are liars, as in the case of the one referenced by Alan.

You cannot be the dunce you pretend to be, Alan. We can only conclude that you are dishonest.

Bwhaha!! The authors hypothesis:

When is a lie not a lie? When someone on the Left lies. Apparently Gillard didn't lie according to Alan Austin, she just couldn't carry out her promise..LOL

No fact checking on Obama presented? I wonder why. He told more porkies than you can poke a stick at but being Left of centre, he can't lie right Alan?

Check this out. It documents Obama's li.. err lack of truthfulness.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/17/Top-Ten-Lies-of-the-Second-Presidential-Debate

This would be one of the most blindly one-sided articles I have ever read on this forum.

One of the signs as to how degraded our public culture has become is the fact that adolescent airhead nerds such as Chris Berg are featured/treated as some kind of authoritative voice re the important matters of politics and culture.

Back in the good old days of the Academy as it existed in the time of Socrates, when the Culture of Wisdom was truly valued, adolescent fools such as Berg would not have even be qualified to sweep the floor or even clean the toilets. So too with Breitbart in the USA.

This would have also been the case, and even more so, in the esoteric academy/ashram that was associated with the Pythagoras where even knowledge of the rules/law of geometry were considered to be dangerous in the hands of those who had not been initiated into a fully adult understanding and mastery of the yogic disciplines taught there.
Not that those on the left are really all that much better. But at least those on the left still maintain some semblance of sanity, especially as compared the now collective psychosis of those on the right side of the culture wars divide.

I’m all for fact checking and holding politicians to account, on all sides of politics.

But anyone who enters such a debate paying attention to the sins of only one party in a political debate is more likely to be seeking to score political points than to serve the values of objectivity and truth-seeking.

This is clearly true of Benen's website, where many so-called “lies” are matters of opinion or judgement, not objective facts – for example, the assertion that Romney would break his promise not to raise taxes on middle America. Likewise, Romney’s claim that Obama “has been spending massively more than he's been taking in" is not incompatible with Benen’s assertion that Government spending has fallen under Obama. Spending may be down, but so is revenue – otherwise, there would be no “fiscal cliff” looming. In short, Benen seems guilt of exactly the same selective fact-picking and misrepresentation that he accused Romney of.

To be credible, fact-checkers need to subject all sides to equivalent scrutiny, and to abide by the same standards by which they judge others. Benen fails both these tests.

"But at least those on the left still maintain some semblance of sanity, especially as compared the now collective psychosis of those on the right side of the culture wars divide."

Oh that is good; "some semblance of sanity"; one is tempted to ask for examples of these left exemplars but too much hilarity can be enervating; suffice to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and writes like a duck then it's a dud.

Interesting observations. Thank you.

Just a few clarifications:

@Chek: The need is not really for a “fact checking entity” but rather a return to the mindset of valuing truth and censuring lies. This has not been abandoned completely, but has certainly diminished in recent decades.

@R0bert, regarding John Howard’s broken commitment to which you refer:

His exact words in 1995 were:

Mr Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Mr 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." He said “Never ever.”

So, R0bert, what was the intervening issue or event that justified John Howard in the run-up to the 1998 election abandoning that specific promise?

@Cohenite, JohnBennetts is correct. There is no ‘journalist’ in Australia past or present with such a tawdry record of distortion and fabrication as Mr Bolt.

Don’t take my word for it, Anthony. Just count the falsehoods listed by judges in Australia’s courts of law.

@Leo Lane: No, haven’t studied the “trillion dollar deficits in Washington”. Will do so and get back to you.

Regarding “Austin, who … suggests that Gillard is not accountable for the breaking of her promise of no carbon tax.”

Yes and no, Leo. The article does say “Commitments (a), (b) and (c), above, are thorny ethical issues. They certainly warrant scrutiny and criticism where appropriate.”

So I’m not really letting Ms Gillard off the hook.

Just urging us to distinguish between categories (a), (b), (c) and (d) – for all MPs.

@Rhian: Yes, agree entirely that all sides in politics must be held to account for broken promises and lies.

Would you agree that the Republicans had more funding and a more extensive national organisation than the Democrats in the recent campaign?

Would you agree that they had adequate resources to fact-check the Democrat candidates, and indeed worked hard to do so?

Would you agree they found relatively little that was really damaging?

Thanks, all. Cheers, AA

The interesting thing about the recent USA presidential election, was that this was the election for the taking by the Republican party, yet they did not have a sense of sincerity or honesty, in how they sold themselves to the voters.
The election result we see, is that the American populace wanted to be in the 21st century; and not in nationalism stagnation or the past.

Alan

I don’t know about organisation, but according to this website, the Democrats raised and spent more than the Republicans:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I also understand Obama was the first presidential candidate to eschew public funding for his campaign, in order to get around the spending limits attached to the funding.

Politifacts “truthometer” at least attempts to be balanced and scrutinised both campaigns. It found half-truths and outright lies in the campaigns of both major parties, though Romney appears the greater offender:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I’m not anti-Obama – if I were American I would have voted for him. Nor do I disapprove of fact-checking – I found the politifacts website quite entertaining. But as I said, to be credible fact-checkers need to apply the same standards to both parties and to themselves, otherwise they’re just part of the partisan machine – albeit a valid one. Benen's site is clearly in the latter category.

Alan your comments about Bolt and support of the deeply flawed Bromberg judgement and the RDA is tedious.

It is not only Bolt who has raised the disturbing and cogent complaints about Gillard and despite the location of some of the missing documents the large remaining amount of missing documents from various sources should be a concern to any reasonable and fair-minded citizen.

That you are not concerned and have joined the partisan group of lefties who ignore the increasing apparentness of the corruption of the labor brand means you are no more than just another apologist for the most destructive political group in this nation's history.

Way to go Alan.

Greetings again,

@Kipp: Re “this was the election for the taking by the Republican party, yet they did not have a sense of sincerity or honesty …”

I think this is correct, Kipp. Many of the hard right, Conservative policies Mr Romney had insisted throughout the campaign were the right course for the nation were simply jettisoned during the third debate.

Do you get to see The Daily Show in Australia? If you watch just the first 10 minutes of this, you will see the incredible about-turns Mr Romney made towards the end the campaign:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-october-23-2012-gerard-butler

At one level this is amusing. But the serious questions are these: What does Mr Romney really believe about foreign policy? If American citizens can’t trust what he says, how can foreign trading partners, military allies or enemies seeking contracts or treaties be expected to trust him?

Could this be the primary reason Romney lost the unlosable election - after spending so many billions?

This would seem to have direct relevance for Conservatives in Australia who also face long-standing challenges regarding handling the truth. (Google Tony Abbott lies.)

@Rhian,

Thanks for those links. I’ve read them carefully and accept the prima facie evidence regarding funding.

The only caveat perhaps relates to “dark money” which by its nature we will never know about.

Agree completely “credible fact-checkers need to apply the same standards to both parties and to themselves”.

But there seems a need these days for each side in politics to fact check the other and for neutral third parties to attempt even-handed analyses of truthfulness.

And we certainly need fact checkers monitoring the news media.

It would be great if we could get back to the pre-Murdoch period of being able generally to trust journalists and news organisations not to lie to us. But that seems a hazy rosy memory these days.

Cheers, AA

Fact checking is a good start and it should apply to businesses and media outlets as well as politicians.

However it is only a start.

Yes politicians, corporations and media outlets do tell outright lies; but by far the greater problems are:

--Selective truth telling. Telling the truth but leaving out pertinent context. A prime example is the way Andrew Bolt covers climate issues

--Refraining from covering stories at all – eg the ABC's relative silence on the latest revelations about Gillard's past.

--The use of emotive language and graphics – eg the focus on Palestinian child casualties while downplaying the context of Hamas' rocket attacks. It's a bit like covering Sherman's advance through the South without mentioning the context of the American Civil War.

--The way issues are framed - returning again to current news from the Middle-East does the relative paucity of Israeli casualties really indicate that Israel is the aggressor? I, for example, would say that it shows how successful the Israelis have been in protecting their citizens from aggression.

I have deliberately mentioned cases with a high emotive content for many posters here to illustrate that this truly is a many sided question.

Outright porkies are an important but relatively minor issue.

Stevenlmeyer

Sure, fact checking is many sided.

Your example of the report of Palestinian child casualties in Gaza reminds me of a recent expose of an Aboriginal youth behaving badly in public and getting tasered repeatedly and battered by police. The police as often is the case got away with it.

Sure, fact checking is not full proof. Many sided, if you will. But it is a start, for our debased political culture. Even after 40 years and millions of dollars spent in trying to revitalise the once proud and free-spirited peoples the consequences of the unfettered dispersal of the Aboriginal peoples and the institutionalised oppression over a century or more are still often swept under the carpet: The blacks have no right to behave badly in our civilised society; The police are right to "protect" themselves with the best of what they have at hand. Good on them! Echoes of the Palestine/Israeli "debates" in the Murdoch press and the selected letters the Australian publishes.

As for the ABC and the continuing Gillard stories. Context? For a start, why don't you go back to the first day of this government when Abbott and the Murdoch press started to promote the illegitimacy of her government. Together they managed to paint Gillard as a liar to a populace well groomed to find someone to kick in the head, when in fact Abbott was the liar when he accused Gillard of lying on the carbon tax. Abbott would know that in his heart, and Pell probably would be able to soothe his conscience at a confessional, if he is at all troubled by it.

Perhaps the ABC is waiting for the smoking gun, and not just more mud-racking. After all, two solid years of that have not produced any.

Fact checking will help. But it will not stop the Abbott and Murdoch cavalry spearheading our cultural debasement. When winning is everything, everything else falls by the wayside. The winners, like the Wall Street manipulators, so just fine.

Look at the big picture. The situation is deplorable, let's take the first step.

Chek

As stated in the opening statement of my previous post:

>>Fact checking is a good start and it should apply to businesses and media outlets as well as politicians.>>

So I agree, we should do more fact checking.

So far as the ABC's silence on the Gillard issue goes, let's not be naive here. New information has come to light, it is newsworthy, and it should be reported.

BTW I think the media have a duty to engage in "mud-raking." It's other name is "investigative reporting."

But I return to the issue of "selective truth telling" as practised by eg Andrew Bolt and other so-called climate sceptics. Not that they're the only selective truth tellers.

In many ways selective truth telling is a more insidious - because harder to expose - problem than outright lies.

Stevenlmeyer

I agree with you entirely on "In many ways selective truth telling is a more insidious - because harder to expose - problem than outright lies."

That said, it is a tragic mark of our culture that Abbott, Jones and the Murdoch press have got away with telling outright lies, re Juliar etc, and "succeeded" in grooming the populace for further cultural debasement, perhaps until recently.

Something "new" in the AWU saga? Sure, but will that call in question the prime minister's capacity or fitness in her current role? Or is it just more mud racking in the hope of uncovering something that would legitimise the failed strategy to incite and foment the populace into clamouring for an early election?

To be frivolous, should we embark on a new piece of "investigative journalism" to look into whether Julie Bishop's death stare had bullied any of her more vulnerable fellow students into unconscionable submission, with lifelong consequences?

Alan most of us have had changes of mind on issues which we may have previously expressed strong views on at some point in our lives. As a former thiest I've certaunly got very different views to those I formerly held and expressed on that issue. Whilst we may have personal regrets about things we've stated in the past the real area where ethics comes into it is how we deal with that change of mind.

Do we seek to ensure that we don't gain an unfair advantage over others as a result of the change or do we seize the advantage the former stance gave us and run with it.

Howard took his change of opinion as a clearly announced policy to an election. A policy that was politically risky at the time. Whilst there was some variation in the to and fro following the election to get it through parliment those changes were minor and moved the tax closer to what the Labor opposition were advocating, not further from it.

Gillard went to the electiin claiming that there would be no carbon tax in a government lead by her. When it became a choice between honoring that committment and grabbing power the committment was brushed aside.

We could have gone back to the polls with or without the carbon tax on the table, on a technicality someone else could have lead the ALP and kept the literal sense of the commitment but there is no way that Gillard could do what she did and retain any trust other from the most determined supporters. I suspect a refusal to break her commitment would have given her a massive electoral advantage in the subsequent election.

If you want to attack Howards handling of truth far better targets are his dealing with the children overboard issue and questions about what and when he knew of US fabrication regarding WMD in Iraq and how that was dealt with.

R0bert

Hi R0bert,

Thanks for that. Pretty sure I understand your position. But can you see the inconsistencies?

Julia Gillard is castigated for ‘lying’ to the nation. Yet John Howard’s broken promise was a far more problematic failure of honesty and trust.

Here are just four differences:

Firstly, Howard’s promise was categorical. “No GST. Never, ever.” No wiggle room whatsoever.

Gillard’s promise was more nuanced when the full sentence is read (which her critics seldom do. Wonder why?):

"There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let’s be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon."

ALP policy was for a cap-and-trade scheme, I understand. The promise broken was about the mechanism – not an abandonment of the intention to price carbon.

Howard’s abandonment was a complete about-face.

Secondly, what forced the promise to be broken?

For Gillard, a hung Parliament, the threat of an Abbott Government, several weeks of frenetic negotiation with those ornery Greens and independents. Or another costly election.

Remember the extraordinary horse-trading, R0bert? Remember Abbott telling Tony Windsor, "the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse, but I'd give serious thought to it"?

In contrast, Howard’s commitment was abandoned with no pressure whatsoever.

Thirdly, Gillard’s original cap-and-trade scheme promise remains in place. It is still Labor policy which they will implement when Labor gets a majority. The carbon tax is a temporary measure forced by the outcome of the last election – by Democracy.

Howard broke his promise with no intention of honouring it. Never ever.

Fourthly, what was the outcome?

The carbon tax did not result in a dramatically different outcome from the original trading scheme promised. Carbon is now priced, energy consumption is declining and emissions are reducing.

Howard’s abandoned promise, in contrast, resulted in a radically changed taxation system forever.

Yes, they are both broken commitments. And deserve critical scrutiny. But can you see, R0bert, they are just not in the same moral category?

Can you see that anyone who supported Howard after 1998 who now criticises the current PM is being pretty base and hypocritical?

Cheers, AA

Thanks Alan for providing that quote in context. (Brilliant response to RObert too.)

All this time I had managed only to hear and read about "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead."

This is one instance that supports Stevenlmeyer's strong belief that the selective telling of truth is much more insidious than outright lies.

Especially when it was told to try to hoodwink the populace into fomenting for a new election.

How a would-be Jesuit priest could live with his conscience is beyond me.

Hi Alan

The facts remain these:

Howard:

--Howard said the GST was out forever.

--Howard then said he wanted a GST after all but first there would be an election. The electorate were left in no doubt that if they re-elected the Libs Howard would do his best to introduce a GST

--Howard was taking an enormous risk in doing this

--Howard won the election. Yes he lost the popular vote (narrowly) but under the Australian system it's the number of seats, not the popular vote, that counts.

--The electorate chose Howard despite his having reversed his position. They were given the option of kicking him out.

Gillard:

--Gillard said "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead…." But there is. Whatever qualifier may have followed the first part of the sentence, taken as a whole it left no wriggle room.

--Like Howard, Gillard is allowed to change her mind. Unlike Howard she did not give the electorate a chance to express their views on her change of mind. And that is the crucial difference.

I want to emphasise that. The intervening election is the crucial difference.

Politicians are allowed to change their public stance on issues. It's not the same as telling an untruth about something that happened in the past.

But if the change is as drastic as a GST or carbon tax they really should give the electorate a chance to have their say.

On the other hand, I think Abbott is being dishonest in saying a government he leads will repeal the carbon tax. Like the GST, the carbon tax is now so embedded in the taxation system that it will be near impossible to repeal it.

My guess is he would try and replace it with a cap and trade system which would lead to a similar revenue take.

Thanks Stevenlmeyer,

Agree mostly. The election is intriguing in both instances. But applies differently.

In Howard’s case, the events were quite separate. He had promised specifically “There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.” So the moment he made it Liberal policy, he was guilty of a broken promise. What happened at a subsequent election doesn't change that, does it?

For those who claim a broken promise is a lie, which delegitimises a leader, this certainly disqualified Howard.

No-one forced him to change the policy. As R0bert said earlier of the PM: “Gillard was not met with an impossible situation in regard to her committment on carbon tax. She had options,
- Labor could have been lead by someone else.”

This is certainly the case with Howard. Plenty of Liberal frontbenchers had already put up their hand to lead.

In Gillard’s case, the election actually forced the broken commitment. Had Labor won a majority – and the freedom to implement its policies – then a carbon tax clearly would have been a serious breach of faith.

But she didn’t win a majority. The electorate effectively said “We want you to run the country, but with independents and Greens shaping the direction the nation takes.” [This doesn’t appear in words anywhere, but that’s how election outcomes are often interpreted.]

So the 2010 decision of the people prevented Gillard from implementing all Labor policies; as would have happened with the Coalition had the independents backed them.

Howard’s broken promise, in contrast, was completely unforced.

The same is true of Abbott’s broken commitments on the carbon tax. He said in 2009 "If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?” He then abandoned that with no-one forcing him to do so.

He has since made “a blood pledge” to repeal the carbon tax if he wins the next election. He is now wavering on that.

So can you see how the hyperventilating at Gillard’s “lie” by commentators unfussed at those of Howard or Abbott seems a little hypocritical?

Cheers, AA

What a joke you are Alan; Howard went to an election on the GST and was elected.

Gillard went to an election on the unambiguous platform of no carbon tax as did the coalition; that platform won the vast majority of votes and yet we got a tax because the greens with 12% of the vote wanted one.

What a perverted logic you have!

Anyway Blewitt has given an uneqivocal public statement that Gillard was not present when he signed his POW; that is game set and match; but I look forward to your sophistic justification of Gillard's actions.

Alan wrote:

>>For those who claim a broken promise is a lie, which delegitimises a leader, this certainly disqualified Howard.>>

We are arguing at cross purposes.

I have never held the position that a lie or a broken promise always "disqualifies" or "delegitimates" a leader. Unlike some puritans I have always understood that a vote for a party or candidate is not a nomination for sainthood. I am simply choosing who I think is likely to be the best option at the time.

Howard won the 1998 election despite what you consider his broken promise and therefore he was a "legitimate" leader of the country.

Gillard is the "legitimate" leader of the country until she is voted out of office or is deposed by her own party. Alternatively, if some of the sleaze from her past turns out to be criminal I suppose she could find herself on trial. I doubt she could function as PM then and would probably be deposed.

I accept that politicians are not saints. Like all of us, sometimes they lie, sometimes they shade the truth and sometimes they break their promises. In other words they are imperfect humans as are we all.

C'est la vie

I also think the electorate understands that, implicitly, a promise is only intended to be valid for a term of office. If before a subsequent election the leader of the party changes his position and the electorate accepts that change then that's the end of the matter.

In fact one of the strengths of democracies, as opposed to authoritarian states like China, is that we frequently hit the reset button. And that's healthy.

And I really never pay much attention to the slanging match that has become contemporary politics

Alan

Fact checking is going to have much less of an impact on politics than you seem to think. Mostly people do not so much vote for someone as against his or her opponents.

Gillard has been trapped in one definite lie. She did not witness a signature she said she had. Her ratings in the polls have gone up since then.

Right now Julia Gillard's greatest asset is Tony Abbott who many people find hard to stomach.

The reverse is true for Abbott. The only thing that has kept the Libs competitive with him as leader is the profound dislike many people have for Gillard.

As I write this I think Gillard has managed to outmanoeuvre Abbott. More people dislike him than her. I doubt fact checking could change any of this.

In fact, unless they feel directly threatened by something, humans have a wonderful ability to avoid thinking about facts they don't like.

Hi Anthony,

No, I think the logic is okay. We probably just have different approaches to understanding truth and falsehood.

On the matter of the PM and the AWU, I'm open to evaluating claims on the available evidence, as always.

Did you read this fairly grovelling backdown and retraction from The Age this morning, Anthony?

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-age-and-the-prime-minister-20121121-29q9y.html

And did you hear Jon Faine dealing with the matter of Ralph Blewitt's testimony?

http://soundcloud.com/bludger-sounds/jon-faine-774abc-2012-11-22-on

So at this stage there is still no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the PM's part, is there?

And there remain no outstanding questions to which she hasn't offered answers that most fair-minded people find reasonable.

Things may change, of course, if further evidence emerges. So always happy to look at anything credible you may turn up, Anthony.

Meanwhile, as you have been following this, can you advise who paid for Mr Blewitt's trip back to Australia?

Cheers, AA

"So at this stage there is still no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the PM's part, is there?"

She admitted to forging the purpose of the application for association. Do you understand the significance of that?

Who cares who paid for Blewitt's return; what are you implying?

Blewitt may or may not be a creditable witness; all witnesses have probative value; if Blewitt's assertion that Gillard was not present when he signed his POA is corroborated by other evidence such as Gillard's whereabouts when Blewitt signed the POA then it does not matter if he is Jack the ripper, his evidence indicts her.

My moral compass is superior to yours Alan in as much I don't care who the messanger is delivering the information because I do my own checking. I fear your bias against particular sources also prejudices you against the vital message they bring.

Morning all.

@stevenlmeyer: Re: “For those who claim a broken promise is a lie, which delegitimises a leader ...”

No, wasn’t including you, Steven. Pretty sure I understand your position. We agree almost entirely.

Just one query: “Gillard has been trapped in one definite lie. She did not witness a signature.”

It’s question though, Steven, not a disagreement: How do you know this is true?

Re: “If the change is as drastic as a GST or carbon tax they really should give the electorate a chance to have their say.”

Yes, agree with this too. But can you see the argument that in August 2010 the electorate actually rejected the “no carbon tax” policy? Voters didn’t allow Gillard to deliver on that. They put her in a coalition with Greens/independents who had different ideas.

@cohenite: Knowledge is based on evidence. Genuine evidence must be sifted from the bogus.

The unfortunate reality is that some ‘sources’ have been proven totally unreliable.

These include:

* Murdoch executives and employees who have been shown in multiple court cases to be blatant liars;
* Mark Baker whose own editor disowned his reportage this morning;
* John Howard, who was labelled “the lying rodent” by a Senator from his own side;
* Tony Abbott, who has had ongoing serious problems telling the truth since his own slush fund scandal in 2003 re Pauline Hanson;
* Ralph Blewitt, whose sister claims he is “he is as crooked as they bloody come. He's rotten to the core”;
* Internet nutjobs and radio shock jocks trying to feed off the Bolts and Blewitts of the world;
* And the IPA - which brings us back to the original article.

Anthony, you have to accept that all these ‘sources’ are quite useless.

If there is any real evidence of Gillard doing anything wrong, then let’s see it.

Meanwhile, can you advise who paid for Ralph Blewitt's trip back to Australia?

This matters for the same reason it matters with the IPA. They lie. They fabricate. They distort. They are paid handsomely to do so. But by whom?

Cheers, AA

Alan

LOL

I think you are an example of why fact checking is unlikely to have much of an impact. We as humans don't easily give up on our cherished beliefs.

Alan, you're on another planet; I repeat Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association.

Are you saying Gillard is an unreliable witness as well?

Your position is not only untenable but bizarre.

Hi again cohenite,

Regarding “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association.”

What is the date of that admission? What were the PM's exact words?

With so many false allegations and sheer fabrications appearing in The Australian and elsewhere, this is not asking too much, is it, Anthony?

Let me give you some examples. Here are three exact quotes on the same matter:

1. From Phillip Coorey, who is not a fabricator, 22 August 2012:

“THE law firm Slater & Gordon and a former partner, Peter Gordon, have issued separate statements stressing there was no evidence Julia Gillard was involved in any legal wrongdoing while a partner at the firm.”

Coorey quoted Peter Gordon directly who said on 21 August that when he reviewed the case [Gillard and the AWU] in 1995, "I found nothing which contradicted Julia Gillard's explanation as to these events. I believed at the time that there was no explicit or indirect evidence that she was involved in any wrongdoing and that remains my view today."

Link here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/law-firm-says-no-evidence-against-pm-20120821-24kr2.html

2. From Julia Gillard, 23 August 2012 at a media conference:

“My understanding is that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on ...

“I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this association. I was not an office bearer of the association. I had no involvement in the working of the association. I provided advice in relation to its establishment and that was it.”

Link here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1230_transcript.pdf

3. From The Australian online, 23rd August, 2012:

“Apology to the Prime Minister

“An article in today’s The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago.

“This is wrong.”

Link here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/apology-to-the-prime-minister/story-e6frg6n6-1226456413608

There you go, Anthony, Three documented quotes.

Can we please have the source and precise words for your allegation that “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”?

Thanks, Anthony.

Cheers, AA

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/14637616/wa-cash-given-to-union-slush-fund/

http://www.theage.com.au/national/sold-to-the-union-man-20121009-27b4e.html#ixzz28pjOuqT9

Noting this:

"Gillard told Shaw and Gordon the association was a ''slush fund'' designed to gather money for union election campaigning.

But the application for the association's incorporation in 1992 and the rules drafted under Gillard's advice make no reference to campaign funding and declare the organisation's objectives to be the promotion of workplace safety and training."

S&G's records say Gillard has admitted knowing it was a "slush fund".

She prepared the document which had a different purpose.

You obviously have a closed mind Alan; I don't; as I say I used to be amember of the ALP; what it is today is nothing like it used to be; but I have no inherent bias.

Rather than continue on this pointless exercise of trying to convince you our PM is a liar and possibly a crook, let me ask you do you think the association was a criminal exercise or do you have some excuse for it?

Hi cohenite,

This discussion arises from the IPA’s abhorence at the concept of truth-telling and fact-checking.

Some people and institutions value truthful statements and verifiable information. Others don’t. That’s our world.

I have simply asked you to show where and when and in what actual words “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”.

The links you have provided do not do this. In fact, they say the opposite: "As the Prime Minister again denied any wrongdoing over the 17-year-old financial scandal ..."

Your political party membership is irrelevent, Anthony.

Whether or not my mind is closed is irrelevant.

Your references to a “slush fund” are irrelevant. “Slush fund” is slang for “auxilliary bank account” in common usage worldwide, including in Australia.

Whether or not the association was ever a criminal exercise is also irrelevant.

But nice try with the diversions.

I’m simply asking you to show where “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association”.

Where is her admission? It’s a simple request, Anthony. No?

If you can’t show us this, then you may wish to apologise for making an untruthful assertion.

Or, if you can’t do that, then perhaps just leave quietly.

Think about it, Anthony. Bedtime here. I’ll be back tomorrow.

Thanks. Bon soir. AA

I wait with baited breath, the factual evidence from Cohenite to support his claims!

Hold your breathe as long as you want Kipp, the deluded reality you and Alan subscribe to still won't be true; and just for the record Alan is the standard for nothing.

From Gillard's press conference:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2012/08/23/1226456/939999-aus-news-file-pm-transcript-120823.pdf

"JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, one of the issues that’s been raised in recent days is the disparity between the creation of this association and what you said in 1995. The former being that it was the creation of a workplace safety association and then three and a half years later, you said it was a slush fund."

"PM: Well, let me answer your question and answer it in some detail because I agree that you’ve gone to a number of matters that have been raised in recent days.
First and foremost, the terminology that you used in your question, which was terminology I used in the discussion with Peter Gordon and Jeff Shaw some 17 years ago, is terminology with a particular overtone to it which I don’t think helps with understanding these events. I’m not going to use it again."

Gillard said:

"I’m not going to use it again."

Is that plain enough for you clowns?

Gillard then says:

"I will be far more precise than that."

She says:

"My understanding is that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and
their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on."

What was the declared purpose of the association Alan? Is it the same as what Gillard says she thought the purpose was either as a "slush fund" or the euphemism she uses to cover her culpability?

And just for the record; the association file which Gillard set up is missing from WA.

The empress has no clothes yet Alan and his ilk are still admiring the imaginary bridal dress; and you want me to apologise; pathetic.

Good morning Cohenite.

Yes, interesting observations and questions. But nothing that validates your earlier assertion, is there?

Anthony, the word “admitted” has a certain meaning in the real world. The term “forged” has a specific connotation also. And the two words linked together “has admitted she forged the” conveys certain generally-accepted meaning.

In the quotes you have supplied, and in others available, Ms Gillard has repudiated your assertion. She has consistently and repeatedly said the exact opposite.

It remains the case that “Gillard has admitted she forged the application for association” is simply a porky.

I notice this same false assertion has also been offered recently by blogger Michael Smith - he whose mendacity on this matter was too much even for 2UE.

Just all a bit sad really.

Cheers, AA

"Just all a bit sad really."

We can agree about that, for different reasons no doubt; I think the legal standards of this nation are being trashed by the Gillard affair.

Forged:"to make or imitate falsely especially with intent to defraud"

Gillard has stated that she knew the document she prepared had a declared purpose which was not what its real purpose was. That is, it was a forgery.

That is beyond doubt except in the pixie world that you inhabit.

Gillard doesn't have to say she forged the document; her actions and admissions are sufficient.

What a deniar you are Alan!

Hi again Anthony,

Look, you are doing it again: “Gillard has stated that she knew the document she prepared had a declared purpose which was not what its real purpose was. That is, it was a forgery.”

No, she hasn’t, Anthony. Whenever she has addressed the matter – a number of times now – she has said precisely the opposite. Refer my links, above.

Nothing you have offered here bolsters your false assertions at all, does it?

Another porkie pie.

Incidentally, how did you go checking who is funding Ralph Blewitt and the internet nutjobs, Anthony? Are they being paid by an ALP slush fund to keep this 'scandal' ticking along so the PM’s popularity can continue to soar?

Cheers, AA

So Alan, your authority for saying the PM did not forge the application is Gillard's denial? Even though she has admitted that she knew the real purpose of the application was different from the declared purpose? Even though that difference satisfies the definition of forgery her denial is enough for you?

Since this issue is about Gillard's credibility it is ironic that you are prepared to be satisfied that Gillard is credible on the basis of her say so even if her assurance contradicts what she has said and done.

I suppose you regard Wilson's endorsement of Gillard as reliable too.

Hi Anthony,

No, it isn’t. No, she didn’t. No, it doesn’t.

No, this thread is about your credibility, Anthony, not Ms Gillard’s.

And no, I don’t implicitly trust Mr Wilson at all. He just happens to confirm the testimony of every other reliable witness.

All your assertions are untrue, Anthony. Once again.

All I am doing in the original article here, and in the subsequent discussion, is urging us all to check our facts, go with the clear evidence, question all unsubstantiated allegations, avoid being sucked in by proven fabricators – the IPA, Murdoch employees, Tony Abbott, Ralph Blewitt, internet nutjobs, et al – and seek to convey the truth at all times.

We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by embracing the simple straightforward truth in all areas of life. No?

Bon soir. A demain.

Cheers, A

I'm sure there are people reading this exchange who are as bemused as me about Alan's refusal to accept reality.

Let's go back to basics; this is the application for association prepared by Gillard:

http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/_92_04_22---application-for-incorporation---from-ic4.pdf

Alan I expect will say it's not because I have sourced it from Michael Smith's site. Let him prove it is not a copy of Gillard's application.

The declared purpose of the association is:

"Development of Changes to Work to Achieve Safe Workplaces"

Anyway, this is what Gillard said was what she understood to be the purpose of the association, firstly in her 1995 interview at S&G:

"it's common practice, indeed every union has what it refers to as a re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign"

At her press conference Gillard said this:

"First and foremost, the terminology that you used in your question [slush fund], which was terminology I used in the discussion with Peter Gordon and Jeff Shaw some 17 years ago, is terminology with a particular overtone to it which I don’t think helps with understanding these events. I’m not going to use it again."

So Gillard has confirmed her comment in her 1995 interview with Peter Gordon that she set up a slush fund; but she no longer likes that term; she now says the purpose of the association was:

"My understanding is that the purpose of the association was to support the re-election of a team of union officials and
their pursuit of the policies that they would stand for re-election on."

That still has nothing to do with the declared purpose; NOTHING; and Gillard has admitted this. Yet Alan can't accept the word forge and argues that it is my credibility at issue; amazing.

Dear Cohenite

Contrary to your opening sentence I am not one who has any issue with Alan.

I am quite at a loss as to what you are about,though. Most of your arguments I find tedious to say the least.

Tell me, what do you think will come out of the lastest efforts by that seedy looking ex-AWU guy who's been sojourning in Malaysia and the twee "revelations" of that ex-Slater & Gordon partner who had gone to Uncle Sam's dystopia for some reason? Anything that will affect the capacity or fitness of the PM to carry out her role, especially if she does not have to attend to relentless antics of the dirty tricks brigade?

Try to answer questions, mate. Otherwise people might think that you are not straight.

cheers

chek

So Chek, you find my comments tedious, but you want me make more; that makes sense; are you a policy advisor for the Gillard government.

And you find Styant-Brown's "revelations" "twee"; twee? Anyway, whatever you mean, why tell me, tell him; I'm sure he'll find your well researched critique twee as well.

And you think Blewitt is seedy; I'll take your word for it; you obviously have more experience then me.

Hi cohenite,

Yes, I’m familiar with the application for incorporation.

Not sure how old you were in 1987, Anthony, but every mothers’ club, stamp collectors’ club, tennis club and charity jam-making club had to register then. It caused quite a frisson.

I was a member of the august "Jimminy Cricketers" which played at Thornbury Indoor Cricket Centre and then convened at the Grandview Hotel. We are famous for winning the 1991 final when the other team – the Baptists – didn’t show because it was Sunday morning.

Point being, that line 2. on that form, “The Association is Formed for the Purpose of”, required a short answer, maximum seven words, to fit the space provided.

We wrote “playing cricket”. This was, of course, not entirely accurate.

Had we been truthful we would have written: “Playing cricket to maintain our self-delusion that we are fit, virile and sexually desirable young athletes even though we are well into middle age, carrying several extra kilos and drop catches we really should manage to hold; and then proceding to engage in profound alcohol-fuelled analysis of the decline of modern society, the failure of youth to respect their elders and the general rottenness of the government of the day.”

That would have been a complete and honest answer to question 2.

Same with the answer for the AWU, Anthony.

Ms Gillard’s answer at the press conference in August was: "the purpose of this association was to support the re-election of union officials who would run a campaign saying that they wanted re-election because they were committed to reforming workplaces in a certain way, to increasing occupational health and safety, to improving the conditions of members of the union,"

Did Corporate Affairs want all that? Hell, no! Boring boring BORING! Just give us four or five words.

In the event, the AWU answer was nine words – and they cheated by sneaking the last word onto the next line. Naughty!

If that’s all you’ve got on Julia, Anthony, you’ve not got much, have you?

Answers to your other questions are here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-canberra-volcano-questions-the-pm-must-answer/

Thanks, Anthony.

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

<<Point being, that line 2. on that form, “The Association is Formed for the Purpose of”…We wrote “playing cricket”. This was, of course, not entirely accurate….Had we been truthful we would have written: Yada yada yada …>>

So, while you’re in the mood for full and frank disclosure. How about owning-up that when you opened this thread and titled it (or, some charitable person on your behalf titled it) :“Fabricators and the fact checking fad” And then spend another 811 words rabbiting-on about truth in politics carefully cherry picking examples from the conservative side of politics. All you really wanted to do was reveal to us, heathen non-believers, how much like Mother Teresa (the 2012 version of) “real Julia” is.

And you might covered all that, had you exercising the same succinctness you showed a talent for in your cricket club incorporation application and simply said: “ Julia is a saint” .

We probably would not have been any more believing –but at least you would have saved yourself a few thousand words of special pleading.

SPQR, are you saying you counted all the words in this thread that Alan posted, no wonder the Libs are running circles around themselves

@Kipp,

A couple of key strokes, that’s all it took.

Trust me, it’s a lot quicker than the way you guys on the left do it, adding fingers and toes and belly buttons.

Next time you’re in the neighborhood, drop around and I’ll have someone take you through it.

Though the issue is SPQR, is that you actually counted the words irespective of how you did it.
Tony Abbott would be proud of you, maybe!

Alan your defence of Ms Gillard is comprehensive to say the least; but the defalcations of the association she set up are a matter of public record now; the issues with the application for association, APART from the discrepancy between the declared purpose and real purpose which you whimsically dismiss, are as follows:

1 – An association must have 5 members to incorporate under this law. The association Ms Gillard set up only had 2 members.

2 An association cannot incorporate under WA law if it proposes to trade for pecuniary profit. Blewitt and Wilson started issuing invoices as soon as their Association paperwork went in, in fact before it was even incorporated.

3 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it is a trade union.

4 An association cannot incorporate under this law if its name is misleading as to its purpose.

5 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it sounds like another corporate body. To this extent apparaently Ms Gillard sent a follow up letter to the WA authority assuring it that the association she set up was bona fides; that letter is missing along with the S&G and WA files.

And we even haven't got around to Ms Gillard's preparation of Blewitt's POA.

Good morning all,

@SPQR: Re ”Julia is a saint”.

Hmmm. Not sure what you mean, SP. The only reference to the PM in the article was this:

“(b) specific promises which turn out impossible to deliver due to external factors, such as Julia Gillard's carbon tax commitment stymied by the hung Parliament,”

And then this:

“Commitments (a), (b) and (c), above, are thorny ethical issues. They certainly warrant scrutiny and criticism where appropriate.”

It was R0bert who introduced Ms Gillard into the subsequent discussion. And then Cohenite who raised the matter of the AWU. But I’m always happy to respond to questions, even if a bit off topic.

@cohenite: Yes and no.

My defence here is of truth telling and fact checking, not of Ms Gillard.

On the AWU matter I find I’m with the majority of reputable, neutral mainstream journalists – Jon Faine, Laurie Oakes, Phillip Coorey, Laura Tingle, Mark Skulley, Michelle Grattan and quite a number of others.

We are waiting to see if any evidence emerges of any wrongdoing. So far, plenty of smear, but no actual evidence.

Regarding your five questions, Anthony, associations are actually registered by the registrar of incorporated associations. Not by the lawyer advising the applicants. Nor by the person who filled out the form. Not even when they are the same person.

When the Jimminy Cricketers’ slush fund was later used for wine tasting ventures into the Yarra Valley instead of the specific purpose of playing cricket that was not the fault of the lawyer who advised us about incorporation, was it?

Anthony, are you seeking evidence of lies and cover-ups? If so, why?

Is it your concern that exposed liars should be disqualified from political party leadership? From parliament?

If so, do you now agree with the thrust of the original article here?

Cheers, AA