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.