Labor lost a lot of their vote to the Greens.

So they SHOULD be listening to the voice of those who changed their vote BECAUSE of the promises they made re ETS etc.

They made promises if elected in. THey barely got elected in because of those promises so they SHOULD reneg on them.

They didn't get a mandate so they have every right to tailor their policies to reflect how the people ACTUALLY voted.

Liberal lovers, you're party is renowned for breaking promises, so shut up.

Here we go, they said, he said, she said etc etc etc.
All this while the big problem gets ignored.

Tony Abbot thinks just put up the price of oil and more will squirt out
of the ground. Julia thinks peak oil means another word for global
warming.

The only ones in Canberra that have a clue are Barnaby Joyce, Martin
Ferguson and the Greens.
Martin has his mouth zipped up and Julia has the key.
A modern day chastity belt !

All the rest think a higher price will solve it all.
Problem is that geology does not understand money.

If you understand, stock up on strong walking boots.

All I can say is thank God for mining which allows such an incompetent Government to pretend they are in control of anything. I wonder if the latest blow out in building hotels for illegal immigrants has been budgeted for?. The Broadband farce will continue and at the end of the day the taxpayer will again pay for more incompetence. The Australian public are very very slow learners. Now we have the idiotic Greens who want to impose their faith on the community. Howard and Costello were not perfect but look like absolute champions compared to this desperate mob who will go as far to the right or left in order to cling to power. Meanwhile our country goes down the toilet morally as Labour suck up to the Greens.

" Hasbeen" You could be wrong. If she had put forward more strongly, what she was going to do about carbon reduction, she might have received more votes. You just do not know. Her action is no different than Mr. Howard found himself last elected. He found he had unexpected had control of the Senate. He wasted no time introducing new IR laws that were not mentioned during the campaign. He did it because he could. Ms Gillard has now found that it could be possible to bring in new carbon laws earlier than she thought possible. It would be wrong of her not to. The close vote changed the game. There was a voter backlash against Labor. Most of these votes went to the Greens, who support strong action in reducing carbon. Mr. Abbott cannot accept that Labor did not win outright, but neither did he. In three states, Mr. Abbott did not do well, the vote shifting to Labor. In NSW, the vote was mixed, to Labor in some regions, to the Coalition in others. His strong swing to him was in the mining states where the mining companies had a massive ad campaign. Ms. Gillard has to conduct her government in the present political environment not that which existed before the poll

Trashcan, I struggle to follow your logic. It is as follows:

Labor didn't get a mandate, therefore is not obliged to adhere to any of its promises?

Because the opposition broke promises, The Labor government cannot be criticised?

The reason the greens got so many votes is because Labor moved to the right to counter the attacks from the coalition, making promises with respect to mining, the boats etc.

If labor backs out on all the promises to middle Australia, it may please the labor left, but will alienate the swing voters that gave labor a second chance.

Shadow Minister,

The govt can and should be criticised. I just find it hypocritical of die-hard Coalition supporters to be focusing on it.

The Labor party presented their policies (albeit pathetically) during the election campaign, as did the Liberal party. Neither party received enough support from the electorate based on these policies/promises. Labor only got in because of the support of the Greens and independents, as we all know.

Therefore, with no real acceptance by the electorate for their policies, and an obvious drift of their voters to the Greens, it makes sense that they re-evaluate the way "forward" in terms of policy to reflect the message they have received from the electorate.

Basically, their 'promises' weren't accepted by the electorate, so why should they stick to them?