Ms Gillard said before the election: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."

Having given industry certainty on the carbon price, she now threatens various projects while she has a talkfest with the greens. The coalition is invited as long as they accept the outcome.

Julia Gillard is now in no position to criticise Tony Abbott on the pairing deal.

Was this topic necessary?
Was any new information or idea introduced?
There is nothing interesting or unusual about this information - everything is just as expected, knowing that this continent of ours is run by a common thug.

Yes Shadow Minister, we can’t believe a word she says.

OK, so she is presumably trying to move the climate change issue forward, and has to deal with the Greens as part of a minority government and the forthcoming holders of the balance of power in the Senate.

You could argue that this is a pretty good reason for backflipping and considering the possibility of a carbon tax in one form or another. As bad as it looks for her credibility, I can see why it has to happen, in these highly unusual circumstances.

There is a MUCH worse thing happening here, for which she and the Greens should be condemned:

They are all worked up about climate change, but seem to hardly be concerned at all about peak oil or rising fuel prices. Weaning ourselves off of our total addiction to oil is MUCH more important and would galvanise the whole community into action MUCH more effectively than the climate change issue, if only our government would embrace it and promote the issue appropriately, instead of effectively blind-eyeing it!

There is only really a small section of our community that holds a passionate view that climate change is real and dangerous and that we must do everything in our power to prevent it. But just about everyone should be, and would be with the right sort of publicity, very highly concerned about what could happen to our whole society if the oil supply was to become even slightly smaller than demand or if the price was to start rising significantly.

With the same old approach to climate change, we could only ever hope to win a tiny and basically meaningless reduction in GHG emissions in Australia. But with the motivation to directly address our oil addiction, we could do major things very quickly. And if we did this, we would be addressing GHG emissions MUCH more effectively.

Again, Gillard and the Greens, and the Opposition, have all very badly let us down by not addressing our oil addiction directly and very prominently.

Ah yes that greatest scam of all time the Fabians hope to pay all of their incompetence off with by taxing you to your death.

Meanwhile on the other side of the planet the filthy rich discuss global cooling, a much more sinister problem facing us in the near short term.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/

And could oil prices be heading for a crash?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzef43gdupk&feature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wrrzsrb-wg&feature=related

Yes that trailer park trash should take us to an election on this issue so we can properly rid the country of her filth along with the reds err I mean the greens.

Hold on to your hats people; we're in for a wild ride!

Well yes a politician's word is to be taken with a grain of salt - which is why we need more direct participation.

The PM has not actually introduced a Carbon Tax she is discussing options via the CC Committee and should a tax be the option, it won't be introduced until after the term of this government (according to Gillard).

I hope it does not become another core and non-core promise arrangement. We are mightily fed up with the smoke and mirrors style of governance.

Isn't it wonderful folks, another constructive
thread by Shadow Minister on the malfunctions
of the Labor Party! If nothing else you've got
to admire Shadow Minister's persistance. He's
really a fortunate person in that he gets to have
a say on this Forum, even though he mightn't
deserve to be heard. It's a nice indulgence and
here he is taking advantage of it.

He tells us that our PM's word is worth (in his
opinion) absolutely nothing because she's going
to introduce a "carbon tax." Well as Pelly points
out all that's happening at present is that there's
a committee to discuss the pros and cons and of course
all the MPs been invited to participate. But that's not
something that sits well with the Shadow Minister
apparently. And like the rest of his/her colleagues in
the party that he/she supports, a "carbon tax," means a
tax on everything.

As for keeping one's word? Let's have a thread on the
law of "obfuscation or "that wasn't what I said."
The Opposition's statements, are always worded so that
the opposite meaning can be extracted from them.
And their leader has recently reneged on an agreement
that he'd signed - as Rob Oakeshott told us on "Q and A,"
last night. But that was of course when it was an important
measure necessary to win the election. Now that's it been
lost, it's no longer necessary to keep your word, so it
would seem.

As you say, Foxy;

>>> it's no longer necessary to keep your word, so it
would seem. <<<

As it was with the "never, ever GST". Sheesh, what is it when Labor does a back-flip - it's deemed outrageous doom and gloom, but if the Libs do a major turn-round (AKA lie) - 'business as usual'.

SM (Julie Bishop?)

Give it a rest, all your focus on real and imagined faults of Labor achieves is reminding people of the 11 years of real and imagined faults by the Liberals.

And boring us to death - maybe that's your plan; boring freethinkers to death.

CORE AND NON CORE PROMISES!

Umm, Shadow Minister, the Liberals LOST the election. Abbott grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory; he failed. Abbott went back on his word with the independents.

I know it's hard for you accept, but Labor WON the election, the government has the majority of seats, and Labor had the majority 2 party preferred vote.

Oh yes, and did I say "Abbott went back on his word"?

That's worth repeating:

Abbott went back on his word.

Is Abbott's word worth absolutely nothing? You bet!

You could have started a topic called "Abbott's word is worth absolutely nothing", or, "Gillard's and Abbott's word is worth absolutely nothing". But you didn't, and we all know why! Spell this word backwards, llort. It applies to you and the type of threads Graham allows you to start.

I deliberately used exactly the same words that Julia Gillard used when Tony Abbot pulled out the pairing agreement. Having just broken her word, Julia cannot escape the obvious hypocrisy of her words.

For those "free thinkers" that want to draw a parallel with the GST, the fact that Howard waited for the next election and took it to the vote, and the voters gave him the mandate to proceed. So the GST while a backflip, was not a deliberate lie to the voters. The carbon tax is.

Foxy this forum is no longer one for debate on politics, sorry but recent events clearly show some views are unwanted here.
Last post in a thread about politics here.
SM has that market covered .
Lets be non confrontational and right too,, neutrality is needed if we are to rebut threads that deliberately miss use the simple fact both sides do not have the power to do as they promised not as if it is not understood but that is a tool being used to miss lead here.
Confrontation based on one eyed bias is best left alone,
We, some of the 2pp who did not vote for conservatives have been taunted and trolled lets find non political things to talk of without fear,,,in less than a year this confrontational ism will be proven to be wrong.
Only further warnings,, may be exile,, will come our way trying to talk on this subject here.
I would, please, like to know forums that are free to all ideas and we could remain here not talking politics.
Shadow to you I say enjoy your self, but know I am happily waiting for your side to fall on its own falsehoods.

Dear Belly,

You're absolutely spot on.

We're only giving Shadow Minister a
platform, by responding to his threads.

That's a mistake on our part and it's
time we stopped.

If no one responded to what he posted -
his postings would be about as effective
as yelling abuse in a blizzard.

Foxy, Belly, Jockey, etc

There is nothing stopping you posting threads. If you complain that OLO is becoming biased in one direction, it is because you are posting very seldom, and then the basis for your threads are seldom topical.

Take this thread for example, I noticed that JG had made a slur on TA's integrity, and then a few days later done exactly the same thing. And Hey presto, what was the coalition's point of challenge yesterday in parliament?

My threads, while obviously focused in one direction, are always topical and accurate. However, if there is only one voice speaking, there will only be one voice heard.

GY does not accept all my threads, but either he is rejecting most of yours or you are not trying.

Foxy, that’s not a post I would have expected to see from you. I’m referring to your first post.

Criticising Shadow Minister for daring to start this thread is taking a bit far IMHO. Why aren’t the malfunctions or perceived malfunctions of the Labor party suitable material for OLO or for public debate? What’s wrong with someone repeatedly raising this sort of concern? Or repeatedly raising concerns about one major political party but not the other?

If you and Severin think SM is overdoing it, then isn’t it you who should give it a rest by way of not responding?

Now, I would consider the integrity of our politicians to be extremely important. So, when they say something in unequivocal terms and then proceed to do something different, a serious infringement has been committed. When this happens regularly, as it does, our whole democratic system is badly undermined.

We really do need a system of accountability and integrity. Perhaps a political ombudsman who can explore all complaints of lies or misleading statements made by pollies and have the power to pass judgement and issue penalties where appropriate.

I wouldn't complain, SM is the best thing the ALP and Greens have going for them (as far as OLO is concerned).

SM is not always factually correct but we all have the same opportunity like SM, to post responses, present statistics or to start new topics.

Fact is we can all be a bit blind to our own side - that is a human reality, but we should also at times be self-critical, that is the only way real reform (parliamentary or otherwise) will be achieved.

It is no good always cheering your side from the stands, when you can full well see them kicking the boot in, cheating or engaging in a bit of under-arm bowling.

Dear SM,

I'm going to take what you've said on board,
and think about it. However, as you know
when the right buttons are pushed we all react.
And, to me at least, you've been coming across
as a man with an axe to grind. The only type of
threads that you've been posting have been ones
that were focused in only one direction - that
of negativity against the current government.
Hence my responses to balance things up.

Of course there are moments when one can think
that, "Gee, I shouldn't have said that, or maybe
I should have said it differently." Well, okay
maybe I need to work on my presentation - it
is important to be conscious and compassionate and
act with great civility - but it is also important
not to forsake your own wisdom because you fear you
will lose something. What's more important?
Losing face, or losing your integrity?

Whether it is in our relationships or in the
workplace, it seems we are always negotiating our
own voice and always afraid of speaking what we feel.
As a little girl, I was shy. I wasn't comfortable
with my own ideas, never believing they were worthy
of being heard. As I grew older, I was afraid of my
own strength and worried that if I showed too much power
it would make me less attractive to men, or a threat to
women.

It's only now that I throw down the gauntlet. I've
discovered the only path to happiness is to really be all
thay you can be. To be secure and unafraid of speaking
you own mind. If your intentions are not just to win the
game, then you can feel good if you've spoken your mind
without malice or anger but just from the depth of your
truth.

Wouldn't it be good if our politicans could be truthful and courageous, and not have to be concerned with the thoughts of their partners in crime, To join the party, they have to promise to agree with the party, even if they throughly disagree with the decisions, and from what I have seen, there are not too many who are prepared to stand up against bad decisions, in any party. From what I have seen, there are not many if any workers in the liberal or labor party, even though their constitution says they will look after the workers. Have a look at the careers of those in the cabinet, and opposition shadow cabinet, Lawyers seem to be totally against the workers and a successful economy, neither Wayne Swan or Peter Costello can be claimed to be anything but destructive to the economy, nor can any of the earlier PM's or Treasurers, execpt Harold Holt, at least he tried and mostly it worked, but didn't suit the following treasurers, they can't understand any logic or intelligence, but they like the brown stain on their face.

Good for you Foxy.

At least you didn't wimp out like others.

I look forward to crossing swords again.

Foxy, you don't "need to work on your presentation". There's been absolutely NOTHING wrong with your presentation.

This is how on line bullies like Shadow Minister work: They directly attack others by "pulling their chains" in order to get a response. Now, when that response comes, they'll misrepresent it in such a way as to suggest the person is at fault and needs to alter their behaviour. Then the person who replies feels guilty, and tries to be more conciliatory towards the bully. The bully then thinks he's WON, then proceeds on to his next topic and his next target. This is the way Shadow Minister has been posting since the election. He's in a win/win situation. If you submit to him, he thinks he's WON, if you attack him he attacks back and makes it look like he's the victim.

It's been a big game for Shadow Minister lately. His posts are simply not genuine. He's a baiter, and we've all take his bait.

It needed to be said in black and white. And guess what? I bet this gets deleted or I get banned after SM or someone else complains.

As Shadow Minister just said, for him it's about "crossing swords", and not genuine, mature discussion.

"His posts are simply not genuine. He's a baiter, and we've all take his bait."

This is rich coming from someone who has yet to contribute a single substantial comment on this site.

His repertoire consists of references to faeces and sexual slurs on opponents parentage.

[Deleted for mild flaming.]

Dear Jockey,

Thanks for your support and for your kind words.
They are appreciated.
You got a good heart - and I enjoy reading your
posts.

Dear SM,

It's difficult to have a discussion when one isn't
prepared to modify one's views - and one's convinced
that one's right. This is especially true when discussing
emotive subjects like politics, religion, or football.;-)
You do appear to have an agenda - and I usually enjoy
robust discussions, however this hasn't been one of them.

While Ms Gillard's word may very well be worth nothing, it's been shown that Mr Abbott's word is equally worth nothing.

When I first read Jockey's last post I thought it was a bit of a character assassination on Shadow M. so I then read some of Shadow M's posts both on this topic and elsewhere. My conclusion then altered and I realised that Jockey described Shadow M's recent behaviour on OLO perfectly. Shadow M even showed in his answer to Jockey's post that Jockey was right, because Shadow M. painted himself as a 'victim'. This is exactly what Jockey said Shadow M does. I think Shadow M is a bully, who dishes it out but can't take it. That's my take on the situation, so I think I better shut up now.

Jockey, Transki

Did you feel so inadequate that you had to register another identity to agree with you? That's just sad.

I am breaking my own word here, lets get this on record I RESPECT GRAHAM YOUNG.
Understand bloke you are conservative, am not afraid of that verbal tennis it can be fun and entertain.
I have no truck with one poster being expelled for having two identity's, its wrong.
Shadow Minister Sir, I read you mild flaming, it was an insult to me too.
Now for civility's sake, for OLO we should stay away from each other.
But here now if I am exiled or not if this is deleted or nor you spoke of my party me and its followers in terms that are much worse than mild.
I have zero respect for you and in not debating politics here say it is your barbed and insulting actions that see me not retreat not ever but in the name of civility ,who ever you are, [that question if answered would answer much] KNOW your views are considered rubbish by more than you think .
GY your task is not easy say the word and I go forever.
But Labor thoughts and ideas are in my view no longer welcome in this forum.
I start no revolution but ask for others considered views have I gone off half cocked or is SM NEEDLESSLY PROVOCATIVE.

Belly,

For one that is often the one to start flinging the mud, I am surprised you feel the need to sulk. Considering that you called TA (a Rhodes scholar) an idiot, your respect does not carry much currency.

Lets see the things I called before most people became aware:

1- That the boats were to be a major election issue
2- Rudd's control freak issues were causing havoc and misery
3- That Labor's handling of the BER and insulation programs were a key weakness.
5- That the coalition's best strategy was to be confrontational.

This post was essentially about how Julia Gillard has by taking the moral high ground and then back flipping on most of her promises, has set herself up. TA is going to continuously beat her with it for the next year or so.

These were based on simple analysis of public opinion and the wedge politics that TA has so skilfully employed.

Your calls were based on a love of your party and your hopes and dreams. How is that going?

Dear SM,

As you know scholarships are given to people for
a variety of reasons - they certainly were in those
days, and they weren't/ aren't, always given to
the right people, and when they are - they don't
always deserve them. Malcolm Turnbull was also a
Rhodes scholar, as was Bob Hawke (just by the way).

The qualities that Cecil Rhodes was looking for
way back in 1900s when the scholarships first began
were those of: truthfullness, courage, sympathy for
and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness,
the exhibition of moral force of character and of
the instincts to public duties as their highest
aim ... of course not all these attributes obviously
can be found in the one person - but be honest,
how many of these qualities does Tony Abbott really
possess?

Think about that one before you criticize Belly to strongly.
He called Tony Abbott an Idiot? He could have used far
stronger descriptive adjectives - such as the ones you've
been known to do in regards to Labor MPs. (Pot - Kettle - black?).
And if a politician behaves like an idiot ...

As for your summations regarding Labor - they're not quite
accurate - and extremely narrow. You don't present the
full picture at all - but like others in your party - you
seem to think that if you repeat something often enough -
it's going to be true. Nah, it doesn't work that way.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own
facts!

[This post has been deleted. The poster is a sock-puppet of another online identity and both have been barred for attempting to circumvent forum rules.]

[Deleted. Refers to previous comment.]

[Deleted refers to previously deleted post.]

[Deleted. Refers to deleted comment above.]

ok I am critical of this thread, its title, its intent, and that few will read this post because the thread sends more away than it attracts .
But I wish to do what I should have ,the post after Shadow Minister first posted it.
In the last Parliament, for a while, both party's agreed to and ETS both party's dumped that policy.
Conservatives dumped their leader,the new one dumped his own stated policy, how can we ignore that?
Labor in deserting its election promises,dumped its supporters.
Abbott for no lessor reasons than Gillard changed his mind, his known policy's in the name of? ambition.
Strange but consider ,if Turnbull had lead during the election can any understanding politician not know? Conservatives would be in government today?
Not my wish, just reality.
The not Abbott not at any price had an impact.
The NSW seat of Robinson surely had to fall?
Yet Sydney bound train travelers received a not Abbott sheet on leaving Gosford and the center unity from NSW ALP did the impossible.
Reality, honesty, understanding , tells me this thread title is insulting[so be it sticks and stones] selective of truth, ignores Conservatives mind changes.
next the greens

Greens lets look at them, they are not my party, a mate from OLO currently in the sin bin C J Morgan dislikes my views on them.
But are they as decribed here? are those who vote for them criminal?
I in truth say I fear them some times.
But how do we claim their voters do not matter.
Yes greens and Labor work together,Nationals have for generations [ever since Black Jack John Mq quern stopped leading them] been a slave to Liberals not caring about the bush, it is true, why are the greens worse.
And the independents why have them? voters put them there!
Do we claim they can no longer be what they got elected? independents?
RO won the seat of the once deputy prime minister that electorate returned him not a national.
GREENS yes at one stage with the help of conservative who crossed the floor in the upper House they had the power to install an ETS.
They wanted more, too much,I forever will remind them they let Australia down.
But both conservatives and Labor lost voters to them this time,I understand the increased vote for conservatives remember I think more would have come if Turnbull lead.
My approach to the future posting of biased one eyed slanted fox like stuff will be as in these two posts.
Is OLO to be a place of debate? who knows

Foxy,

Irrespective of the various peripheral reasons behind the Rhodes scholarship, the prime metric is academic excellence.

I also usually very seldom directly call people names, so your pot calling the kettle black analogy is not applicable.

TA surprised me, I was expecting emotive attacks, but the carefully crafted wedges he set up, and the skilfully deployed traps that Rudd fell into, all whilst reigning in the party to a more disciplined cohesive party, was not just brilliant strategy, but skilful management. The result was a turnaround that took the coalition from virtual obscurity to almost in the driver's seat.

If TA was an idiot, Rudd would presently be PM with an increased majority. Instead we have JG trying to steer legislation through the parliament with a "rainbow coalition" of independents from all over the political spectrum with the slimmest of a majority.

JG made a tactical error when she claimed that TA's word was worth absolutely nothing, because as soon as she back flipped on an election promise, she set herself up as a hypocrite. While I personally believe that climate change needs to be addressed, a price on carbon without realistic alternatives to coal generation, will raise energy prices significantly without significant emission reductions. The electricity prices are already sky rocketing, and this combined with JG's duplicity will be electoral poison that TA is going to feed to labor regularly.

In order to develop coherent policy, one cannot develop policy based on day by day polls. Given that it is usually the incumbent party that gets to choose the election date, there is a grace period of about 2 years where the government gets to implement legislation free of public opinion. However, when Labor is languishing sufficiently in the polls, TA will likely trigger a no confidence vote. Given that , JG will have no option but to manage policy by the polls with the inevitable disasters.

[Deleted. Third attempt by user to circumvent forum rules using sock puppets.]

Congates Shadow Minister one of your better posts.
However I admire your ability to skip over the facts, well done.
Abbott once supported the ETS we agree on that do we not.
He once supported his leader Turnbull ok so far.
NONE not one of us prior to the election guessed it would be that close, a hung Parliament.
To govern Abbott or Gillard would surely have to deal with? well we know what you think of them.
Now arm up her back, it very well could have been Abbott, she is finally, at last keeping Labors 2007 promise, IF THE INDEPENDENTS AND GREENS LET HER.
Now we have it seems had an invasion of sock puppets, wrong always, I undertake not to be baited ,but will not let these confrontational threads go unchallenged.
In time soon, conservatives trawling sorry half true claims will come to understand this thread insults Australian voters ability to think for them selves.
And may I please request, given your failure to post a thread telling us of your sides failures you never again tell me I am biased or one eyed.

Belly,

No matter how you duck and dive, both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott personally promised that there would be no carbon price for the next electoral period.

Kevin Rudd's promises of 2007 are not Julia Gillard's promises of 2010.

And a cabinet member is required to follow the party line, for example as Julia Gillard did until June 20.

This site is chock full of one eyed whingers. How about saying something constructive. Politics is not a football match.
With the election going 50 50 i would say all promises are off, no one voted for any promise.

"Any mother that leaves two kids alone for that period of time wants stoning, or worse if thats possible. 5+6 is to young to be left alone for a period of time."

Constructive eh 579?

Next time you post try not to be an arrogant contradiction.

It would be nice to see this thread progress into a civilised factually based 'debate' if you will.
Personally I know little of politics and I would like to read the word of the people so to speak, so long as that word isn't completely opinion based.
I'm not criticising before anyone feels the need to make that the focus point of my post

579 original thought, ever had one? do you understand your view is not the only one?
And in truth your way of telling us leaves me baffled who do you talk about?
Now SM admirable use of the thimble and pea trick.
Before you indulge us with the home brewed medicine lets review the facts.
Abbott/Gillard both made promises they could not keep given the out come of the election.
Painful hard to let go of your determination to use feathers as throwing sticks but true.
No one,except the greens is happy with the election out come.
Labor may suffer most, because more people truly dislike the greens than support them.
We however had a very real chance that Abbott could have been juggling these eggs.
You then, as a one sided totally biased conservative would be selling me snake oil, well in fact are, here.
No fool you know its not working but have fun.

Belly,

There is a world of difference through not meeting one's promises through an inability to do so, and actively setting out to do exactly the opposite of what she promised.

With 145 of the 150 seats elected on the promise of No carbon tax, to say that there is a mandate for no carbon tax is an understatement.

The precondition that members of the climate committee accept that there will be a carbon price means that TA cannot appoint anyone without breaking his promise to the electorate.

I doubt that this subtlety is lost on the electorate either.

I find yet again Shadow Minister not one word or idea in your post I agree with.
I feel very confident you do not think like that but farm the confrontation at any price you spoke of in a thread titled confrontation.
I however like her choice to get rid of the proposed love in on the subject bad idea that.
As our PM I cede to her the right to always change her mind, to go for good policy over bad.
Gentle men understand it is indeed a womans right to change her mind

Touche!

Foxy please return, yes I let it get to me but after all it is simple stuff to rebut, and I should not have lost the fact..
I got that wrong.
Happy with government so far, waiting for Bill Shorten to be let free he is our future.
WARNING however he too may change his mind good politicians dump bad ideas, Bill will not have as many silly ones but he is people driven.

Anyone who can't readily see that there's back flips, broken promises, mistakes and dishonesty on b o t h sides of the political fence abrogates their right to be taken seriously.

Hence, I can't possibly take Shadow Minister's views expressed on this thread seriously. Neither should anyone else.

Rudy while your post is true this was no deliberate lie, back flip or betrayal.
It was not deceit not a planned move, Julia Gillard meant what she said, BUT.
See I am ALP, within an hour of her becoming leader I spoke of not trusting her, I never will.
She however will govern well.
And in time fall to the same sword Rudd did.
It may very well be her who changed Labor policy in this area.
She most probably even now does not want an ETS.
But in negotiations to govern, with greens and independents help, she was forced to change her mind.
To in fact return to ALP and once Liberal and once Abbott's policy's.
On this issue both sides are guilty of mind twisting changes.
So if those who have not sinned in this area throw the first stone no stones need fear being moved.
That sums up my view the thread is pure confrontation and badly betrays balance.

I think Gillard's word is worth absolutely everything. If a prime minister is so stuck with rigidity that he/she can't make changes due to differing circumstances then that prime minister would be utterly irresponsible and unworthy of the job.

I agree Tboy, the thread got hot,it was one of a whole lot that drifted away from my view of civility and ,well honest debate.
In reinventing myself I stayed on this site, maybe the reinvention can be best described as not taking the bait, but high lighting truth.
But we seem to have lost,hopefully only for a time, our heart and sole,good posters.
I found yesterday,in another forum [still searching for old Friends] these rules and explanations
If you defame another poster you will be barred,if you return insults you will be barred.
Of much more interest the explanation said such behavior was that forums greatest problem.
In time we will see another attempt at reinventing ones self from Mr Tony Abbott,he however has peaked he never again will get the high opinion poll results he once had.
Baiting? no just truth Turnbull will lead conservatives again.

Tboy,

Perhaps you would illuminate us on what conditions have changed since JG made these promises?

Did she say I'll try not to impose a carbon tax, or did she promise.

Is setting up a committee whose pre conditions are that a carbon tax is necessary and will be imposed trying to meet her promises in any way or form?

As a Labor supporter, promises are only made to get votes, and are never considered thereafter. Just look at Rudd.

Tboy please do not engage the bloke.
I fear we may have lost good posters as a result of this and a few other threads.
Not being silly, truly think we may be in the presents of a conservative front bencher.
Please box smart, you have truth on your side you I and most know the hung Parliament changed everything.
Regards SM worth a try.

You're right belly. I just read most of the thread and I can see he's basically a baiter/troll, so I'll abandon any more comment on this thread.

Belly,

You lost the same vapid troll several times over. Tboy is yet another re incarnation of Jockey etc. having been booted off other blogs, he is trying his luck here. How many aliases do you have?

"Not being silly, truly think we may be in the "presents" of a conservative front bencher" Too silly I'm afraid.

SM it is not clear who you ask has many faces, yes it is possible Tboy could be jockey.
I do not approve of sock puppets, who ever they are.
Now did you infer I have other idenitys?
Excuse me but it looked a bit like that so I will stay calm until you answer.
We are very different me and you, thankfully.
But in all honesty with nothing more to go on than your post history I would put nothing past you.
Let me say this SM if I post in another forum it will be always as Belly Bell is my last name.

I see I am not going to get an answer.
ok so be it , you slander even Tboy, he/she may be a sock puppet but the content is not rude not in any way as slanderous as some of your posts.
I actually asked GY if Tboy was jockey, before you got on your hight horse.
Only because for a while Tboy only posted in your threads.
Now this thread is a constructed half truth.
You I the world understands that the hung Parliament changed every thing.
I see things in you here, it is reasonable to ask did you ask me how many identity's I have?
Was your rage seen openly again here?
Are you sure you want to question my honesty.
I have seen others defend you, some maybe leave because of you.
I have seen you throw insults and slander about like confetti at a wedding, yet fly in to a rage if questioned.
I find value in MEN who stand by what they say, but none in those who are not MAN enough to say sorry.
I wish OLO well but am giving myself a spell.
You and hasbeen may continue to think debate must be my way or no way.
regards all.

Sorry Belly,

I thought I had posted a message, but apparently not.

I don't believe you use 2 identities, and never meant to infer so. In fact re reading my posts, I struggle to see how you drew this conclusion.

As for this thread, the hung parliament simply makes implementing policy more difficult, not impossible. It provides no justification whatsoever for trying to implement policy JG specifically promised would not be implemented.

Julia Gillard made a promise on the behalf of the Labor party. She lied, and did not even pretend to try and meet her commitment.

So far Julia's promises are ditched as soon as they become inconvenient. This makes her a liar.

Just like the promises of these people are ditched after the promises become inconvenient,

Tony Abbott
John Howard
Malcolm Fraser
John McMahon
John Gorton
Harold Holt
Robert Menzies

Although let's face it, Tony Abbott is but a midget amongst giants when it comes to personal integrity, compared to those others.

Rudy,

I see you have just reeled off a list of Liberals.

Perhaps you could list what election promises they made, and broke within the term of parliament for which they made them. I don't think you will find many.

Add to your list Rudd and Hawke.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an24376834

There will never be a GST
and even if there is
We'll never exempt food
and even if we do
We'd never touch the tax cuts
and even if we did
It would never ever hurt lower income farmers
and even if it did
etc etc etc etc et

Bad luck Rudy,

Howard went back to the polls asking for a mandate to introduce GST and nearly lost because of it.

He didn't promise no GST and immediately go about implementing it. He realised that things had changed, but because he had promised no GST he had to wait 'til the next election for a mandate on a different promise. Julia Gillard did not have the moral fibre to do so. She has made a promise and has a mandate from the electorate not to impose a carbon tax.

It is more convenient to ditch her promises the people and suck up to the greens.

[Deleted for abuse. Commenter a sock puppet. Profile deleted.]

Rudy,

However you try and spin it, Howard did not introduce the GST before taking it back to a new election. If any thing, he did something extremely difficult for a politician, and admit he was initially wrong.

Julia Gillard on the other hand has not even admitted any mistake, just floated the flimsy "hung parliament" excuse, and reneged on her promises.

By your own measure that would make Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, far worse at telling the truth than Howard or any one else on your list.

I assume your flaming of Howard is because of your abject failure to find any election promise broken in the term promised by the liberals.

This is pure political censorship by this site's management.
They falsely accuse one of being what they call a "sock puppet", I had to look up it's meaning.
Then they delete my post that showed John Howard lied about never, ever introducing a GST. Then they threaten to delete my account because of the false sock puppet accusation.

PURE POLITICAL CENSORSHIP