Watch this clip, and then ask yourself whether there is any doubt that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan categorically went to the elections promising that there would be no carbon tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMVc0IbtyAQ

Julia is now claiming that she was always pushing a climate change agenda and this is just semantics.

However, if she was always intending to push for a carbon tax then the statement "there will be no carbon TAX under a government I lead" was a bald faced lie.

The term Juliar Gillard should then be applied from here on in.

Yes she said it.
Would have not introduced it if she won a mandate.
It probably is still her wish not to have one.
No one not you not me foresaw the result of the election.
Both sides tried to cobble together a hung parliamentary government.
Made offers to the greens and the independents.
A wise and informed poster reminds us of past conservative governments.
Who for years, used the Democratic Labor Party to get legislation past the Senate.
We also have the evidence of most here.
Howard with trading and offers not unlike Labor and greens bought [and in doing killed] the Australian Democrats.
IF ONLY we all could see what your leader offered both greens and independents to get power.
Yes Gillard said it, yes she broke her word,she is a failure but had no other path.
Just maybe SM you are not aware of the reality's of a hung Parliament.
I will read your response with true interest search every word for Understanding and balance.

Belly,

These are your words and excuses. Juliar is not saying this. She is saying that she always intended to put a price on carbon, and that her promise is "semantics" and "taken out of context".

Juliar has not had the balls to personally admit this to everyone.

Julia fibs.

And Belly protesting that "Tony does too" doesn’t make it any more excusable.

Julia fibbed about the carbon tax.
Julia fibbed about border protection.

[This space has been intentionally left blank to provide room for further fibs that will come to light later into her reign of error]

It reminds me of other threads where the international conventions signed in our name without consultation were highlighted.

There really ought to be a national court of justice where fibbing pollies could be brought to account . Except it couldn’t one of our ( ab)normal courts, since most judges and lawyers and pollies move in the same circles—to much scope for buddy deals.

I suggest a court fashioned on the French Revolutionary or the Maoist China People Court model – bet that would give them cause for deep thought (it that were possible !) before making election promises.

I can see it now:
“Citizen Julia, for issuing false and misleading promises, you are hereby sentenced to twenty years hard labor working on the NBN tunnel system" –Whoopie!

SM, but what is Julia really up to?

Let’s just think about this. Julia has just done a monumental back flip and been accused of lying and deceit. For this she is paying a very high price personally and publicly damaging the ALP “brand” even further. She knew these risks fully when she announced it, yet she did it anyway to appease the Greens.

So what is the political “quid pro pro”? By paying such a high price one would have to assume that there is something she sees, as worth paying that price for?

Is she focusing on the next election in the hope that she can sustain her minority government long enough to effect enough “damage control” to win again?

Is she drawing out the Greens by introducing their policies in a way that allows them to crash and burn from their own radicalism? If so how does that help her government post July 1.

Has she actually announced a “claytons” carbon framework that no one will ever agree on?

Is she ignoring the Senate position post July 1, and relying on a back bench/Independents revolt and the opposition to block passage through the lower house, which again might provoke self destructive reactions from the Greens?

Is she simply so arrogant that she thinks she can dismiss public reaction to her policy?

If supply is blocked she faces dismissal or resignation and seems unlikely to increase her seats at a fresh election, unless of course she destroys the credibility of the Greens in the process and plans to convert their seats to the ALP? Can she have a half Senate election?

I haven’t worked out what the game is, or even if there is one, this just seems like the “march of folly, the pursuit of that which is contrary to self interest”

No she would not dare a double election.
I have said she said that, only the truly uncharitable will not admit she never guessed it would be a hung Parliament.
One that never would exist, without trade offs.
Overlook pretend it never happened, intently stare in to the distance and say lies, but the silly lady had little choice.
She and Abbott had to bend twist and turn reward and beg minority's to win government.
My companions on this thread, so far, would never ever raise a sweat, never complain, defend till death Abbott if he had won and done just what Gillard has.
I condemn her, and Abbott, but look in other directions than this thread for balanced comments.
I never take my gear out of the 4x4 to fish in dry dams.
PS
double dissolution is this country's only path, oh just maybe an end to the senate, or one vote one value but unhappily it would take both sides to work together to get that.