http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/michael-quigley-and-us-court-records-at-odds/story-fn6tcs23-1226054988789

Only a short time ago I questioned Labor's values after a string of convictions of Labor MPs. (This was followed by Gordon Nuttall's claim that he was doing nothing wrong.)

Michael Quigley looks as though he will fit into the ALP business model very well.

I can imagine the interview

"Do you have a criminal record?"

"Why do you still need one?"

Thanks bloke,another post that talks more about you than Labor.
If corruption exists , and if it can in any way be linked to the government,I will be the first to call for prison terms for all.
No further comments in this thread for me.

A whifff....Come on Shadow! Spill the beans:)

If your trying to boil the water in bellies head.....Its working..lol

LEA

Weak and provocative leap, not unlike every thing you ever posted.
Along side you Shadow Minister is a gentleman.
He knows he is not getting to me, and I know I am not hurting him.
Just verbal tennis.
Surprise me,post just once, and not use that post to put some one down.

My only regret is the nuttal didn't spill the beans.

Perhaps he may fear for his life if he did.

My confusion is to why one gets less for murder.

Shadow Minister in the opening post first posts a link to a news item in The Australian headed 'Michael Quigley and US court records at odds' and datelined 12:00 AM 13 May 2011.

In the opening sentences of the post Shadow Minister appears to infer that the Michael Quigley of the news item is an Australian Labor politician, in saying:

"Only a short time ago I questioned Labor's values
after a string of convictions of Labor MPs. (This
was followed by Gordon Nuttall's claim that he was
doing nothing wrong.)

Michael Quigley looks as though he will fit into the
ALP business model very well."

The Michael Quigley of the linked news item is the chief of the Australian National Broadband Network, and is described in that item as having "... spent 36 years with Alcatel and [being] the group's global president and chief operating officer in 2005 and 2006, ...". He is not an Australian Labor politician.




There is an Australian Labor politician named John Robert Quigley who has, since 2001, been a member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. He is a barrister by profession, and was for 20 years legal counsel for the Western Australian Police Union. He is famous for having revealed the wrongful conviction (for murder) of Andrew Mallard, and for that has been ostracised by that union of which he had formerly been an honorary life member. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quigley_(politician) . This online news item from 'Perth Now' contains a photograph of John Robert Quigley, Australian Labor politician and WA shadow Attorney-General: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/quigley-accused-of-bringing-legal-profession-into-disrepute/story-e6frg13u-1226037725081

Apart from the fact that both Michael Quigley and John Quigley are bald, neither person seems to fit the inferences Shadow Minister seeks to have drawn by readers of the opening post. Could we perhaps have a clarification as to just who was meant to be the subject of the opening post, and why?

"NATIONAL Broadband Network head Michael Quigley has confirmed he was in charge of a regional division of the telecommunications giant Alcatel while bribes were paid in return for contracts."

FG,

The inference is not subtle. Considering that the NBN is the flagship project of the ALP, to appoint someone who was head of a division of a telecom company that effectively admitted to large scale bribery and corruption was particularly daft.

The question is that now that it is in the open, will Gillard swallow her pride and appoint someone not tainted, or will she leave this as another open sore on the ALP brand?

Belly, when corruption is no-longer plague on this planet, I dont think I'll ever stop hemorrhaging positive thoughts. Yes your left and right-wing banter is obvious, and Capitalism is still the main cause of unhappiness in the world today. Yes The have's and have nots! I can see how that brings about joy in all I see:) No! people dont do the opposite of what the bible says..........Nooooooo:)....That would constitute a delusion with the reality, and we wouldn't want that now, would we.

Yes Corruption! The most deadliest sin in my eyes.

yes belly, when some people see the truth about themselves, thats when things start to change for the better.

LEAP

[Deleted for abuse.]

Oh belly. Should I start handing out the life-preservers:)

"Thanks bloke,another post that talks more about you than Labor.
If corruption exists , and if it can in any way be linked to the government"

Oh dear:) The rights track record proves its self belly, and Its not wise to paint something bright white, when indeed....it's black to the core.

Your answers will be interesting:)

See! That was nice, wasn't it:)

LEAP

SOG I will not report your post,do not often do that.
But in fact your list has a few lies in it, but mostly is true.
If stupidity was a crime I could add to the list, from within my party's federal cabinet.
You never had my respect, it is apparent from the work you put in you have none for your self.
QL excuse but count your posts not highlighting rude and needless near flaming.
To say a whole party has a culture so poisoned is silliness.
AWB just that, those who left politics on conservative benches including a deputy prime minister early,to avoid being uncovered is telling.
GREENS yes greens upset with my truthful description of the damage they are doing may throw as many stones as they wish.
It will change nothing Australia is wakening to the radical nature and infestation of very left in control of that once environmental group.

Dear SOG,

Before you start talking about political party values -
there's some material that you should read in order to understand the political system in this country:

1) Quarterly Essay 26
"His Master's Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate
under Howard." David Marr.

"John Howard had the loudest voice in Australia. He has cowed his critics, muffled the press, intimidated the ABC, gagged scientists, silenced NGO'S, censored the arts, prosecuted leakers, criminalised protest and curtailed parliamentary scrutiny. Though touted as a contest of values, this has been a party-political assault on Australia's liberal culture..." In "His Master's Voice," David Marr investigates both a decade of suppression and the strange willingness of Australians to watch, with such little angst, their liberties drift away.

"More than any law, any failure of the Opposition or individual act of bastardry over the last decade, what's done most to gag democracy in this country is the sense that debating John Howard gets us nowhere."

2) "Sideshow: Dumbing Down Democracy," Lindsay Tanner.
This is an interesting analysis of the interplay between politics and the media and the extent to which "the media are retreating into an
entertainment frame that has little tolerance for complex social and economic issues..." Worth a read.

Your local library should be able to help you with both items.

I wish to say I am sorry to every one who ever posted here in OLO.
I know better.
Should walk away, that song from Johny Cash is good advice.
I however respond to foolishness and some times publish foolishness myself.
I however can not change, my views yes, but me, no.
I know how to be diplomatic, understand how to be other than who I am but can not do it,this is me warts and all.
I must have been a shock, here my first hundreds of posts, miss spelled and well we all know about that.
Yet I had about 5.000 posts in other forums.
Shoulder to shoulder with very well educated folk here I post what I think.
But not some things I know.
Some insults come from those who know no better, some are constructed to make me act the fool.
I continue to do so, too often.
But charge some I squabble with of needless and offensive provocation.
But back to this thread.
NBN even I am concerned it may be over taken by new technology not long after it starts, one day it will be so.
I see no ties not even a single thread of spiders Webb to link corruption and Labor here.
I still wish I could benefit by it, my line will not support it ever.
Malcolm Turnbull, tasked with flogging this dead horse,to keep him out of the picture, said this last week.
If Abbott in power stopped the NBN Telstra would gain a multi billion dollar windfall.
That concerns me more,and I think like a great number SOME in the opposition do not believe a thing Abbott says.

Belly, you have no need to apologize. You have a right to your opinion and you always seem to give your opinion without resorting to nastiness, like some other posters do.

Keep on posting :)

The NBN is here to stay I would say. The Government has already spent way too much money to pull out of the project now.

We may as well get used to it and hope that what they promised will be delivered.

I see no point in trying to get rid of it now.

Thanks Suzie on line I too think it should go ahead.
And that not too far in the future we will know it was worth while.
My problem is that to few homes to many hills to much cost I will not get it.
My satellite is not much good, once you stop paying the extended warranty you get dumped, no insurance no more warranty available.
But a tower has gone on a hill near me.
Radio will not work in my home, but 4 meters out side full strength.
So a day will come I will put an out door aerial up and get about half NBN speed a big improvement.

Dear Belly,

You're one of the most respected people on this forum. You have integrity. You try to see things from others point of view, and admit when you're wrong - which is no small thing. We all would miss you if you were to stop posting. We need more posters like you.

Anyway, here's something I came across on the web on the NBN - which for me at least puts things into their proper persepctive:

"The Libs think the NBN costs too much and we don't need it and that they can cobble together some yesterday technology to give us what they say we need. A "she'll be right" solution."

"This is beyond myopic. The NBN puts Australia in a position to be a real technological powerhouse. And don't get caught up thinking this is only about fast internet. The thing about the NBN is that it would be brilliant for things we haven't thought of yet."

"It'll give more people more access to well, more. We would be dragged at the speed of light away from being a broadband backwater. The NBN is the type of forward thinking in government that we see far too little of. It's brave, it's smart and it's necessary. Worrying about the cost is ridiculous. Australia has weathered the global financial crisis well, we're in a good position. We can afford the NBN, now, delaying, or scrapping it, we're going to have to do something like it later - and you know how much more it will cost then."

"The Sydney Opera House was a budgeting disaster, yet how much tourism cash and overseas attention has it brought Australia and more than that it was a flashing neon sign that Australia was a country to take note of in the modern world."

"The NBN is another such sign about Australia being forward thinking, and a people to be reckoned with."

I think the only question to ask is this: "Is Labor's NBN better technology than the jury-rigged solution proposed by the Liberal Party?" Anything else is irrelevant.

Lexi thank you, the thought of leaving has not crossed my mind of late.
My intention was to ask for forgiveness for counter punching.
I know better but just can not let some things go.
And frankly,I am concerned at some good posters, and many who log in but do not post, and the effects some posts have on us all.
Comments have been made about some, but just how many leave us because of such posters?
I fully,totally support GY and am pleased he actually is not intervening more.
But some, like school yard bully's grow if left unchallenged.
Never much good at the not getting involved in this stuff.

Dear Belly,

Someone once said, "You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarass the guilty." (I think it was the writer - Jessica Mitford).

I used to feel that was true - however, now I'm not so sure. Maybe I'm becoming more cycnical. As H.L. Mencken wrote:

"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race." So I guess all you can do is be true to yourself. Do what you think is right. Change what you can -( and can what you can't).

Take care,

Lexi,

I had a brief flip through David Marr's essay, and I could not find anything that the present Labor government is not doing.

Note the Enquiry into the BER which was stuffed with ALP members that unsurprisingly returned a positive finding, littered with inconsistencies and errors.

Also the fierce objection to a productivity review of the NBN.

Dear SM,

This only confirms what many political experts have been saying for years: "The politicians of both the Opposition and the ALP have performed well at what they set out to do. Both need to hold the centre, for without middle Australia, each is done for. The Opposition wants the growing inequality of income, wealth and power distribution to keep going. The ALP wants to tone it down a bit. The Coalition is made up of AGW denialists, and hence the home insulation scheme to them was a total waste of money. The ALP endorses AGW, and its home insulation scheme was by and large successful, but it was naively managed and rorted to buggery by the sort of "entrepreneural" cowboys who are Abbott's natural constituency..."

We therefore need to ask why do we have two parties, each saying much the same thing? "Because a stick has two ends: a proverbial sh**ty one, and a sweet one. Each party tries to hand the other's constituency the end it prefers they have. The Opposition does that best, I grant you!"

Lexi,

Both parties try to control the dialogue. Howard left the legislative framework with regards free speech as he found it, but used his influence to control the message. That Labor completely failed for a decade is due to their inability, which changed under Rudd with work choices.

Julia Gillard is trying the same thing, but has more than met her match in Abbott who despite having fewer resources has set the agenda.

So what I am really getting to is that the control referred to by David Marr is only partially effective, and the democratic debate is really in the hands of who ever seizes it.

With regards "middle class welfare" the ALP would frame the argument that the government is doling out cash to the rich, where the reality is that the "welfare" in most cases comes in the form of tax incentives for behaviour that benefits the state.

A prime example is the tax rebate on health insurance. The purpose of which is to encourage people to take out health insurance, use non public health providers, and free up public resources for those who really need it.

The zero sum game is that the tax "given away" encourages private sector investment and saves far greater investment from the public purse.

The $2bn that the government has stripped from the middle to higher income group to pay for the increased immigration budget, is going to remove much of these incentives, and may well end up costing the state more than it saves.

Dear SM,

Thank You for clearing up a few things for me. I appreciate your courtesy and patience and admire your approach.

cont'd ...

With the growing number of Independents in local, state, and federal politics it appears that sometime in the future the Independents may outnumber the two party system and be forced to form a coalition in government. Under such circumstances it is only logical that the best people would be selected to run the country. What's your opinion on such a possibility - especially when the increasing diversity of the population may not be inclined to a two party system.

i have avoided mention on this topic
cause the heading is clear...'a wiff of coruption'

so lets try to get closer..to the frame of reference
corruption....''at the nbn'

''where the reality is
that the "welfare" in most cases
comes in the form of tax incentives for behaviour
...that benefits the state.""

maybe your talking about corperate welfare?

those 'on' welfare
hardly need the tax incentatives
much [prefering the dole..or welfare check]
ie serving the people as its tasked to do..[not serve corperations]

let alone..bail them out]
but that the people get it back
from govt...*

with intrst..!
sems its all one way
from my tax
to your corperation
or wealthy wage earners

150,000 isnt rich
but its 'rich enough'..to give a little back

was the education [you still owe for]..that relitive?

""A prime example is the tax rebate on health insurance.""

yes egsactly
i pay for you to get free stuff

that i dont get from the public system
BUT THE PRIVATE system COSTS more money
so those EVEN WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE...use the public
and then hospitals DONT CHARGE THE INSURANCE AGENCY..

if you got private
its got you too

but instead the public
paying for private proffits..[man thats insane]

""and free up public resources
for those who really need it."""

thats the spin
the reality is people hate paying extra
if they supposed to have the best insurance

private dont mean better
it just means someone id making money
from your sickness

""The zero sum game
is that the tax "given away"
encourages private sector investment"""

thgis is the FAILED top down
trickle down affect
[the bailout..to the rich
[paid for by the poor]..

that now is seeking a safe place
to put their illgotten booty...ie into food/futures?
and political parties pocketts[yeah both of em]..

""and saves far greater investment
from the public purse.""

if govt..""greater/investment''
ISNT paying ITS OWN WAY...YET
then its not there to serve us

..only them [your party mates]
the bankers/media boys club

[who will buy the nbn..
FOR PENNIES IN THE DOLLAR..
the first change the libs get
who will then do like with telstra

LET IT RUN DOWN
let it go obsolete
let it become a cash cow..!

so govt
can yet again..
build their next 'privatisation'.

Lexi,

In the Westminster system of constituencies, it is difficult for independents to get a hold. Where they do it is generally where the nature of the constituency is sufficiently different from the majority, and where an independent is capable of projecting an agenda that reflects the individual views of that constituency more accurately than either of the major parties.

If one of the major parties has an overwhelming majority, the risk to the constituency is that there in no benefit to the incumbent party to pay any attention to their needs. In a hung parliament, the independents can earn massive rewards.

Where the politics are particularly divisive, independents may also flourish.

I believe that Oakeshott and Windsor believed that if they took a gamble and got concessions from the Labor party, that if the government was seen to succeed, their conservative electorate could be won over.

The risk that they tried to mitigate was that of Tony Abbott's vigorous opposition. They had to make sure that the incumbent government succeeded. To this end they concocted the "group hug" where the opposition would pair the independents, the speaker etc. In this case Labor could govern unimpeded, and they could maintain some appearance of independence.

They must have been horrified when Abbott simply tore up the agreement and set about bringing the ALP to its knees. They are now in a no win situation. Oakeshott's career as a politician is finished, and Windsor is teetering on the edge, and the appetite in the area for independents is at a low ebb.

If the polls continue on their trajectory, the federal election in 2013 is likely to be a repeat of NSW, with the key issues being the carbon tax and illegal immigration, and any chance of recovery for the infamous duo will be lost.

I would guess that the message to the pair from the coalition is to either help dump the ALP, or suffer political oblivion.

I am sorry Shadow Minister for getting truth involved in this thread.
But, as you know, both Oakshot and Windsor, left the national party,and got elected each of them,more than once.
More than twice in fact, as independents.
Both by the way had no links to the party's they left.
And both owed them nothing.
Both had margins that made their seats safe.
Not now, but let truth shine, you infer they let their electorates down, no way and you know it.
Those taking part in this thread SHOULD go to todays goggle home page, read the news.
Read the story about the man SM charges here.
Read Turnbulls comment, quote we are not questioning his honesty,well worth the read.

Dear SM,

After reading your post I've reached the conclusion that Tony Abbott has set the groundwork of dissatisfaction of both political parties with most voters (his personal approval rating also fell in Newspoll)
and therefore it encourages Independent minded people to stand for election and set the course for the collapse of the two-party system.

Your reference to the "Westminister System" is the illusion that the Australian government works or should work on the same principles as the British government. The similarities between the two systems are largely ones of decor, like the use of the mace. The major difference between the two systems is that Australia is a federation, a concept totally incomprehensible to the British. An appeal to the "Westminsiter system," is a slogan used by Opposition parties in an attempt to trick their opponents into foolish resignations.

As for Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott - being finished politically?
Not according to their constituents they're not. I've got family members living in their areas - and their only criticisms are of Tony Abbott. They strongly feel that Labor needs to point out the two-faced nature of the man's responses on any number of issues. Like the NBN. When Tony Abbott goes aroung talking about a $50 billion or $100 billion NBN - that the cost is less than that - he needs to be held to account all the time. As for the immigration problems - if the
Malaysian solution works and the boats stop coming - this problem will disappear (simple as that). It may be working to tear down the
Gillard government but if you look at the latest polls - it's not building Tony Abbott's approval rating.

All the government has to do is continue to sell the merits of the budget. Part of the problem currently for the government is that at the moment they are busy governing plus the fact that they have to take everything past the independents and the crossbenches at every opportunity. Therefore it isn't easy to actually see a program through let alone sell it.

Belly and Lexi,

At the time of the election polling of the areas showed a nearly 3:1 2pp preference to the coalition more so in RO's electorate than TW's. While both separated from the Nationals some time ago the association and expectation of values were there. Recent test polling in their areas shows that their support base has largely eroded, and to quote a colleague of mine in Port Macquarie RO has more chance of falling pregnant than winning the next election. Of my various contacts in the area who originally voted for him, none will now.

Lexi, the Westminster system has MPs elected by constituency, as opposed say to the Italian system where they are elected based on proportional vote similar to the senate. In the lower house the only difference to the English system is the preferences.

P.S.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/i-got-it-wrong-michael-quigley-tells-mps/story-fn6tcs23-1226057092055

Quigley fesses up to a string of lies.

Lexi I live just out side both areas.
You are quite right.
In SM a little Tony Abbott lives.
In the coming months, may be weeks, Labor will have leadership.
It is still tainted by deliberate ignoring of Rudd's blemishes, with intent to take his place.
Reality is staring this country in the face.
Truth and good policy is not an issue.
On both sides.
Labor is out standing ,on the back bench, and in parts of its Cabernet.
Rudd lost his return ticket, he could have breezed back in right now, but he lost his chance.
Knowing what he knew he unleashed,during an election, you can not do that.
But a horror awaits us all, conservatives are going to win, without almost instant leadership change.
And win with no policy's or direction, another generation of Australians Will l live in a false and fraudulent time, as was the case post 1975, in a dirty pool built and filled by conservatives and Medea Barons remote from other than their cooperate interests.
Power has controlled this country's politics before.

Dear SM,

You are entitled to your opinion. However, that's all it is. Polls are only good for the time in which they're taken, and then it depends on the questions asked (remember the Republic referendum?), and the people interviewed. We all know things can change in a flash. You keep putting Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor down, and forecasting their doom. I too have relatives in Port Macquarie - and they don't agree with your take on things. Also, I wonder if you'd still be forecasting doom and gloom had they decided to support Tony Abbott during the last election? As Tony Windsor stated - Abbott begged them to be made PM.

I watched Q and A last night - if you didn't - you should try to get hold of last night's transcript of the show. It will be available after 2pm today. It just may give you an indication of what people are actually feeling about the government. As Anna Rose, Youth Climate Coalition, and Judge Felicity Hampel - County Court of Victoria, indicated - people are looking at long term solutions, not
quick fixes and instant gratification. And when things do come to fruition, when the 2011-12 Budget will get Australia back in the black, when more people are in jobs, when opportunities are more spread out, when there is a bigger workforce and more targeted investments in skills and training, and measures are put in place to encourage participation - when there is a regional solution to the refugee problem, et cetera - Abbott's rhetoric will end up on the dust bin of history - where it belongs.

cont'd ...

A small correction - I shouldn't refer to Abbott's "rhetoric," as they say on the news - it is a mindless, repeatitive mantra about nothing. "Blah, Blah, Blah,!" is all that's heard.

Dear Belly,

Make a note. Australian voters are not that stupid. Why on earth would they vote for someone who says nothing, offers nothing, and
simply condemns, attacks, and bleats. The same goes for the other party members. Did you watch Q and A last night? Eric Abetz was so out of sinc - coming across as a neanderthal - where do they get these people? You know what's coming the minute you see Abbott's face on television. I simply change the channel. And the same goes for all of his colleagues - Joe Hockey is an embarrassment (I used to like him once). But man, he's blustering, and arrogant...

Anwyay, wait and see what happens in the next three years - it's too early to judge yet. All the doom and gloom will disappear when the government achieves results - empty mantra's and fear mongering won't be able to compete with positive outcomes.

Sorry Lexi I am not holding my breath.
It is true Abbott is nothing.
But he soon may be gone Turnbull is a harder target,
We [ALP] are getting leadership change watch and wait.

Lexi,

It must be very frustrating for you that while you disagree with what Abbott says, but the rest of the "stupid" voters seem to be listening to him.

The labor and coalition voters are not as harmongenous as they used to be, and Abbott has been carefully eroding labor's support in one segment at a time, such as visits to steel works (union supporters). His other focus is Labor's incompetence and continuous backflips and broken promises. We are sure to hear more about the Building the Entertainment revolution.

Juliar might be talking up a storm, but the chances are that she will change her story whenever convenient, and so her word carries no weight.

It is interesting that the Greens support is also eroding.

Dear SM,

On the contrary - it's not hard for me at all. I'm actually delighted, especially after watching Q and A last night. Way to go
Bill Shorten, Anna Rose, Judge Felicity Hampel and audience!

You're doing the same repetition as Tony Abbott and Co. Just repeating things doesn't make them come true. You guys may think it works to tear down the Gillard government but if you look at the latest polls - it's not building Tony Abbott's. His personal approval also fell in Newspoll. You keep pointing to Julia Gillard's so called back flips while neglecting the two-faced nature of Tony Abbott's responses on any number of issues.

Australian voters are not stupid. They're after long-term solutions -
they're not impressed by fear-mongering and no policies - they want results. This government is there for the long haul, and is doing well, - and in three years down the track - with positive outcomes - your Party Leader's last grasp for power will have gone pffttt! There's only two words that may (just may) save your party and they are - "Malcolm Turnbull." But you'd better not waste any more time
and get on with the job of giving Tony Abbott the "election" he so badly craves. Elect a new leader - and soon! "Blah, Blah, Blah, is not going to work.

Long term solutions?

What major policy of Labor's looks anything like it did a year ago? What happened to "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"?

What happened to the Labor migration policy that JG drafted and Rudd implemented in 2008?

What happened to "we will not send asylum seekers to countries that are not signatories to the UNHCR"

What happened to East Timor?

What happened to the commitment to implement the Murray Darling plan?

What happened to the health policy?

What happened to the Cash for clunkers?

What happened to the Pink Batts?

What is happening to the NBN slowly sinking under cost blow outs?

etc etc etc.

Now tell me where the Australian voters can see Labor planning for the long term?

What Juliar means by the voters are looking to the long term is that she hopes to god that in 2 years they will have forgotten the stuff ups of the last 4 years.

Dear SM,

It's one thing to make promises when you're talking in your own right - and a different thing when you have to deal with other political partners. It often requires a change in policy to achieve a better result for the nation.

If you are interested in finger-pointing however, here's something to jog your memory:

"Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life," Prime Minister John Howard to ABC radio, 24 August 1995.

I'll list just two lies for you:

"It is our policy, without qualification, to retain Medicare...Not only does Medicare stay but so does bulk billing...They are the fundamentals, the underpinning of the polcy." John Howard Health Policy launch of "A Healthy Future," Feb. 1995.

The Truth:

"Non-one can guarantee bulk billing. No on can guarantee bulk billing without conscripting the medical profession. Medicare has never been universal bulk-billing-never." Tony Abbott, Minister for Health and Ageing, Meet the Press, 23 Nov. 2003.

John Howard Lie:

"There's no way that a GST will ever be a part of our policy."

Journalist: "Never, ever?"

John Howard: "Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election." John Howard, Interview, Tweed Heads Civic Centre, 2 May 1995.

The Truth:

"The bills before the House will enact a broad based goods and services tax that will be levelled at 10 percent and will start in July 2000." Peter Costello, Treasurer. A New Tax System (Good and Services Tax Bill) Second Reading Speech, 2 DEc. 1998.

And so it goes - I could go on and list at least - 35 lies told by John Howard, then I could go on and list all the double-faced flip flops of Tony Abbott, and so on. As I've stated in my earlier post - wait for the outcomes - then criticise. For now all you're doing is moaning and groaning the same old mantra of your party leader - which no-one's buying except for your party faithful. Get over it.

Lexi,

If those are the best you can come up with, then you are really desperate.

A promise is a promise "there will not be a carbon tax under the government I lead". Either she is leading a government or not.

1 When Howard had to back down over an election promise, because circumstances changed, he took it to a new election with the real risk that if the people rejected it he would lose. Juliar does not even have the decency to do the same.

2 With regards medicare and bulk billing, the two statements are not incompatible. 1995 promises to retain bulk billing and medicare, - 2003 says that bulk billing has never been the universal policy.

As far as I recall, there are still plenty of doctors bulk billing.

Lexi Bill Shorten will revive the ALP.
You however will never change Shadow Minister.
Better in my view we let him have his sand box

Dear Belly,

You're right. See you on another thread.