rstuart, the stuff that I've seen from Julia on the topic seems to be that she is claiming that she is not being forced into it. Whilst I don't necessarily believe her that's not really the issue.

If she can't stick to such clear commitments then she should say so and let the voters have another go at it. She might have had a better chance at the an outright win by showing that power was less important than integrity.

Lexi I already made that point. I don't recall Howard denying that he would try and reform industrial relations either (does not make it Ok just a different thing to saying you won't).

My position is pretty clear, no major policy initiatives which were not part of announced policy during the preceding election without bi-partisan support. If it's considered crucial then back to the people. It may result in some extra elections but I suspect that parties would quickly learn what was worth it and what was not worth it.

R0bert

@R0bert: If she can't stick to such clear commitments then she should say so and let the voters have another go at it.

If you can show me where she said would not support a carbon tax, I'll agree with you because in effect she promised not to vote for it. But if all you can show is her saying she would not implement a carbon tax if elected than all bets are off. We didn't elect her.

To me there is a big difference between between a party promising that under no circumstances they will support a policy, and them saying they won't do it, but they won't actively undermine it either. I don't ever recall getting the impression that if the greens got elected and tried to implement a carbon tax, Labor would go out of its way to undermine it. Did you?

By the way Abbott has made a lot of promises now. He has said he will repeal the mining tax, destroy the NBN, get rid of carbon tax, and give everybody tax cuts, and keep the budget in balance at the same time. Unlike Gillard's no carbon tax promise these are very definite, solid promises. I don't think it is possible keep them. Will you be holding him to the same standard if he is elected?

"without bi-partisan support..." RObert?
According to dictionary.com, Bipartisan is defined as:
"representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions"
It seems as you yourself admit, not only did Gillard have the support of more than 2 factions -Greens and independents- but it was they who pretty much forced her into it