SM,

"Howard in saying "never, ever"......meant that one would be technically lying even a decade later."

Well let's face it, we are talking "technically" here - or was your previous post an "untechnical" explanation. If you're going to get involved in technicalities to bounce Julia, you shouldn't mitigate them to excuse John Howard.

btw, I had forgotten just what an honourable character was Mr Howard - I mean taking things to an election is all very noble and all that. Have you got a technical explanation for introducing major legislation that you failed to mention in your election spiel? Something along the lines of "lying by "omission" (as in introducing Work Choices without taking it to an election?)

Technically,

Every politician that promised something and didn't follow through would be a liar, which is a breach of trust. However, the depth of the breach is really what counts.

If one signs a purchase agreement for a house based on expectations stated by the seller, and:

1) just before the sale goes through, the seller contacts you and says that he made an error with a substantial promise, and offers to cancel the sale at no cost.

2) The "error" comes to light after the sale goes through, and the seller's response is "hard luck" or tries to wiggle out by saying that the reality is what she meant and that buyer should have understood her intentions.

1) is Howard.
2) is Juliar.

Poirot I am sorry, clearly on your last post you need no help with fishing.
Discarding my rubber bait you Selected the live bait of truth.
Well done.
Well dome MS Gillard too, having put a gap between her and Abbott.
However I prefer both to find other jobs, Say Abbott speech writer for a door to door salesman?
Gillard looks a shoe in for over seeing property transfers.

Does the original context of this thread still have any bearing?

As I interpret it an attempt to use a fairly specific interpretation of lying and the lack of proof of a pre-mediated intent to break the commitment made by Julia Gillard to then try and rebut the idea that she has behaved dishonestly in reneging on that commitment.

It is valid to try explore broader definitions of lying (pre-mediation can be very difficult to prove and is in the view not the only criteria for dishonesty).

Whilst I'm not a great fan of SM's one sided political commentary some of the rebuttal looks more like word games than an honest attempt to address the issue. There is a massive difference between Howard's change of view on a GST and taking it to an election and Gillards commitment and subsequent breaking of that committment.

Perhaps a better point to discuss respective honesty would be the point where Howard became aware of the Navy's view on the children overboard claims and his subsequent comments on the issue. Or maybe if anyone has more detailed info it could be asked at what point he became aware that the US's claims about WMD in Iraq were a fabrication and his subsequent actions.

The Workchoices issue has already been raised, in my view different to a commitment not to do something then doing it but a large enough unannounced policy initiative to be a concern. I hope the following election result set a precedent for the outcome following such a choice.

R0bert

You know, RObert. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are correct : )

Reading SM's majestic and sterling rhetorical gobbedlygook a few posts back, somehow got me going. Anyone who quotes such contorted and opaque reasoning in an attempt to prove their point, deserves a rebuttal - don't you think?

I worry about SM, I really do. He's going to put his back out dragging such turbid prose around OLO.

Cheers

Poirot,

Robert has actually grasped the idea. While you might want to look at the broader issues, that is actually not what the thread was about which was specifically whether it could be claimed that the PM lied.

This particular poster has in other threads tried to claim:
1 That the PM did not lie, and at worst it was a broken promise.
2 that "broken promise" about no carbon tax was only a minor breach of faith as Labor had always wanted to price carbon and the carbon tax was an interim measure to a ETS.

The reality is that Juliar's guarantee that there would not be a carbon tax was broken within weeks, for no reason other that political expediency, and secondly after the fixed price lapses, the "ETS" still requires that companies buy permits which is in itself a tax on carbon. The only way an ETS would not be a tax would be if the money from the sale of the permits did not go directly to state revenue.

While I understand that big words are gobbedlygook for you, and that definitions more precise than the collins pocket dictionary are confusing, please try and that "it is better to keep you mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot than speak and confirm it".