My ex is rather fond of claiming a change in circumstance to justify breaking commitments. Strangely enough other peoples change in circumstance don't seem to get much sympathy, just her own self serving definitions of a change of circumstance. Generally just a tactic to gain ground.

Debate will continue over definitions of lies, in the mean time people who break commitments when there were other options available can't be trusted.

Other option's available in the federal sphere included
- someone else could have lead the government
- we could have gone back to the polls
- the coalition could have tried to form government. Unlikely that they would have reached an agreement with the Greens so it was probably the second option as well.

I think the nitpicking over definitions of "lie" is just an excuse to try and justify dealing dishonestly with the Australian people. There were other options which were not tried.

For the record I've got a similar view of Newman's breaking of commitments regarding sackings of public servants in Qld, Newman made a commitment knowing the state budget was a massive mess. If he was not certain of being able to keep the commitment he should not have made it.

I'm not silly enough to think that Abbott won't also find some "change in circumstance" to justify breaking commitments he makes.

The sooner the party faithful stop excusing that stuff the sooner we start getting to a point of getting some more honesty back into politics.

Be nice to have a process where the breaking of an election commitment was a punishable crime unless it had bi-partisan support in parliament.

R0bert

DiamondPete, I agree that by definition Gillard didn’t lie.

However, having made the original assertion that “there would be no carbon tax under the government I lead”, it was then unforgivable to turn around and introduce it.

She should have simply said to the Greens that it was not open for discussion and that they needed to push for other things instead. And by crikey, there was so much more that the Greens should have pushed for, which is of similar or greater importance, which they could have won a great deal of support for from Labor.

In fact, the current political setup was an excellent opportunity for Australian politics to move substantially away from the addiction to growth and towards a paradigm of sustainability. But alas, we missed it entirely!

As much as I agree with the concept of a carbon tax, the integrity of our political office and faith in our nation’s leaders has got to take precedence.

As a result of this backflip, and a host of other similar things, we now have the most dismal level of trust and respect for our politicians, of all persuasions.

And then to complicate it further, we have ended up with a complete dud of carbon tax, which will do nothing to help wean us off of our addiction to fossil fuels and help engender movement towards a more sustainable society.

So there you go. That’s my opinion!

<< If all you can offer is an opinion, please don't take part in this topic. >>

Um…. DP, this is the Online Opinion Forum. I reckon it is entirely inappropriate to ask people to not express their opinion here... and I wonder how that bit got past the moderator!!

I remember the same attitude and strident commitment to 'proof' was applied by all supporters of the Left when Little Johnny 'lied'. Yeah right!

There is a commitment that was broken, as R0bert says, with many options available to fulfill the commitment.

She chose not to. Whether this was premeditated or not only Juliar knows.

Obviously she wasn't very committed to this commitment, so why make commitments in such strident terms (Which is important, she didn't need to make such a fuss about how committed she was) that you are happy to abandon at the slightest inconvenience.

So even in the absence of any proof, she lacks moral character by these actions. Don't make promises you cant keep. Especially so stridently and definitively before an election.

With this new Pollyanna definition of lying where one needs absolute proof, with this 'change of circumstances' defense (about as convincing as The Chewbacca Defense) one must not only leave their cynicism at the door but also their brain.

As I said, cold day in hell that The Rodent would be given such benefit of the doubt. Anyone interested in giving such a benefit of the doubt to a politician really is a true believer.

The Prime Minister made a statement of her intention that her government would not introduce legislation for a carbon tax . Unless some clairvoyant can establish that , when making that statement , she had no such intention , she did not lie . In legal proceedings , a person cannot be convicted of dishonesty for making a statement of intention unless the prosecution proves that the speaker had no such intention .

People often announce what they are intending to do and later either change their mind for personal reasons , or circumstances change , requiring the person to do something different from the original stated intention . In those circumstances , there is no lie .

The Prime Minister and her advisers believe that a carbon tax is the best solution for Australia . It is appropriate for the government to do so . If the Prime Minister failed to do this , because of the intention previously stated , she would deserve criticism .

In future , to avoid being criticised for "lies " all politicians seeking political office could qualify every statement which they make , by stating their intention , at time of speaking , but making it clear that this may have to be changed , if circumstances change . If they do this , they will be criticised for not speaking with certainty .

This parroting about Prime Ministerial " lies " is itself dishonest , ignorant , boring and has been done to death . The parrots should find some more intelligent insult to throw at the government .

Come off it! Julia spoke the truth when said she wouldn'tintroduce a carbon tax....but in the negotiations for power with Greens and independents that was the Greens price for supporting labour.

She supported Thomas,knowing he was a little crook, to keep his vote.
And bribed Slipper into becoming speaker so libs would lose his vote.
what wouldn't she do, to keep her job!

Anyway, I am bored with this forum, people arguing stridently with each other, only a few with condisered opinions. Is this how it is supposed to be?
So I leave it to you and good luck.

DP,

Here is an excerpt from an interview:

ALEXANDRA KIRK: So your problem is that you've had two opposing positions on carbon tax.

The fundamental problem is that you broke an election promise. You said before the election there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, and now you've shifted your position. So you don't have a mandate for a carbon tax.

JULIA GILLARD: Alex, we went to the 2007 election saying we had to price carbon and the best way of doing that was an emissions trading scheme where the market sets the price for carbon.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But you went to the last election…

JULIA GILLARD: We went to the 2010 election saying we need to price carbon and the best way of doing that is an emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.

What will we deliver? An emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.

Yes, there will be a period where the price is fixed, effectively like a carbon tax. But we will end up exactly where we promised Australians we would go. >>>

This is Juliar at her weasel best. Here she is saying that she always intended to price carbon, but this is not a carbon tax, just an emission trading scheme with a 2 year fixed price on carbon.

She later admitted that it was a carbon tax.

Unless she lied at this interview (a possibility) she clearly states that she always intended to impose a carbon tax. She just decided to call it something else.

Thus at the time she made the promise, she intended to break it. Thus she lied, and thus she is a liar.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

$50 to the guide dogs association would be great.