Post this far and wide.Bob Kernohan was President of the AWU when workers turned up at his office demanding payment for works done on Juia's house at Abbottsford. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEBgxVo5gTA&feature=related_embedded

Bob in the second clip says he was offered a safe Labor seat if he shut his mouth. He was sent 3 bullets and severely bashed for being honest.

Some meat remains to be picked from this bone arjay.
My life, even if I was also a member of other unions, at the same time, is proudly AWU.
I have no doubt, it is and always has been our best union./
TOO that it always has had fleas.
In this case the Union, GOD I HOPE SO! knew nothing about the grubs .
Gillard must have.
My first reaction was she may not have, I watched it grow, other than silent folk on the side watching me defile the word SOLIDARITY , say just what it is, a method of not telling union membership the truth.
I am likely the only one here who walked those union, legal, rooms.
This was always too big for Gillard not to know.
A basic, unions formed to give power to workers,fairness, and to give life to the ALP.
How strange if using the word SOLIDARITY, that SOME in Labor strangle its parent.
I TRUST THE BRILLIANT LEADERSHIP OF TODAYS AWU.
But remind even them,of the reason we exist.

DP, One thing about being delusional, is you can simply believe anything you wish to.

Let me know if you wish to visit the real world, I will try to find a space for you.

Diamond Pete,

You lied, you did the same as Juliar, you made a promise you had no intention of keeping, and are trying to use semantics to wiggle out of it.

The reality is that her promise "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" is unequivocal, and is a promise not only that there will be no tax, but that all reasonable action will be taken to prevent this.

Given that within days of this promise we then found out that we were getting a carbon tax.

Given Juliar's own words that she always intended to put a price on carbon, (which is by definition a tax), it is an admission that she lied.

We thus have proof beyond balance of probability (required for civil cases) and beyond reasonable doubt that Julia Gillard and Diamond Pete lied.

When I look at this thread I'm reminded of a comment made some years ago by Peter Garrett. Wish I could find a link but it was along the lines of when we are in government we will do what we want.

Intent is unprovable unless documentation or a witness is found showing the intent to break the committment. Personally I don't see much difference between a lie with intent and failure to keep a committment when there were other options available and the person has gained from the committment.

If fill my car with petrol thinking that I can pay for that petrol then find I don't have the means to pay it does not relieve me of the responsibility to pay. I need to negotiate with the service station arrangements that suit them, not just announce a change in circumstance and keep the petrol leaving the loss with the petrol station.

Its clear that Gillard had other options, her oen ambitions for power may have been hindered by keeping her word but there were options available which could have kept the committment.

R0bert

Ludwig
It was IMO a broken promise. I can't remember exact words but after the Carbon Tax was proving electorally unpopular, the PM did say 'There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead' or words close to that. There is no reason to believe JG would have not honoured that promise had there not been a minority government. It may well have done something along ETS lines with support of LNP - who knows as it is all moot.

But this is just semantics. The word 'lie' has more impact which is why LNP supporters use it.

Is it also a lie when a government uses a Senate majority to bring in legislation never revealed to the electorate prior to an election. eg. Workchoices. Not a lie technically but it was dishonest nevertheless