Poirot,

Actually, "core" and "non core" have been common parlance for decades. Howard was referring to his cutting of public spending after Labor promising to deliver a surplus in 1996 delivered a huge (in those times) $9bn deficit.

Looks like history repeating itself. Labor Lying and running up debt.

SM,

Obviously "core" and "non-core" has been common parlance.....but the Howard government adopted it as an "ingenious" way to ditch their promises.

SM sorry to hear you are near broke.
Cooking sherry?
Only the finest of Port went into my pudding.
LOVE you exposing the unhappy man within you.
Never met an Injuneer I trusted with other than sweeping the office.
No good wishing you a happy new year you would grumble if it rained Gold Coins.
And try to convince me they are Silver, Buckley's bloke.
So? enjoy being unhappy.

Actually Poirot,

Howard used the phrase "non-core promise" once and once only to describe the spending cuts required to service Labor debt. No mention of core promises. Labor has expanded and used the term since.

That Labor merrily breaks all promises seems to escape them. Thus Labor has adopted the term Juliar.

Belly

That was pretty feeble.

Come now, SM...if Howard mentioned "non-core" promises, what he meant was is: "These are the promises that we do not intend to honour".

"Non-core" sounds much more amenable.

Poirot,

Either you are semi illiterate or being obtuse.

Given that Labor in usual fashion had broken its major promises and left a $9bn black hole in the budget, some sacrifices were required that would not have been necessary had the budget been in the shape that Labor claimed.

The choice was to continue Labor's spending and meet the low priority promises, or balance the budget and keep a fundamental promise that was core to Liberal values.

Labor appears to have no core values whatsoever.