Paul1405: Big Clive's in trouble,

Yes he is, not only with only two Senators left.

Paul1405: Jaques around the twists.

Is she. She is at least standing up for her State & what she believes in. She's not doing back room deals with the two Major Parties. She, at least is trying to force the LNP into making good Legislation for all Australians, not Legislation based on, "What ever you're for we're against because you're the enemy."

Regardless of which side of politics you are on they ALL lie. It just goes with being a Politician.

It certainly shows how on the nose the lieberals are when even runner's support is lukewarm.

Todays question time was a classic example of a government on the defensive. They just keep digging the hole deeper every day.
It is always a sign of a fatally wounded government when the opposition and the public laugh at your every word.

They had the chance but they blew it with their dishonest, ideology driven attack on the poorest and those least able to fight back. Or so they thought. It turns out that despite a few nasty penchants regarding outsiders and the endless frivolity of slagging the unemployed etc the Aussie public does care about those less well off and wont stand for them being harmed or cut off from support and help when they need it.

The lieberals are finished.
Nothing can save them.
A change of leader would be a farce the same as it was when Labor did it.
A reversal of their dogmatic budget would open them to total ridicule on the left and probably vicious revenge from their master murdoch.
A double dissolution would see them decimated
and holding the same course, deep in the gutter, till the next election will see them electorally lynched.

People, please define what's the difference between not having the ability to eventually fulfill a commitment, and lying? I think this needs to be cleared up before the current state of the discussion can have some credibility.

For example, a mother can say to her children, "next month I'll take you to Luna Park". The mother has the genuine intention of taking them to Luna park. Then one week later she loses her job, so because of this she can't afford to take the kids to Luna Park, so the kids don't get to go there. Did she lie to her children when she said, "next month I'll take you to Luna Park"?

The same principle applies even if the mother simply changed her mind. If she had the genuine intention to take the kids to Luna Park, told them so, then later changed her mind, does this mean she lied to her kids when she originally told them they're going to Luna park?

Dear runner,

Criticising a politician's or a political party's
behaviour does not amount to "hatred." Holding
politicians accountable is part and parcel of
a democracy. Voters are entitled to be critical -
as you should well
know - having yourself displayed some very robust and strong
views against politicians and parties you haven't
approved of on this forum.

According to recent surveys - and political
commentators and journalists - trust in all the major
parties is at an all time low. It seems that
from the voters' point of view - there's not much trust,
not much faith, and no inspiration. Victorians are going
to the polls this Saturday and according to the
experts - a Premier won't be voted
in next week: he'll get there by default.

Most of us know why more
inspiring people and those who are genuine visionaries and
leaders don't put up their hands for the jobs. We're
told by commentators regularly - of various political
persuasions.
If the party machines don't grind them down (i.e. if
they can bring themselves to sign onto their incredibly
limited party platforms) then the media gotcha game will
grind them out.

That's the political state of play
Sad as it is.

Pesky_boy, the language gets messy around broken committments. If the committment to do (or not do something ) is part of an incentive to get someone else to do something then in my view the responsibility rests with the person making the committment to fulfill it or seek the approval of the person the committment was given to regarding a change.

If politicians make a committment to help get elected and a change of circumstance makes that committment difficult to fulfil then in my view it should be back to the poles unless both sides of politics agree that it is a genuine change of circumstance.

I would like to see some of the rules that give a massive advantage to the incumbant when it comes to costing of election promises changed to remove some of the issues around that aspect of politics as well.

R0bert