SA Footy

Laurie Oakes today.

Pretty much as I've been saying.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/edi ... 6016151079

Note the part about John Howard proposing the same carbon tax, but bigger.

However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"

I'm wondering what changed - it's OK to say circumstances have changed, I just haven't seen any offering from the Govt to indicate what it is.

Yes, she did say that and has to wear fair criticism for it.

To say, though, that she is the first PM to do that is surely nonsense.

Much is made of John Howard's 'never, ever' statement. Somehow that is excused because he subsequently took it to an election. To me, though, I'd interpret 'never, ever' as meaning....ummm, ...'never, ever'?

I also note the lack of any comparison on here about Howard lying about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard, or perhaps committing us to a war on the basis that we had to stop Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction'. No, the greatest betrayal of the people is suddenly Julia Gillard bringing in a carbon tax.

Fair question about what has changed, smac.

What has changed is politics. The numbers are not there to govern in her own right. It's a coalition and the numbers are there now.

I recall Tony Abbott offering Wilkie and Windsor 'whatever they wanted' to gain power. I recall Abbott agreeing to nearly all the demands of Bob Katter, for goodness sake, so no-one can suggest it would have been any different if Abbott had won the election.

Gillard said she wouldn't bring in a carbon tax and now she's doing so. She'll be judged at the next election on that and many other things.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say and to be honest try not to dwell too much on the past. The GST has been in for over a decade now, I've long moved on from that one and all the other broken promises and certainly expect to see many more before my time is up.

I wish all politicians and political commentators (whether they be professional or amateur) would just focus on what is happening now and make efforts to hold the current Govt accountable for what they say and do without smoke and mirrors.

Yes, I agree, the mistakes of the past don't excuse today's mistakes.

I think government is much harder now. Whatever is done, half those with an opinion are going to think it's terrible, regardless.

Yes, that's certainly the case. It's one thing to hold Govt accountable, another completely to be obstructing/dissenting for the sake of it.

Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"

Given that Labor weren't actually elected into Government, the 'broken promise' shouldn't even be an issue.

One question re this...

I accept that it may have happened under a Coalition Govt, but did TA ever rule it out categorically, like JG did?

Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"

You mean, like a non-core promise?

dedja wrote:

Psyber wrote:However, Julia did make a clear promise that it wouldn't happen under her government if elected.
I think such blatant deception of the electorate should not be glossed over.
The argument that it "had to happen", so it is OK is like saying, "It doesn't count - we had our fingers crossed!"

You mean, like a non-core promise?

Point taken mate, but this is a big one - actually either lying the night before an election, or breaking a major promise, over an issue that could have been a key to the result.

John Howard lied about 'children overboard' just before an election.

John Howard lied about the biggest issue the country can have - going to war.

Our search for the non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' cost untold thousands their lives.

I doubt this is in the same league, but it's certainly being treated as such.

As I stated above, ALP weren't elected into Government so the 'broken promise' hysteria is redundant.

Quichey wrote:As I stated above, ALP weren't elected into Government so the 'broken promise' hysteria is redundant.

That's a weak excuse - they formed a government after making that promise - the promise should have been non-negotiable.
However, that may be rectified - Tony Windsor is obviously not entirely happy.
[And yes I would have been just as critical of Tony Abbott had it been him.]

It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.

Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.

So you find it acceptable to introduce policy which goes against their own beliefs just so they can remain in power?

Bat Pad wrote:

Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.

So you find it acceptable to introduce policy which goes against their own beliefs just so they can remain in power?

The post-election negotiations involved compromise from both major parties. Personally, I'm glad that compromise has resulted in direct action on climate change and I'm happy that the denialists are having to suspend their beliefs.

Quichey wrote:

Bat Pad wrote:

Quichey wrote:It's not an attempt at an excuse. It's the result of a hung parliament.

So you find it acceptable to introduce policy which goes against their own beliefs just so they can remain in power?

The post-election negotiations involved compromise from both major parties. Personally, I'm glad that compromise has resulted in direct action on climate change and I'm happy that the denialists are having to suspend their beliefs.

So you are glad she negotiated away her own beliefs (that there should not be a carbon tax) for power. You are fine to be happy with that if you feel that strongly about a carbon tax. She obviously didn't feel that strongly on the issue however, I mean, I have no doubt you have strong views in favour of multiculturalism.

Would you negotiate to re-introduce The White Australia Policy for power with One Nation if they were holding the balance of power?

Her lack of conviction on the issue says to me that if she can negotiate this issue in to hold onto power, she can just as easily neogtiate it away should the need arise.

Would I be a politician?

A shift in voting away from the major parties was largely due to neither of them being willing to accept or act upon climate change, so the post election negotiations would inevitably involve negotiating a position on climate change policy.

I don't for a second believe there is much integrity in Australian politics (events in the last decade or two have eroded any shreds of faith), so I would not be surprised at a backflip. The only thing preventing a backflip is electoral annihilation.

Quichey wrote:Would I be a politician?
A shift in voting away from the major parties was largely due to neither of them being willing to accept or act upon climate change, so the post election negotiations would inevitably involve negotiating a position on climate change policy.
I don't for a second believe there is much integrity in Australian politics (events in the last decade or two have eroded any shreds of faith), so I would not be surprised at a backflip. The only thing preventing a backflip is electoral annihilation.

The strength of protest against the ALP since the carbon tax announcement raises questions about that assumption.
I suspect it was more because the voters were disillusioned with both major parties and both leaders, and the Democrats had done themselves in and were no longer there as a protest party.
No doubt there was also some general sympathy towards Green concepts, but that does not translate into a mandate for the implementation of the Greens policies.