Broken promises. What is acceptable?

[i-need-a-martini]

Lots of broken promises are made by governments. If the promises are broken because of economic need, I understand.

But what of the empty promises that they know they can never keep. Like the 'Stop the Boats' promise?

Or this one: where Abbott promised at the Garma festival in the weeks leading up to the election that he would spend his first week as Prime Minister in Yolgnu country.

To break promises like this is just a low act by someone who knew he would never be able to keep it.

See where he says it clearly here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1OKujvU2wQ

I wouldn't bother to listen to the whole boring speech (although many of his off the cuff comments are a little eyebrow raising) but at 21:40 he starts making promises he can't keep.

[topsidesoul]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

I can Martini, no other poster speaks for me. Re your OP I do believe that now that the tables are turned and Tony Abbott is our PM I am noting very different standards being applied and/or acceptable or not .

---

LNP supporters and their party are the kids in the playground using ' force field' when playing tag or chasey....

They were happy to  stoop to low levels when they were in Opposition, but now they are leading they expect better from others.

They are going to change from the Liberal party to the  No logic party...LNP to NLP

[**meep**]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

I can see 2 last week -

The thread having a go at Bill Shorten where the poster ran away.

Donna mad monk thread which died a qick death.

Any others?

---

Sure, there were but don't get me wrong.  I am not complaining.  I wasn't complaining before the election and I am not complaining now, that was why i used inverted commas when i said 'worse'.   It was just an observation.   Before, the material was coming from fewer sources....What was it?  2 or 3 posters?   Now, there seems to be more posters = more topics.   Not that there is anything wrong with that...As i said, just an observation.

[just_me_karen]

Is the problem the increase in threads that oppose your view? because no way is there more mindless spam now, as there was prior to the election. The current political threads are discussions, not copy pasted from external sites without any OP commentary.

[izabsmiling]

that might explain the confusion Meep...as in the past we have seen inappropriate political graphics (the work of pickering) and the work of political ?Jouno's like Andrew Bolt republished here . Noted as you post here that you didn't complain then.It did appear as though you had a problem with more normal/socially acceptable political discussion.

edited to correct surname...my apologies to any Andrew Both's out there .

[**meep**]

---

@just_me_karen wrote:
Is the problem the increase in threads that oppose your view? because no way is there more mindless spam now, as there was prior to the election. The current political threads are discussions, not copy pasted from external sites without any OP commentary.

---

No, the ones I am referring to contain either cartoons in the OP, one liners or links to whatever sources without a comment that would  encourage debates.   I need to stress again, that I have no problems with them.   Free speech and all that...

And no Iza, no confusion.

[**meep**]

oh, there is something that i find a little more annoying now.  the hover feature is missing.     thread titles that are not indicative of the subject matter of politics especially if its just a cartoon or a link....But thats not a biggie either...

[twinkles**stars]

---

@topsidesoul wrote:

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Huh? All voters knew the GST would be introduced, there was no big secret about it. No broken promises. And yet the Liberals were voted in....easily.

---

Same could be said about the carbon tax......yet we know how that played out with all those horrible placards and hundreds of bludgers protesting out the front of parliment .....you knew it would come in so you shouldn't have called julia.....juliliar

---

Well I never called her anything but Julia Gillard or Ms Gillard. She wasn't a huge fan of mine but she did deserve respect.

[cherry*135]

Mr 'Infrastructure' has, last week, ditched $100m infrastructure projects in the region I live in. Fair enough the projects were agreed to by Labor and no contracts had been signed prior to election.. but couldn't the Libs have looked into them more before they ditched them so quickly... seeing as spending money on infrstructure was one to TA's big election promises?

[cherry*135]

Interesting article -  Ross Gittins-  (economics editor from SMH), comment

23 Sept

The Coalition is heading backwards

I'm starting to think we didn't get much of a deal when we decided to change the federal government.

We got rid of a bunch racked by infighting and bad at executing policy, but substituted a bunch with a very limited idea of what needed to be changed to get us back on the right path.

What a to-do list:

sack econocrats guilty of having worked with the enemy,

pass an edict against climate change and discourage all discussion of it,

stop publicising boat arrivals,

build more motorways,

move to a cut-price national broadband network

and take science for granted.

It's early days, of course, and there's more, but not a whole lot more:

abolishing the onerous tax on our impoverished global mining companies,

getting rid of red and green tape (translation: making it easier for big business to get its way without delay)

and beating up the Tax Office for being too diligent in making small business pay its tax.

It's as if Tony Abbott believes returning the Liberals to power will, of itself, solve most of our problems. Everything was fine when we last had a Liberal government, so restore the Libs and everything will be fine again.

...In summary, McAuley [economist at the University of Canberra] says we need to understand the risks of being too dependent on natural resources, break from our old obsession with producing physical products, focus on increasing customer value and not just reducing costs, get rid of the class struggle model of economic activity, stop thinking the only goal is job creation and develop realistic ideas about the rate of profitability.

''We pay far too little attention to our human capital. We still see education expenditure as an expense, or even as a welfare entitlement. And we pay even less attention to our environmental, social and institutional capital,'' he concludes.

It's hard to imagine Abbott has any of these things in his field of vision.

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1800258/the-coalition-is-heading-backwards/?cs=298

[izabsmiling]

---

@topsidesoul wrote:

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Huh? All voters knew the GST would be introduced, there was no big secret about it. No broken promises. And yet the Liberals were voted in....easily.

---

Same could be said about the carbon tax......yet we know how that played out with all those horrible placards and hundreds of bludgers protesting out the front of parliment .....you knew it would come in so you shouldn't have called julia.....juliliar

---

Hi Topsidesoul, Julia Gillard's wording was 'under a Government I lead'...however the election result was a hung parliament in which  she wasn't in total control of  all the outcomes and needed to negotiate .

Taxing the truth: why we must not let Abbott's dogmas lie

Date July 7, 2012 Ian Robinson

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott constantly accuses the Prime Minister of 'lying' when she made a commitment before the last election not to introduce a tax on carbon. But who's the liar here?

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/taxing-the-truth-why-we-must-not-let-abbott...