Topic: John Howard's definitions of Core and Non-Core promises ....

[Gary Shadforth]

Electors need to fully understand John Howard's definitions of Core and Non-Core promises.

For him, a core promises are those which he keeps in mind to hold traction for number crunching votes for the next federal election in 2010. A non-core promise, of which there will be many after November 24, are those he didn't intend to hold but were attractive to the electorates at the time with his pork barrelling.

And while we are discussing porkies, Mr Howard should be aware that it is not funds belonging to his government but monies belonging to the Australian taxpayer of which he and his cohorts are trustee custodians, pure and simple. To hoard a large portion of the budget surplus as a war-chest come election time, rather than spending as his term progressed on much needed areas such as health, roads and general welfare is nothing short of a national disgrace. Out in the electorates he takes us for mugs.

This letter of mine was published yesterday in Brisbane's Courier Mail and the Tweed Heads Coolangatta Daily News newspapers.

 

[MrMeaner]

Also remember Janette Howard's startlingly candid quote from Howard's recent biography:

"You talk about a whole lot of things when you're trying to convince people to do things," she says. "But you don't go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it and John wasn't into making firm commitments."

He still isn't.

 

[The Demon]

Also remember Janette Howard's startlingly candid quote from Howard's recent biography:



He still isn't.

How is it this bloke is still PM? It defies logic.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

How is it this bloke is still PM? It defies logic.

It seems that after 11 years the Australian electorate a waking up to the shifty little rodent.

Itwill be interesting after fellow Libs see the back of him what will be said by present ministers such as Costello, Downer, Abbot, Monty Burns and co. Watch out what these guys will be saying about their former leader after they don't have a need to suck up to him.

And will those guys be on the opposition benches or will there be a string of by-elections soon after November 24.

 

[fugu]

It seems that after 11 years the Australian electorate a waking up to the shifty little rodent

Please no chicken counting yet Gaz

 

[DaveW]

Also remember Janette Howard's startlingly candid quote from Howard's recent biography:

"You talk about a whole lot of things when you're trying to convince people to do things," she says. "But you don't go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it and John wasn't into making firm commitments."

He still isn't.

As one journalist put it (forget who), there are now firm and non-firm commitments.

 

[camsmith]

I'm sick of this 'the electorate are finally waking up' crap. After 11 years you can expect some voters to want a change, no matter who the PM is.

The fact that the economy is so good and people still believe Liberals are the better economic mangers, yet the coalition trail in the polls is proof of this.

Gary Shadforth are you the union stooge who tried to run up to John Howard the other day blabbering on about core and non-core promises?

 

[bzparkes]

I'm sick of this 'the electorate are finally waking up' crap. After 11 years you can expect some voters to want a change, no matter who the PM is.

The fact that the economy is so good and people still believe Liberals are the better economic mangers, yet the coalition trail in the polls is proof of this.

Gary Shadforth are you the union stooge who tried to run up to John Howard the other day blabbering on about core and non-core promises?

Ahem, if you promise something in an election, you should keep it. Not promise all this shit during the campaign and then say 'Oh, I didn't really mean it' after you've won it. Pretty shit if you ask anyone.

 

[camsmith]

Situations change.

But if they do break them, like Bracks did here in Victoria, expect to pay the price in the next election - thats democracy.

 

[bzparkes]

Situations change.

But if they do break them, like Bracks did here in Victoria, expect to pay the price in the next election - thats democracy.

Yes they do. Tampa, 911 and the Iraq War, Children overboard, etc... Situations change but promises shouldn't. Unfortunately the only situation that changed is that Howard kept getting re-elected, thus didn't have to keep any of his promises.

 

[TheGodDelusion]

Situations change.

But if they do break them, like Bracks did here in Victoria

Oh the irony. It's ok for JWH to go back on his work because the situation changed, but not for Bracks.

 

[Dry Rot]

Anyone else here old enough to remember how the nic "Honest John" came about?

 

[bzparkes]

Anyone else here old enough to remember how the nic "Honest John" came about?

Ray Martin?

 

[Dry Rot]

Ray Martin?

No. IIRC he promised tax cuts when Treasurer and then broke the promise when re-elected, or something like that.

 

[bzparkes]

No. IIRC he promised tax cuts when Treasurer and then broke the promise when re-elected, or something like that.

Hmph, that's unsurprising.

 

[medusala]

Never ceases to amaze me how utterly naive progressive types are.

Of course pollies change tack in the three years of their term. Do you think Keating went to an election promising all the things he did?

John Maynard Keynes was accused of similar, his reply was

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?",

 

[bzparkes]

Never ceases to amaze me how utterly naive progressive types are.

Of course pollies change tack in the three years of their term. Do you think Keating went to an election promising all the things he did?

John Maynard Keynes was accused of similar, his reply was

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?",

So Howard was perfectly in his right to 'change his mind' after he got elected, thus nullifying all the promises he made before any of the elections?

 

[TheBloods]

Ah, so this is one of those quality and insightful threads...

 

[Pessimistic]

If most of us agree he has done this, is there not a very clear danger if he gets away with it that the entire government very quickly becomes corrupt and rotten to the core (if not already ?) Thats probably the main reason to avouiod longevity in government. Its not as if howard has renewed his 'team' they are as lazy and shifty as he is.

Howards own words "if the australian public sees by ministers as non performing, its up to them to vote us out - not my job to sack them.

He hasnt said that in the election but its great advice nontheless.

If people see this as the problem, and Rudd is seen as a similar moderate in policy direction - its an easy decision.

Rudd would have to recognise the electrate might be vry cynical sfter howard andf hawke keating government and might mark him harshly if he is untruthful, lazy or corrupt - the reasons howard will be dumped.

Also funny how Howard and co have been banging on about 'australian' values yet the workchoices undermeined one of the most deeply held one - a fair wage. Not even Pauline Hansonwould have touched that. JWH became very adept at guaging and following the public mood- but was totally wrong on such an important one - which party is hamstrung by its Ideology again ?

Lat point - the anti union advertising - does JWH realise his workchoices has made them far more relevant then re-electing Rudd will ?

 

[dan warna]

lol at camsmith

situations change = liberal politicians lie
bringing up bracks = deflection

lol at anyone suprised any politician is expected to be honest. lol at camsmith making excuses for lying politicians.

 

[camsmith]

lol at camsmith

situations change = liberal politicians lie
bringing up bracks = deflection

lol at anyone suprised any politician is expected to be honest. lol at camsmith making excuses for lying politicians.

I just gave an example, if the lie is big enough.. the party will pay for it. The first example of this that came to my head was the situation of Bracks changing his mind on the tollway. In the Eastern Suburbs (who were most affected by it) they had a swing against them specifically because of that.

If Howard had told a lie that was so bad it changed how people voted I would have given that as an example, as yet however, he hasn't. Just because lefties are up in arms on BF doesn't mean the general population care.

 

[jimmy.h]

I just gave an example, if the lie is big enough.. the party will pay for it. The first example of this that came to my head was the situation of Bracks changing his mind on the tollway. In the Eastern Suburbs (who were most affected by it) they had a swing against them specifically because of that.

The swing in the Eastern suburbs was mainly some of the traditional liberal vote returning after the landslide of of 2002. With the exception of maybe some of the swing in a few electorates, it's hard to attribute much electoral problems caused by the tolls. Bracks lost 3 or 4 eastern suburbs seats, which he would almost have certainly lost anyway.

I really don't see how "the party paid" for the toll issue. At most you could claim their majority is in the low rather than mid 20s