Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Voters punish those who tell the whole truth

By Graham Young - posted Tuesday, 27 May 2014


Like the last, this parliament looks as though it will be obsessed by who lied, and didn't, and just what constitutes a lie.

It's not an obsession that most electors hold.

As the old joke goes – "How do you know when a politician is lying?" "Their lips are moving". We expect our politicians to lie, and we don't generally accept it as being a meaningful distinction between politicians of different stripes, unless we are partisans.

Advertisement

We distinguish on the basis of other factors. Do they care? Are they effective? Do they give me what I want?

John Howard understood this.

When charged with lying by Mark Latham on the basis of his words he pivoted to performance and contrasted lying with trust: "Who do you trust to keep the economy strong, and protect family living standards? Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?"

There is something ritual and unavoidable about the political lie. In a mad world, only the made are sane, and in a world of illusion where people want to believe a lie, only a mad, or foolhardy, person would tell the truth.

Not that most of what happens in politics is dishonest, but election campaigns, are particularly prone to the salesman's wishful thinking.

Sometimes the pitch just shades the truth, "paltering with us in a double sense" and burying the facts in the fine print. Or it directs attention away from the unpleasant consequences of a policy.

Advertisement

Other times the pitch is coloured by the knowledge that there's no personal harm in being reckless, because the chances of winning the next election are non-existent, so delivery of a promise is a non-problem.

Treasurer Joe Hockey is the one having to fess up to breaking promises at the moment, but his opposition number Chris Bowen is only 3.49% of the two-party preferred vote away from having been in much the same position.

Whoever won the last election was going to have to pull things back, and in a tradition going back at least to Malcolm Fraser and the 1977 "Fistful of dollars" election, or Bob Hawke in 1983, find that the cupboard was bare.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published by the Australian Financial Review.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

29 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 29 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy