“No cuts to the ABC or SBS,” Tony Abbott repeatedly insisted before the last election. And he was a man to keep his promises, come what may. “It is an absolute principle of democracy,” Abbott had said in 2011, “that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.” In an election debate with Kevin Rudd last year, Abbott confirmed this approach — he would keep all his promises and delay the return to surplus if need be.
Now the national broadcasters face $300 million in cuts, with the ABC to lose at least $50 million a year for five years, a cut that will wipe out the additional funding provided to the ABC by both the Howard government and Rudd/Gillard governments over the last decade.
That many in the Coalition want to target the ABC for its perceived bias is well known, as is the enthusiasm for the government’s ardent supporter, News Corporation, for the destruction of a public broadcaster that competes very effectively with News Corp across a range of platforms. But the insouciance with which the Prime Minister has broken this promise — along with so many others — in the 14 months since being elected is surely one of the problems behind the government’s poor public esteem and dire polling. Voters’ trust can be a fragile thing for even the most skilful politician, but Abbott seems almost to have gone out of his way to flagrantly breach his pre-election undertakings in a way even the most disengaged voter must surely have observed.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the government’s constant focus on national security and foreign policy has failed to prompt any significant improvement in its polling is because those issues require voters to trust a national leader. And Abbott seems to have squandered whatever trust voters may have ever had in him very quickly indeed.
24 thoughts on “Crikey says: Abbott has a trust problem”
klewso
November 19, 2014 at 12:27 pm“Politics”? “Jagophobia”?
What’s that old GBS saying “Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach”?
[At Gatton we had a lecturer so full of his own infallibility that he couldn’t countenance the possibility that it could refer to anything beyond “facial features”.]
Venise Alstergren
November 19, 2014 at 4:02 pmTony Abbott’s lies are so huge that Cardnal Pell must be weary from translating the results to God.
Norman Hanscombe
November 19, 2014 at 5:11 pmklewso, on the evidence of your posts there’s no difficulty in assuming you may have lacked competent lecturers — but that may not have been the only factor.
Norman Hanscombe
November 19, 2014 at 5:14 pmSorry, Cantbeeffed, I almost overlooked you. Whatever problems klewso is having, you certainly don’t need any less help than he does.
Norman Hanscombe
November 19, 2014 at 5:27 pmThe Pav, your posts show similar intellectual content to the famous reactions of Pavlov’s Dogs.
Your latest effort, an asinine question re whether I’d [and these WERE your words] “rather be punched fifty times or tapped once lightly on the wrist”, hits new nadirs of stupidity. The subsequent ‘challenge’ that you “don’t expect (me) to have the courage to answer the question as it would require (me) to face the truth” makes any nonsense others may have posted look almost reasonable.
drsmithy
November 19, 2014 at 6:36 pmFirst reply seems to have been eaten by the moderation filter.
Drsmithy, it’s sad that your command of basic language isn’t sufficient for you to understand it wasn’t a lie by Gillard to make a promise and then find she couldn’t carry it out.
She didn’t “make a promise and then find she couldn’t carry it out”, though. Your premise is broken.
Norman Hanscombe
November 19, 2014 at 7:39 pmdrsmithy, since you obviously don’t understand that what you think is a “broken” (sic) premise is in fact TWO premisses, there really isn’t much point trying to help you. As a final point, however, in case you think “premisses” is a spelling mistake [and on past evidence this is likely] please first check a reputable Dictionary of Philosophy and you’ll find it’s not.
drsmithy
November 19, 2014 at 8:47 pmdrsmithy, since you obviously don’t understand that what you think is a “broken” (sic) premise is in fact TWO premisses, […]
I understand it perfectly well. Crawling before walking, and all that.
As a final point, however, in case you think “premisses” is a spelling mistake [and on past evidence this is likely] please first check a reputable Dictionary of Philosophy and you’ll find it’s not.
I’m not so small minded and egotistical as to attack people about their spelling.
max steinman
November 19, 2014 at 11:55 pmNorman your unbridled contempt is showing.
Norman Hanscombe
November 20, 2014 at 6:56 amMax, “unbridled” is a tad strong. Much of my life has been spent helping students and others who needed assistance, and it has given me great satisfaction to have been able to do this. I had to cope with very limited self-confidence as a kid plus victimisation arising from my family’s beliefs so I also learnt to empathise with others’ problems.
On blog sites, however, when anonymous posters initiate fatuous spiteful attacks on public figures based primarily upon the haters’ personal “true Believer” status, I must admit to not rating their efforts contemptible, even though I acknowledge their genuine psychological needs.
Now for a cup of coffee.