Sigh....
I don't give a crap about Uranium mining one way or another. There is a point here that those with blinkers are missing...
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
Newman changed his mind because the feds decided to sell Uranium to India. He can see a buck in it. Newman has broken countless promises which DIRECTLY affect householders, such as freezing water, rego, electricity, rates. NONE of these have been frozen, its a litany of broken promises. A lot of them are necessary, no argument here.. although are you saying he wasn't aware QLD was in trouble?.. because he clearly was even when he was making those promises. Blind Freddy could see that. Still, lets take his promises on face value, and assume he genuinely believed he could follow through with them... :rofl2:
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
Gillard changed her mind on the Carbon Tax because the greens wouldn't have helped her gain government without doing so. Abbot also agreed (to the independents) to a bunch of things he wouldn't have normally in an effort to gain government, you can put money on that. Of course, he didn't gain government so you won't get to hear about which promises he was willing to break.
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
Howard presided over the countries finances at a time when it was virtually impossible to screw it up. Every major economy in the world was going gangbusters, every trading partner we have were doing great. He didn't do anything special financially, he just rode the money wave that rolled around the world. He also invented the term 'core promises and non-core promises' to somehow convince us he hadn't told any lies...
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
Gillard has done many things people don't like, in an effort to balance the budget. Are you blaming the GLOBAL downturn on the labor government?? Just be thankful you don't live in Greece or any of the many other countries that are doing it seriously tough at the moment.
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.
Just one final small point, this time on the Baby Bribe, instituted by the Howard government. If you have a second child, the bribe is now going to be smaller. Abbot objects to this, because 'it hurts families'. Instead, he wants to remove the payments given to assist people with school costs.
So, if you only have one kid, you can choose not to have the next one. If a couple grand influences your decision on whether or not to have a kid, you certainly should be keeping it firmly zipped away. You clearly aren't likely to be a decent parent anyway if that's an influence.
If you have 3 kids at school already, which you may (? seems unlikely to me ?) have chosen to have because of the baby bribe, can you now (if ongoing schoolkids support is removed as Abbot advocates) choose to not send them to school because you cant afford to?
Which one hurts families more.. reducing the baby bribe or removing the ongoing school support? He is going in to bat for families? Gimme a break...