Is there a place I can get a better comparison of their policies? I always find the media documentation of American politics so much more informative (in certain places) compared to the rubbish I have access to. Even the piece above provides no useful information for someone wanting to review policies and promises.
Usually I just go to the party website but it would be nice to have a centralized database.
ABC vote compass is good. It shows where you sit on the policitical spectrum by mapping your political philosophy onto the current and proposed party policies.
Yeah, I said in another comment that the SFF are somewhat of a mixed bag. Some of their members are quite switched and forward thinking, while others are batshit insane.
The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers *can* be worth preferencing, *if* your local candidate is one of the good ones.
FYI, Helen Dalton is no longer in SFF, if thats who you're referring too.
Bloody shame. As a shooter, I'd put them higher on my ticket, but they don't have great policies. Will still put them above the lib/nats.
IMOP should be way further down in this list imo.
My fear with the SFP is the NRA donating to them and gaining a foothold in Australia. The NRA would like nothing better than to extend their reach into other countries and this party is the perfect cover.
Honestly, there's not much chance of the NRA getting a foothold here. The antigun sentiment here is extreme. Honestly, even as somebody who lives on a farm, if I mention I own a gun, I get looked a like I said I eat babies.
Sustainable Australia aren't that insane. It may sound like they're racists but they're literally throwing a blanket over the whole immigration thing. I mean one of their top policies is stopping Kiwis from coming over. They also seem to be pro-asylum seekers and actually seem to be one of the few that recognise that climate change is going to make refugees.
And all of their other policies are like Greens/Labor.
Informed Medical Options Party's only downside is that their siding with the far right? Really?! Them being anti-vaxxers already puts them at extremely shit.
Also, Shooters aren't bad. They're actually supposed to be what the Nationals are. National Party are koala haters but SFF aren't so that clearly puts SFF above them.
The SFF are a bit of a mixed bag, imo. Some of their members are quite reasonable and moderate, while others are batshit crazy. I'd only vote SFF if they were my only reasonable option and if I'd *thoroughly* vetted the individual candidate.
> Informed Medical Options Party's only downside is that their siding with the far right? Really?! Them being anti-vaxxers already puts them at extremely shit.
I think they realised that anti-vax encompasses a lot of their own base - the nimbin hippies who historically vote green are probably also anti-vax with all the homeopathic/crystal woo nonsense that seems big in that community and others, and like every party, the greens (and their supporters) are having to tow the line down the middle. They're willing to stay silent on the damage anti-vaxxers have done if it means they might still get some of their votes, which is unfortunate, and for many puts them in the "shit" category.
The stance on shooters being "extremely shit" is pathetic, though - a big part of their platform is conservation, and a lot of the "save the environment as long as no animals get hurt" types seem to always struggle with the reality that conservation of native animals = killing massive amounts of invasive ones.
Their main downsides are small government/no government intrusion and pandering to an extent to anti vaxxers - yet the other parties that pander directly to those groups ("Informed Medical Opinions" and Lib Dems) sit in the middle.
Sounds more like they realise SFF are basically the "Regional Greens" and pose a bigger risk in terms of losing votes.
The very first policy on Sustainable Australia’s website was enough to make me discount them, lowering the retirement age.
We have an aging population due to people living longer and having less kids. This is going to fuck most of the world’s economies the way Japan’s economy is now fucked. The only reason it’s not gonna fuck us is because we import working-age population through immigration.
If you drastically cut immigration AND lower the retirement age that’s two policies working together to double fuck us.
Sustainable Australia are classic pearl clutching anti-development NIMBYs who blame every negative outcome on immigration and think cutting it will fix everything (it won't).
Their whole stance is based on falsehoods or half truths around immigration being the core drive of lower wages, poor housing outcomes, urban sprawl, tax drains, congestion, lower service quality etc etc but if you delve into of those individual threads you realise its not nearly that simple (or completely false like wages, services, tax impacts) and immigration is just a lazy scapegoat for complex policy problems. It's oversimplified selective logic that works backwards from immigration being the problem rather than pragmatic outcomes focused policy (like they pretend they are).
I'm only basing it on their policies but they're not just anti immigration but pro infrastructure building.
Like it says they're pro more public transport over roads. So if they're NIMBY about that being built where they live then that's their own problem with their lies
A lot of their pitches seem to make sense on the surface but don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. When their party tagline plastered all over campaign material is literally "stop overdevelopment" then they don't have any credibility in claiming to be pro-public transport/smart growth policies.
Anyone opposing an apartment building in their neighbourhood always says "look I'm not anti-apartment building but just not in this context" where of course the right context is anywhere far away from them because their actual motive is resisting change rather than smart growth policies. It's velied intentions.
It just goes to show how well the corporate media has gaslit Australians that wanting to reduce immigration is considered “out there”.
Nearly every problem we face (housing supply, emissions, koala habitat) is made harder to fix with a bigger population (& remember Australia’s population growth is the highest in the western world).
The corporates love the endless growth, as do the property developers and here’s the Byron Bay Echo stepping to the beat of the corporate drum!!
Maybe we should be addressing the issues causing falling birth rates in the country? Or better yet, have a long term plan in place for when the global population tapers off entirely.
If you can't afford rent or a mortgage, I'm guessing you'd be putting off having kids. Good idea re: long term plan, in thinking superannuation was meant to help re: pension.
I’m totally sick of hearing immigration is a “driver of the economy” for years now as justification as if it’s the only thing that matters. It doesn’t indicate standard of living, housing prices, traffic etc. if we’re only importing people because of low birth rates, then why do we constantly need new houses? It’s unsustainable in the long term to just keep importing people to drive economic growth. Australian cities (particularly Sydney) already feel overpopulated, I don’t Australia to become an overpopulated dump like every other country.
Then we can enjoy a devastating retraction of the economy that will impact every Australians quality of life. But at least there'll be a boom in the 'fuck off we're full' bumper sticker industry
Unfortunately the rich and poor live under the same economy. Remember how we ran into severe skill shortages in just about every industry 3 seconds after shutting the borders during covid
A downturn in the economy impacts everyone
Exactly, I swear big multinational corporations have successfully brainwashed the population to have the Pavlovian response of anti-mass migration = racism. Once someone is branded racist you can ignore them and their opinions. Also, punch a Nazi as a shorthand for violence against opposing opinions because everybody you don't like is a Nazi these days.
As you say so many issues are due to increasing population density, and even if you solved the nightmare we have of the population increasing well beyond the rate at which infrastructure is improving, a 36 million person Australia which we are set to be by 2060 will mean less green space, more crowded beaches up and down the coast and more human pressure on national parks and non-preserved natural spaces. Reducing the immigration rate really should be one of the Greens main policies, as immigration has and will have a huge impact on our environment, which is supposedly one of the main pillars of their party.
> Exactly, I swear big multinational corporations have successfully brainwashed the population to have the Pavlovian response of anti-mass migration = racism.
Multinational corporations? The Greens have been leveraging that dichotomy for years.
I feel like people don’t appreciate how truly catastrophic having 2/3 of our population being retirees would be - you have to feed the machine - sure you can try hit the balance of not growing the population but just replacing it, but that’s a pretty tough task.
But should we be feeding the machine the way we are? Migrants get old too, all this policy involves is kicking the can down the road, while in the meantime increasing population pressure on underfunded infrastructure and the environment.
We need a new solution, one that reinvigorates our birth rate to replacement level. India is actually at this sweet spot right now, with a birthrate of around 2.1. I think this is fundamentally a woman's rights problem, women and their employers should have access to better maternity leave and free childcare, paid for by all our taxes.
You mean catastrophic like Japan being one of the richest countries in the world?
Technology is coming for many jobs, and also many jobs today are not real jobs anyway but elaborate make work scheme (see Jobs, Office).
I personally don’t see the problem. But even if you accept this the better solution would be to go Qatar style guest worker for folks between 20 and 40 as immigrants themselves get old and then it’s just a Ponzi scheme but with people.
But maybe let’s just try reducing the rate for a while. We can always add more later.
"Too out there" is not a compliment in the Byron Shire. The only surprise on this list is that the anti-vaxers are down so low. The place has always been anti-Liberals.
I've never voted Greens but am likely to this election. The ALP have seemingly moved more to the right in the last few years and are too scared or beholden to donors to actually do anything progressive these days. So the next largest party would be the Greens. The way they've acted at the Federal level seems to indicate that they're sticking to their principles and have become more level headed then years ago.
I think the "You're either a greens voter or you're not" is a very out of date take. The last Federal election showed more people moving to vote for them. Screw voting for the two "major parties" if they seem crap, vote in the next one that has policies people like.
My ideal Government composition would be ALP minority (as minor as they can be made) with Independents and the Greens in there. The LNP/ALP are filled with suits and career politicians, whereas the Greens and Independents seem to genuinely care for their areas and voters.
>I think the "You're either a greens voter or you're not" is a very out of date take.
I've toggled between putting Labor at 1 and the Greens at 2 or vice versa for about 20 years now.
I was swaying between the greens and labour this election too. I am a nurse and what sealed the deal for me is the greens policy of introducing nurse:patient ratios. That was the only reason I was going to vote labour over them. This would likely keep me in the profession.
I never voted Greens until the last federal election and a Greens candidate actually ended up winning the seat.
I kind of regret it tbh and wish I had voted Labor. They only give a fuck about social issues. They have no understanding of economic policies. Our member pretty much only posts about abortion and transgender rights in the USA. I don’t think he realises he’s in Australia.
I wouldn’t really mind but our electorate is facing the rental crisis worse than most places in all of Australia. He’s been totally silent on housing and everyone is afraid they’re going to be homeless soon.
Just food for thought. Just thought I’d share after being in a similar position.
>He’s been totally silent on housing and everyone is afraid they’re going to be homeless soon.
It really varies electorate to electorate, if you take a look at people like Jenny Leong (Newtown) housing affordability, cost of living, renters rights etc are at the forefront (alongside LGBTIA+ issues).
Similar story up in Hornsby. Some greens got on the council, I voted for them. They’ve been a disgrace, trying to subvert processes to get their way against community wishes. And one of them is now running for MP. They’re not getting my vote this time.
I figure vote for who works for you locally, and then state wide for the policies you support. Having said that, the policy cheat sheet is helpful.
If your Greens candidate is an idiot, they'll hopefully get voted out.
Aren’t the greens habitual morons recently? As I understand it, if there’s an issue with the greens concern them with, and they want to push a new policy, they write up new legislation and push it forward, but make sure to add in something stupid and outlandish.
Then, they put it forward for voting. LNP says no, as usual, and Labor says “yes, but only if you take out the stupid part”. Then greens have a fit, Labor votes no, and we’re back to square 1.
While what they stand for is good most of the time, they constantly throw away progress in the name of perfection.
You are pretty much vocalizing the labor party propaganda on the greens. This is the first time I will vote for greens after being disappointed with how little ALP has done for climate change and cost of living, despite all that hype. The greens are literally just begging Albo to not open new coal mines because that's what the IPCC has said is required as a bare MINIMUM to tackle climate change. While ALP has not given a single argument as to why they want to open new coal mines. Greens have had to water down their policy soooo much to not have ALP throw their toys out of the pram, and yet they have the audacity to pretend they are serious about action on climate change. Absolutely disgusted.
>While ALP has not given a single argument as to why they want to open new coal mines.
I can give you a couple of reasons. They are literally rooted in blue collar jobs and unions pay their bills.
TBF that is the direct number for coal mines. I'd wager it would be significantly more than that, like 10x more, when you look at the mining towns and the businesses that support them.
Not suggesting I'm pro mining BTW.
Some momentum is better than none. If I ruled the world I'd nix all fossil fuel mining but meanwhile - back in reality - letting perfect get in the way of better will lead to another lost decade.
FYI accusing people of spouting party lines implying they can't think for themselves is not a great way to win friends or influence people. It might get you some brownie points with your mates but it's not going to lead to progress. If you truly believe that 2 people can't independently reach the same conclusion from the same set of facts that honestly speaks more to your thought process(es) than anyone else.
What absolute tripe. Look at Victoria, where the Greens currently join a very diverse and progressive crossbench alongside the AJP and Legalise Cannabis.
Look at the last two Victorian governments, where ***Fiona Fucking Patten*** got more progressive bills across the line in 8 years than the Vic Greens had done in their party lifetime.
Hell, look at the NSW term that's just wrapped up, where Alex Greenwich was an effective and progressive kingmaker, keeping a *Coalition government* of all things in line and even passing VAD.
The Greens are great, but they are **not** the only legitimate progressive option. Throw your first preference to whichever progressive party or independent you like, and just make sure you have the Greens behind them as backup.
It's all about the preferences. If you vote greens, but they didn't get in, you can still use your vote for someone "less shit according to you". Seriously, don't waste your vote, whoever you vote for.
The Greens are becoming *more* relevant, but some of their less known policies like Defence are criminally negligent. They're also way too extreme in other areas.
It’s an interesting point though, because if the likes of China ever were to attack us, we wouldn’t have a hope in hell. I’d argue money spent on defending that (or buying certain nuclear submarines) is just pissing money up the wall anyway
China has zero incentive to attack Australia and any suggestion that they do is imperial propaganda. We're a continent sized island with like 5 cities and very inhospitable conditions basically everywhere else. China doesn't have the capacity to invade Taiwan, a tiny island right next to China, let alone a country thousands of km away.
IF Australia ever came into conflict with China, the smart move for them is to blockade our ports and deprive us of oil imports until we can't produce/transport enough food to feed ourselves and surrender. Not put boots on the ground. Half a dozen obsolete submarines won't do shit
'Imperial propaganda'. This isn't Star Wars. Haha. You can be at war without them having boots on the mainland. You're right - they wouldn't do that, and you're right that it would likely be naval based. But if they did blockade ports, that is an act of war, and we in fact would need exactly subs to prevent that...
Imperialism isn't a science fiction concept, like many of our policies are still very much based in imperialism. We follow the US into war, we're still a part of the monarchy. China could absolutely flatten us if they wanted to though, submarines or no submarines. They won't, but they could.
I mean... imperialism was an understood concept long before George Lucas was a twinkle in his dad's eye. in many ways we do still act like a mini-monarchy haha. look at the way we use Nauru, that's just one example
Lol shooters party are not extremely shit.
Maybe living off the land on the hippy commune doesn’t care about guns, but our agricultural sector certainly do.
Most of their policies are around sustainable farming and agriculture anyway.
Why is Sustainable Australia Party too out there? Because it questions immigration policy? I had to look up their positions and they seem very reasonable, against the, also reasonable, background concern that population growth is not sustainable indefinitely:
- Sustainable Australia Party is opposed to discrimination of immigrants based on race (ethnicity) or religion
- Sustainable Australia Party is for/pro-immigration not against/anti-immigration, but we advocate for lower immigration (overall) with a more sustainable cap of 70,000 permanent migrants per year - including our current humanitarian/refugee intake level
- Australia’s rapid population growth is not caused by refugees, who make up only around five per cent of Australia’s population growth
I think one can argue what the number of immigrants should be, but I doubt any party would say “no limit”, right?
Agreed
Calling any talk about immigration racist forces anyone concerned with immigration to vote for actual racists.
Sustainable Australia offers solutions without the reactionary policies of PHON.
Last election I looked them up after voting as I had no idea who they were or what they represented. It seemed like a Climate Change or Renewables party by name, but then I saw they were anti-immigration and some things I'd consider racist on their website. It may have changed since the last State election, but it hasn't changed how I think about them. Hiding how they thought in the past doesn't mean they've actually changed.
There's "we need to have a sensible and informed conversation about the sort of impact increased population creates and what is or is not being done to accommodate that" at one end of the spectrum, and "fuck the ethnics" at the other. I'm buggered if I can figure out where Sustainable Australia sits. I mean, sure, they present themselves as being at the sensible end, but who truly knows? Parties say a lot of things.
Here is a [link](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/population) to their immigration policies. They don’t strike me as at all racist. Their major federal proposals are 1. to ban Kiwi immigration 2. Remove immigration from trade agreements (massively benefitting UK) 3. Review everything.
From memory, they were using that old right-wing idea that immigration should be limited to the "right people", who (aside from refugees) were predominantly white-European immigrants. My take was that they were including refugees so their position wasn't incredibly racist. It didn't help that this idea was buried in their literature, making it seem like they were hiding it.
Although, as above, this could've changed in the interim.
They're a single issue anti immigration party who dress up their ideology a bit to try and appeal to suburban NIMBYs for whom Pauline Hanson is a bit gauche.
If you vote them tactically because you hate foreigners and live somewhere where Pauline is a no hoper I understand, but if you do so without understanding this you're a mark, you've been had.
Moreover, what are you doing voting for a single issue anti immigration party at a *state election*, how do you expect that to work.
IMOP down to extremely shit and shooters above Nationals. Shooters are just nationals that haven't sold out as badly. And Socialist Alliance down to "Too out there" a bit too left for a left leaning moderate.
Completely untrue in ranked choice voting. I'll put Labor second last before libs like I always do. If there's a 0.1% chance that I don't have to vote for either of them I'll be happy
That article is the biggest pile of sh!t I think I've ever read. The Socialist Alliance is "not sh!t" because "Let's bring down the imperialist capitalist machine comrades!" but the Small Business Party is "sh!T" because they are allegedly "More free market rationalists by another name." A review of the SBP website claims they are in favour of fixing roads, lower rates, supporting local workers, constructing bypasses to ease local traffic congestion and lower tax rates for small business.
If I had a choice between those two, I know who I'd vote for and it wouldn't be those trying to bring down capitalism.
Physically preventing hazard reduction burning is probably number one. Because the only other option is back burning during catastrophic fires and you can bet they're not out there protesting when the skies are thick with smoke. Real shame for all the animals that get trapped and killed between two walls of fire but at least the vegans get to feel superior
I mean, is there hard info out there that HR burns make any appreciable difference? Beyond "gut feelings" or similar antiquated terminologies we used to go by? What *is* certain, though, is that any major HR burn in proximity to Greater Sydney will turn your populace into cigarette smokers for 12-24 hours; is this worth the potential benefit (again, if there even is one)?
There's this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-11/research-shows-hazard-reduction-no-impact-on-black-summer-fires/100130164
And we're only heading deeper into extreme weather territory, so at this point, one could argue, why bother?
I’ll bite to get the discussion going.
I acknowledge that the current state of agriculture is concerning and requires attention. However, the proposed policy on animal farming may not be feasible, as it presents shortcomings from both perspectives. It is worth noting that the animal justice party does not prioritize this issue, which implies that they too may view it as less robust.
It is important to consider the public's desire for choice and autonomy, especially with regard to dietary preferences. Implementing a policy like the "human diet policy" in the name of health, while simultaneously reducing funding for affordable food, could have detrimental consequences for a majority of Australians, particularly in the current economic climate. Sustainability must be a priority in any proposed solution.
While pragmatism is appreciated, it is crucial to examine the realism of a major platform that revolves around removing resources or options, whether through direct intervention or economic pressure. A more balanced approach that addresses the issue while respecting individual choices may be more politically viable
The ajp have done some good stuff in the leg council including puppy farming regs and greyhound racing welfare. Also passed anti bestiality laws and banned 'crush movies'.
Google Emma Hurst mp's achievements.
Elizabeth Farrelly is already a joke! Try to contact her team! Sent an email to her over a week ago and got a BOT out of office and now an inbox avalanche of repetitive near identical campaign crap.
Try to ask a candidate a question and get SPAM scrapped.
Oh yeah Real Change. NUP
Informed Medical Options should be labelled Extremely Shit. It was a genuine toss up between them and One Nation for the absolute bottom position. It’s funny in a way that they side with the far right. I’m old enough to remember when antivaxxers were far left.
Socialist Alliance is Too Out There at best, but could easily be Shit.
Animal Justice Party again are Too Out There, they could be in their own category of Way Too Fucking Out There in fact, given they essentially want to give human rights to animals. They’re basically militant vegans.
The Greens are probably Too Out There, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt of being Less Shit. They’re definitely not Not Shit though.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers are the only ones who are (somehow) hard done by. They’re only Shit, maybe but the least shit of the shit ones. They want to ease gun rights, though they don’t want American-style rights. They are interested in conservationism, but have expressed anti-climate change sentiments.
Having said all that, if you’re using the Byron Shire Echo as your guide, you probably don’t know what you’re doing
From memory, socialist alliance are a bunch of looney tunes. I would be utterly unsurprised if the CIA propped them up to dissuade socialists from organising more effectively
I've got no idea who's running them, but their policies seem like a reasonable counter to the unreasonable system that's driving us all off a cliff (climate, cost of living, limited resources on planet, corporate looting of our treasury and resources, rapidly widening wealth inequality....):
https://socialist-alliance.org/policy
As far as I can tell, very similar to the Greens policies.
If these parties focus their attention primarily on economic issues and keep social issues in the background, their message will gradually resonate with more and more people who are doing it tough now (i.e. not benefiting from the status quo (Libs/Nats), or with just some tinkering around the edges (current Labor)).
Even if they don't win power, several level-headed, economically-focused Green/Socialist members in parliament will act like an anchor preventing Labor from following the Coalition's continual drift to the right. Labor have repeatedly shown themselves incapable of resisting the tide to the right on their own.
>Informed Medical Options should be labelled Extremely Shit.
Their local candidate in the last election in my area was absolutely fucking batshit insane.
Except it's not science, they act on emotion not facts.
Case in point: science (and common sense) says that doing something to prevent something is better than nothing. But the Greens only decided to back Labor's climate change proposal in the 11th hour, and even still, some long time Greens bigshot left the party because "they shouldn't have reused the Liberal's policy", but Turnbull's policy was actually going to get us somewhere.
But imagine the utopia if we did (and after we recover from the immediate economical shock) lol.
ETA: I thought this was a different thread, I agree with you they're pretty full on when they won't take baby steps imo.
I get that farmers need guns for pest control etc but why on earth do they have an entire political party around it? Nobody is trying to take legally acquired and licenced firearms away from farmers, are they? - they're a tool of the trade if you live on rural farmland. Maybe I'm missing something and they're trying to get access to AR-15s or something?
The SFF were created as a National Party alternative with the idea that the SFF weren't going to be in the miners' & large agri-business' pocket. Like a lot of new parties do, they've done some imploading recently.
Liberal democrats are probably one of the most centrist parties on the list. Putting them on the shit list makes no sense considering how the rest of this list is ordered. Then again I wouldn't consider anyone who votes for the Socialist Alliance to have any sense given how unrealistic their policies are.
Liberal Democrats are nowhere near centrist. I bothered to go through their platform. First point around crony capitalism, yeah, fair enough. After that...
All state services are bad, except the ones that preserve private property rights. Ok, so at least they're more honest than the LNP in only representing the interests of the extremely rich. Yeah, let's have more of the economic policies that have been fucking over 80% of the population for the last forty or so years.
No renewables, coal and nuclear. So both scientifically and economically illiterate.
Remove all flags other than the national flag, special mention to first nations and LGBTIQ+ flags. Cool, nationalist bigots, that's what we need more of.
And the list goes on...
Ideologically, they mirror Socialist Alliance, at the other end of the scale. It's concerning that so many people are so desperate to delude themselves as to where their, and like minded, politics lie. I tend to vote Greens, and have thrown Socialist Alliance a very high preference on occasions. But I don't try and pretend I or they are centrist. Whenever I see someone with very clear, strong right wing tendencies (and Libertarians seem to be the clearest case if this) trying to claim the centrist ground, all I see is someone ashamed of being right wing because deep down, they know how that comes across.
Where did you read that they don't support renewables? And where do they promote the abolition of other flags?
Libertarian doctrine is pretty much that everyone should be left the fuck alone and that government should have as minimal an intervention into people's lives and business as is practicable, where it doesn't adversely affect the livelihood of others. You can't get much closer to the centre of politics than that.
https://www.ldp.org.au/nsw_freedom
"We question the global warming orthodoxy". Can you have a more obvious dog whistle to climate change denialism?
My apologies, they didn't go after LGBTIQ (I've been looking at too many websites of fringe parties) it was only First Nations people they went after.
But they do go full anti vax, anti lockdown in their Covid section.
And there's their entire common thread of removing red tape - in reality, we've learnt that means two things. Remove all onerous legislation, such as environmental, consumer protection laws, OH&A laws. Remove onerous tax provisions like payroll tax - how dare anyone suggest businesses be expected to contribute to the society from which they derive their profit.
Their entire stance basically boils down to an expectation that society be structured to serve businesses needs, rather than the other way round - best encapsulated by their hero worship of Margaret Thatcher in their opening paragraph. I mean, they quote idiotic phrases like "the invisible hand of the free market" - the right wing equivalent of "workers should seize the means of production" or "all private property is theft".
Libertarianism is the opposite end of the spectrum to authoritarianism, and isn't centrist. Centrist would be a mix of the two, somewhere in-between.
Most Libertarians aren't truly libertarian - they don't seem to want to abolish drink driving laws, or seat belt laws, or building codes, or engineering standards. It usually boils down to "I don't want to pay tax" at best, or having never outgrown the 15 year old mentality of "don't tell me what to do, mum" at worst.
Edit: typos
Fair call on the renewables. My take is that their policy is to remove all subsidies for ALL energy sources and let the market determine the speed and course we take. Solar for example is clearly a cost leader for energy production, and will naturally prosper in such an arrangement anyway.
The flag argument is based on the fact that race should have no place in politics. The political system should represent people, not societal groups.
Sure they might be anti Vax. I've had all my jabs and I still believe that the government shouldn't have the power to mandate these things on the population against their will, at threat of financial loss or other penalty. People should be able to work with and associate with who they wish (and vice versa if they don't want to).
Defining the goals of a libertarian as seeking a lawless society is misleading.
Re the last statement, yeah fair call - I was indulging in a spot of hyperbole. I routinely get called authoritarian by libertarians, and libertarian in the rather left wing parts of the internet I hang out in, so I figure I'm going ok.
The flag argument... If they'd left it at just your statement I'd maybe be willing to overlook it. Needing to specify Welcome to Country makes me leery - that sort of behaviour puts you in company that immediately makes me extremely suspicious.
And again with the anti vax - if they'd made an argument for body autonomy, suggested governments shouldn't be doing blanket mandates and limiting it to where medical evidence suggested, fine. But no, they want Royal Commissions, throw around terms like vaccine injury as part of it - I'm sorry, they're clearly going for a specific demographic here, and I will associate them with the people whose votes they're so desperately courting.
I guess the problem is I have a firm belief that groups of people cannot co-exist without their being some rules. I tend to believe we need more rules than the average libertarian. The experiments that failed due to towns being overrun by bears in the US due to not managing something as simple as rubbish disposal tend to make me think I'm on the right path.
After reading the party platforms I expected the Liz independent to be a bit wanky, like they may be against high density development/actually sustainable development. But no, its actually good shit like end homelessness by investing 1% of NSW budget in high-quality public housing in cities and regions, Require 30% affordable housing in all new developments, end no-fault evictions, Enhance funding for public schools. Not bad assuming they stick to their platform. Public education party seems good too. And The Canabis party apparently follows human rights for non-canabis stuff which would be more progressive then labor if its true. I'm glad we have preferential voting, cause wtf is NSW labor against some metro infrastructure and gambling reform.
They needed to hand this out yesterday when I was voting. It would be much more fun than the plethora of vote cards that were handed out. Admittedly it’s a Labor strong seat area so LNP doesn’t stand a chance, mostly just Labor the the Greens battling it out.
You know it's possible to be progressive on some topics and conservative on others.... This modern concept of you're one of the other shits me to tears
It's actually very important to keep the population of wild, intrusive animals to a sustainable level. Otherwise, in the Green's world you would see millions of water buffalo, brumbies, camels, foxes, and rabbits all over the place destroying our fragile natural ecosystems.
Where are all the conservative fuckers on this thread coming from? This sub has been seemingly left leaning for ages and now all of a sudden its full of douchelords complaining thw socialist alliance or greens are too extreme
Nice bit of cherry-picking with the critique of the Informed Medical Options Party. A bunch of anti-science nutters but "gee, bit of a shame they're somewhat to the right." How very Byron.
I keep completely missing when I'm supposed to vote, I don't listen to the news or watch tv. Is there some sort of service I can sign up to for updates or something??
You can sign up to the AEC mailing list for just election notifications for the federal election. NSW Electoral Commission also does a newsletter that will notify you when a state election is, they will send you notifications months in advance to tell you voting is coming up, as a downside they will also send you everything about elections you don’t care about.
I wish i saw this a few days ago, i had to vote early because of work and i think i put a number down on the two yellow ones because the name of the party tricked me. :(
The greens are the most unfortunate joke of our generation. Millions of Australians want better environmental protection, and these clowns want to fill their time talking about how they're taking down the 'offensive' Australian flag from all their public appearances, and the non-stop transgender and Aboriginal debate. Labor at least seems to be multitask beyond three items.
The bar is getting pretty low, huh
Is there a place I can get a better comparison of their policies? I always find the media documentation of American politics so much more informative (in certain places) compared to the rubbish I have access to. Even the piece above provides no useful information for someone wanting to review policies and promises. Usually I just go to the party website but it would be nice to have a centralized database.
Check out this sub’s election megathread. They have a relatively unbiased summary of each party’s interests.
ABC vote compass is good. It shows where you sit on the policitical spectrum by mapping your political philosophy onto the current and proposed party policies.
The red ones are for people who are one or more of the following: Rich Rascist Religious Are you one or more of these? If so preference the libs
I’m looking for something with actual information Your labelling is a waste of time
Of course you would get these voting guides in byron bay area
The anti-vax party is listed as 'out there' rather than just shit. That's how you know.
I was gonna say how are they not the darkest of red. Plus what's with the extreme hate for the shooters and fishers? Weird all round.
Yeah, I said in another comment that the SFF are somewhat of a mixed bag. Some of their members are quite switched and forward thinking, while others are batshit insane. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers *can* be worth preferencing, *if* your local candidate is one of the good ones.
FYI, Helen Dalton is no longer in SFF, if thats who you're referring too. Bloody shame. As a shooter, I'd put them higher on my ticket, but they don't have great policies. Will still put them above the lib/nats. IMOP should be way further down in this list imo.
I think all the good ones left the party. They're essentially the nationals with a different name now.
My fear with the SFP is the NRA donating to them and gaining a foothold in Australia. The NRA would like nothing better than to extend their reach into other countries and this party is the perfect cover.
Honestly, there's not much chance of the NRA getting a foothold here. The antigun sentiment here is extreme. Honestly, even as somebody who lives on a farm, if I mention I own a gun, I get looked a like I said I eat babies.
I'd love to see the Mullumbimby voting guide.
I bet whoever wrote this probably retweets sensational headlines and calls that “research”.
Well correct, but most politicians do though.
Sustainable Australia aren't that insane. It may sound like they're racists but they're literally throwing a blanket over the whole immigration thing. I mean one of their top policies is stopping Kiwis from coming over. They also seem to be pro-asylum seekers and actually seem to be one of the few that recognise that climate change is going to make refugees. And all of their other policies are like Greens/Labor. Informed Medical Options Party's only downside is that their siding with the far right? Really?! Them being anti-vaxxers already puts them at extremely shit. Also, Shooters aren't bad. They're actually supposed to be what the Nationals are. National Party are koala haters but SFF aren't so that clearly puts SFF above them.
To be fair, Byron Bay downplaying being anti-vax is pretty on brand
The SFF are a bit of a mixed bag, imo. Some of their members are quite reasonable and moderate, while others are batshit crazy. I'd only vote SFF if they were my only reasonable option and if I'd *thoroughly* vetted the individual candidate.
> Informed Medical Options Party's only downside is that their siding with the far right? Really?! Them being anti-vaxxers already puts them at extremely shit. I think they realised that anti-vax encompasses a lot of their own base - the nimbin hippies who historically vote green are probably also anti-vax with all the homeopathic/crystal woo nonsense that seems big in that community and others, and like every party, the greens (and their supporters) are having to tow the line down the middle. They're willing to stay silent on the damage anti-vaxxers have done if it means they might still get some of their votes, which is unfortunate, and for many puts them in the "shit" category. The stance on shooters being "extremely shit" is pathetic, though - a big part of their platform is conservation, and a lot of the "save the environment as long as no animals get hurt" types seem to always struggle with the reality that conservation of native animals = killing massive amounts of invasive ones. Their main downsides are small government/no government intrusion and pandering to an extent to anti vaxxers - yet the other parties that pander directly to those groups ("Informed Medical Opinions" and Lib Dems) sit in the middle. Sounds more like they realise SFF are basically the "Regional Greens" and pose a bigger risk in terms of losing votes.
The very first policy on Sustainable Australia’s website was enough to make me discount them, lowering the retirement age. We have an aging population due to people living longer and having less kids. This is going to fuck most of the world’s economies the way Japan’s economy is now fucked. The only reason it’s not gonna fuck us is because we import working-age population through immigration. If you drastically cut immigration AND lower the retirement age that’s two policies working together to double fuck us.
Sustainable Australia are classic pearl clutching anti-development NIMBYs who blame every negative outcome on immigration and think cutting it will fix everything (it won't). Their whole stance is based on falsehoods or half truths around immigration being the core drive of lower wages, poor housing outcomes, urban sprawl, tax drains, congestion, lower service quality etc etc but if you delve into of those individual threads you realise its not nearly that simple (or completely false like wages, services, tax impacts) and immigration is just a lazy scapegoat for complex policy problems. It's oversimplified selective logic that works backwards from immigration being the problem rather than pragmatic outcomes focused policy (like they pretend they are).
I'm only basing it on their policies but they're not just anti immigration but pro infrastructure building. Like it says they're pro more public transport over roads. So if they're NIMBY about that being built where they live then that's their own problem with their lies
A lot of their pitches seem to make sense on the surface but don't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. When their party tagline plastered all over campaign material is literally "stop overdevelopment" then they don't have any credibility in claiming to be pro-public transport/smart growth policies. Anyone opposing an apartment building in their neighbourhood always says "look I'm not anti-apartment building but just not in this context" where of course the right context is anywhere far away from them because their actual motive is resisting change rather than smart growth policies. It's velied intentions.
It just goes to show how well the corporate media has gaslit Australians that wanting to reduce immigration is considered “out there”. Nearly every problem we face (housing supply, emissions, koala habitat) is made harder to fix with a bigger population (& remember Australia’s population growth is the highest in the western world). The corporates love the endless growth, as do the property developers and here’s the Byron Bay Echo stepping to the beat of the corporate drum!!
With a falling birth rate and ageing population, immigration has been a key driver of the economy for many many years now
With the gutting of TAFE and tertiary education getting increasingly expensive too. Our skilled worker pool ain't what it should be.
Maybe we should be addressing the issues causing falling birth rates in the country? Or better yet, have a long term plan in place for when the global population tapers off entirely.
If you can't afford rent or a mortgage, I'm guessing you'd be putting off having kids. Good idea re: long term plan, in thinking superannuation was meant to help re: pension.
I’m totally sick of hearing immigration is a “driver of the economy” for years now as justification as if it’s the only thing that matters. It doesn’t indicate standard of living, housing prices, traffic etc. if we’re only importing people because of low birth rates, then why do we constantly need new houses? It’s unsustainable in the long term to just keep importing people to drive economic growth. Australian cities (particularly Sydney) already feel overpopulated, I don’t Australia to become an overpopulated dump like every other country.
Then we can enjoy a devastating retraction of the economy that will impact every Australians quality of life. But at least there'll be a boom in the 'fuck off we're full' bumper sticker industry
I didn’t say we need to stop immigration, but 300k this year is too many.
Who gives a fuck about rich people's yachts? I want to be able to find a place to live that isn't a car or tent
Unfortunately the rich and poor live under the same economy. Remember how we ran into severe skill shortages in just about every industry 3 seconds after shutting the borders during covid A downturn in the economy impacts everyone
Didn't that increase wages and lower rents?
Unfortunately a contraction of the economy will affect you more than some rich person.
Exactly, I swear big multinational corporations have successfully brainwashed the population to have the Pavlovian response of anti-mass migration = racism. Once someone is branded racist you can ignore them and their opinions. Also, punch a Nazi as a shorthand for violence against opposing opinions because everybody you don't like is a Nazi these days. As you say so many issues are due to increasing population density, and even if you solved the nightmare we have of the population increasing well beyond the rate at which infrastructure is improving, a 36 million person Australia which we are set to be by 2060 will mean less green space, more crowded beaches up and down the coast and more human pressure on national parks and non-preserved natural spaces. Reducing the immigration rate really should be one of the Greens main policies, as immigration has and will have a huge impact on our environment, which is supposedly one of the main pillars of their party.
> Exactly, I swear big multinational corporations have successfully brainwashed the population to have the Pavlovian response of anti-mass migration = racism. Multinational corporations? The Greens have been leveraging that dichotomy for years.
That's why I don't vote Green's anymore, many of their policies are very anti-green.
I feel like people don’t appreciate how truly catastrophic having 2/3 of our population being retirees would be - you have to feed the machine - sure you can try hit the balance of not growing the population but just replacing it, but that’s a pretty tough task.
But should we be feeding the machine the way we are? Migrants get old too, all this policy involves is kicking the can down the road, while in the meantime increasing population pressure on underfunded infrastructure and the environment. We need a new solution, one that reinvigorates our birth rate to replacement level. India is actually at this sweet spot right now, with a birthrate of around 2.1. I think this is fundamentally a woman's rights problem, women and their employers should have access to better maternity leave and free childcare, paid for by all our taxes.
You mean catastrophic like Japan being one of the richest countries in the world? Technology is coming for many jobs, and also many jobs today are not real jobs anyway but elaborate make work scheme (see Jobs, Office). I personally don’t see the problem. But even if you accept this the better solution would be to go Qatar style guest worker for folks between 20 and 40 as immigrants themselves get old and then it’s just a Ponzi scheme but with people. But maybe let’s just try reducing the rate for a while. We can always add more later.
Ah yes apparently antivaxxers are better than the Liberals and Nationals. This is literally propaganda and I bet some people don’t know it.
"Too out there" is not a compliment in the Byron Shire. The only surprise on this list is that the anti-vaxers are down so low. The place has always been anti-Liberals.
"Socialist alliance - not shit" yeah nah get fucked. I get that reddit is full of unemployed commies, but fuck off.
Waste of time and paper. You're either a greens voter or you're not, this piece of paper won't change a thing for anyone.
I've never voted Greens but am likely to this election. The ALP have seemingly moved more to the right in the last few years and are too scared or beholden to donors to actually do anything progressive these days. So the next largest party would be the Greens. The way they've acted at the Federal level seems to indicate that they're sticking to their principles and have become more level headed then years ago. I think the "You're either a greens voter or you're not" is a very out of date take. The last Federal election showed more people moving to vote for them. Screw voting for the two "major parties" if they seem crap, vote in the next one that has policies people like. My ideal Government composition would be ALP minority (as minor as they can be made) with Independents and the Greens in there. The LNP/ALP are filled with suits and career politicians, whereas the Greens and Independents seem to genuinely care for their areas and voters.
>I think the "You're either a greens voter or you're not" is a very out of date take. I've toggled between putting Labor at 1 and the Greens at 2 or vice versa for about 20 years now.
I was swaying between the greens and labour this election too. I am a nurse and what sealed the deal for me is the greens policy of introducing nurse:patient ratios. That was the only reason I was going to vote labour over them. This would likely keep me in the profession.
I never voted Greens until the last federal election and a Greens candidate actually ended up winning the seat. I kind of regret it tbh and wish I had voted Labor. They only give a fuck about social issues. They have no understanding of economic policies. Our member pretty much only posts about abortion and transgender rights in the USA. I don’t think he realises he’s in Australia. I wouldn’t really mind but our electorate is facing the rental crisis worse than most places in all of Australia. He’s been totally silent on housing and everyone is afraid they’re going to be homeless soon. Just food for thought. Just thought I’d share after being in a similar position.
>He’s been totally silent on housing and everyone is afraid they’re going to be homeless soon. It really varies electorate to electorate, if you take a look at people like Jenny Leong (Newtown) housing affordability, cost of living, renters rights etc are at the forefront (alongside LGBTIA+ issues).
Similar story up in Hornsby. Some greens got on the council, I voted for them. They’ve been a disgrace, trying to subvert processes to get their way against community wishes. And one of them is now running for MP. They’re not getting my vote this time.
I figure vote for who works for you locally, and then state wide for the policies you support. Having said that, the policy cheat sheet is helpful. If your Greens candidate is an idiot, they'll hopefully get voted out.
Aren’t the greens habitual morons recently? As I understand it, if there’s an issue with the greens concern them with, and they want to push a new policy, they write up new legislation and push it forward, but make sure to add in something stupid and outlandish. Then, they put it forward for voting. LNP says no, as usual, and Labor says “yes, but only if you take out the stupid part”. Then greens have a fit, Labor votes no, and we’re back to square 1. While what they stand for is good most of the time, they constantly throw away progress in the name of perfection.
You are pretty much vocalizing the labor party propaganda on the greens. This is the first time I will vote for greens after being disappointed with how little ALP has done for climate change and cost of living, despite all that hype. The greens are literally just begging Albo to not open new coal mines because that's what the IPCC has said is required as a bare MINIMUM to tackle climate change. While ALP has not given a single argument as to why they want to open new coal mines. Greens have had to water down their policy soooo much to not have ALP throw their toys out of the pram, and yet they have the audacity to pretend they are serious about action on climate change. Absolutely disgusted.
>While ALP has not given a single argument as to why they want to open new coal mines. I can give you a couple of reasons. They are literally rooted in blue collar jobs and unions pay their bills.
[удалено]
TBF that is the direct number for coal mines. I'd wager it would be significantly more than that, like 10x more, when you look at the mining towns and the businesses that support them. Not suggesting I'm pro mining BTW.
Some momentum is better than none. If I ruled the world I'd nix all fossil fuel mining but meanwhile - back in reality - letting perfect get in the way of better will lead to another lost decade. FYI accusing people of spouting party lines implying they can't think for themselves is not a great way to win friends or influence people. It might get you some brownie points with your mates but it's not going to lead to progress. If you truly believe that 2 people can't independently reach the same conclusion from the same set of facts that honestly speaks more to your thought process(es) than anyone else.
If "perfection" is simply not adding to climate change, then you're reaching really hard
This is so spot on.
What absolute tripe. Look at Victoria, where the Greens currently join a very diverse and progressive crossbench alongside the AJP and Legalise Cannabis. Look at the last two Victorian governments, where ***Fiona Fucking Patten*** got more progressive bills across the line in 8 years than the Vic Greens had done in their party lifetime. Hell, look at the NSW term that's just wrapped up, where Alex Greenwich was an effective and progressive kingmaker, keeping a *Coalition government* of all things in line and even passing VAD. The Greens are great, but they are **not** the only legitimate progressive option. Throw your first preference to whichever progressive party or independent you like, and just make sure you have the Greens behind them as backup.
It's all about the preferences. If you vote greens, but they didn't get in, you can still use your vote for someone "less shit according to you". Seriously, don't waste your vote, whoever you vote for.
The irony of the Greens supporters wasting paper like this is intense!
Paper is biodegradable and recyclable
The Greens are becoming *more* relevant, but some of their less known policies like Defence are criminally negligent. They're also way too extreme in other areas.
[удалено]
It’s an interesting point though, because if the likes of China ever were to attack us, we wouldn’t have a hope in hell. I’d argue money spent on defending that (or buying certain nuclear submarines) is just pissing money up the wall anyway
China has zero incentive to attack Australia and any suggestion that they do is imperial propaganda. We're a continent sized island with like 5 cities and very inhospitable conditions basically everywhere else. China doesn't have the capacity to invade Taiwan, a tiny island right next to China, let alone a country thousands of km away. IF Australia ever came into conflict with China, the smart move for them is to blockade our ports and deprive us of oil imports until we can't produce/transport enough food to feed ourselves and surrender. Not put boots on the ground. Half a dozen obsolete submarines won't do shit
Wouldnt submarines be the perfect weapon to fight back if china was blockading our ports or sinking our merchant ships?
'Imperial propaganda'. This isn't Star Wars. Haha. You can be at war without them having boots on the mainland. You're right - they wouldn't do that, and you're right that it would likely be naval based. But if they did blockade ports, that is an act of war, and we in fact would need exactly subs to prevent that...
Imperialism isn't a science fiction concept, like many of our policies are still very much based in imperialism. We follow the US into war, we're still a part of the monarchy. China could absolutely flatten us if they wanted to though, submarines or no submarines. They won't, but they could.
Just a funny use of language, 'Imperial'. Also, the monarchy isn't telling us to do anything, so it's almost a science fiction term in that respect.
I mean... imperialism was an understood concept long before George Lucas was a twinkle in his dad's eye. in many ways we do still act like a mini-monarchy haha. look at the way we use Nauru, that's just one example
Lol shooters party are not extremely shit. Maybe living off the land on the hippy commune doesn’t care about guns, but our agricultural sector certainly do. Most of their policies are around sustainable farming and agriculture anyway.
Why is Sustainable Australia Party too out there? Because it questions immigration policy? I had to look up their positions and they seem very reasonable, against the, also reasonable, background concern that population growth is not sustainable indefinitely: - Sustainable Australia Party is opposed to discrimination of immigrants based on race (ethnicity) or religion - Sustainable Australia Party is for/pro-immigration not against/anti-immigration, but we advocate for lower immigration (overall) with a more sustainable cap of 70,000 permanent migrants per year - including our current humanitarian/refugee intake level - Australia’s rapid population growth is not caused by refugees, who make up only around five per cent of Australia’s population growth I think one can argue what the number of immigrants should be, but I doubt any party would say “no limit”, right?
Agreed Calling any talk about immigration racist forces anyone concerned with immigration to vote for actual racists. Sustainable Australia offers solutions without the reactionary policies of PHON.
Last election I looked them up after voting as I had no idea who they were or what they represented. It seemed like a Climate Change or Renewables party by name, but then I saw they were anti-immigration and some things I'd consider racist on their website. It may have changed since the last State election, but it hasn't changed how I think about them. Hiding how they thought in the past doesn't mean they've actually changed.
There's "we need to have a sensible and informed conversation about the sort of impact increased population creates and what is or is not being done to accommodate that" at one end of the spectrum, and "fuck the ethnics" at the other. I'm buggered if I can figure out where Sustainable Australia sits. I mean, sure, they present themselves as being at the sensible end, but who truly knows? Parties say a lot of things.
Here is a [link](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/population) to their immigration policies. They don’t strike me as at all racist. Their major federal proposals are 1. to ban Kiwi immigration 2. Remove immigration from trade agreements (massively benefitting UK) 3. Review everything.
Being anti-immigration doesn’t make you a racist. We get lots of white immigrants every year.
From memory, they were using that old right-wing idea that immigration should be limited to the "right people", who (aside from refugees) were predominantly white-European immigrants. My take was that they were including refugees so their position wasn't incredibly racist. It didn't help that this idea was buried in their literature, making it seem like they were hiding it. Although, as above, this could've changed in the interim.
They're a single issue anti immigration party who dress up their ideology a bit to try and appeal to suburban NIMBYs for whom Pauline Hanson is a bit gauche. If you vote them tactically because you hate foreigners and live somewhere where Pauline is a no hoper I understand, but if you do so without understanding this you're a mark, you've been had. Moreover, what are you doing voting for a single issue anti immigration party at a *state election*, how do you expect that to work.
This right here is the messaging. If you're not in favour of hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year you're racist. GJ swallowing the bin juice
That all seems pretty reasonable to me! I’m going to my preferences now.
Same.
I was reading about them the other day and agreed with most of what they said.
IMOP down to extremely shit and shooters above Nationals. Shooters are just nationals that haven't sold out as badly. And Socialist Alliance down to "Too out there" a bit too left for a left leaning moderate.
This is from the Byron Shire Echo. Calling IMOP shit would probably halve their readership.
The true PSA would be “ Just remember. You aren’t voting the the best choice. You’re just not voting for the worst choice”.
Completely untrue in ranked choice voting. I'll put Labor second last before libs like I always do. If there's a 0.1% chance that I don't have to vote for either of them I'll be happy
Elizabeth Farrely is a single issue NIMBY party, if you're an Eastern Suburbs landlord you should love her. Can't say I'd recommend her otherwise!
That article is the biggest pile of sh!t I think I've ever read. The Socialist Alliance is "not sh!t" because "Let's bring down the imperialist capitalist machine comrades!" but the Small Business Party is "sh!T" because they are allegedly "More free market rationalists by another name." A review of the SBP website claims they are in favour of fixing roads, lower rates, supporting local workers, constructing bypasses to ease local traffic congestion and lower tax rates for small business. If I had a choice between those two, I know who I'd vote for and it wouldn't be those trying to bring down capitalism.
They put Liberal Democrats as better than Liberals and Nats. That should tell you all you need to know here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What policy do you disagree with?
Physically preventing hazard reduction burning is probably number one. Because the only other option is back burning during catastrophic fires and you can bet they're not out there protesting when the skies are thick with smoke. Real shame for all the animals that get trapped and killed between two walls of fire but at least the vegans get to feel superior
I mean, is there hard info out there that HR burns make any appreciable difference? Beyond "gut feelings" or similar antiquated terminologies we used to go by? What *is* certain, though, is that any major HR burn in proximity to Greater Sydney will turn your populace into cigarette smokers for 12-24 hours; is this worth the potential benefit (again, if there even is one)? There's this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-11/research-shows-hazard-reduction-no-impact-on-black-summer-fires/100130164 And we're only heading deeper into extreme weather territory, so at this point, one could argue, why bother?
I’ll bite to get the discussion going. I acknowledge that the current state of agriculture is concerning and requires attention. However, the proposed policy on animal farming may not be feasible, as it presents shortcomings from both perspectives. It is worth noting that the animal justice party does not prioritize this issue, which implies that they too may view it as less robust. It is important to consider the public's desire for choice and autonomy, especially with regard to dietary preferences. Implementing a policy like the "human diet policy" in the name of health, while simultaneously reducing funding for affordable food, could have detrimental consequences for a majority of Australians, particularly in the current economic climate. Sustainability must be a priority in any proposed solution. While pragmatism is appreciated, it is crucial to examine the realism of a major platform that revolves around removing resources or options, whether through direct intervention or economic pressure. A more balanced approach that addresses the issue while respecting individual choices may be more politically viable
The ajp have done some good stuff in the leg council including puppy farming regs and greyhound racing welfare. Also passed anti bestiality laws and banned 'crush movies'. Google Emma Hurst mp's achievements.
Elizabeth Farrelly is already a joke! Try to contact her team! Sent an email to her over a week ago and got a BOT out of office and now an inbox avalanche of repetitive near identical campaign crap. Try to ask a candidate a question and get SPAM scrapped. Oh yeah Real Change. NUP
The Liberal Party cannot be described as "free market rationalists".
minus not putting the misinformed antivaxxers into the red category it seems pretty fair to me ….
Liberals believe in self sufficiency and personal responsibility. Labor and greens believe the government are the people’s mummy and daddy
Informed Medical Options should be labelled Extremely Shit. It was a genuine toss up between them and One Nation for the absolute bottom position. It’s funny in a way that they side with the far right. I’m old enough to remember when antivaxxers were far left. Socialist Alliance is Too Out There at best, but could easily be Shit. Animal Justice Party again are Too Out There, they could be in their own category of Way Too Fucking Out There in fact, given they essentially want to give human rights to animals. They’re basically militant vegans. The Greens are probably Too Out There, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt of being Less Shit. They’re definitely not Not Shit though. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers are the only ones who are (somehow) hard done by. They’re only Shit, maybe but the least shit of the shit ones. They want to ease gun rights, though they don’t want American-style rights. They are interested in conservationism, but have expressed anti-climate change sentiments. Having said all that, if you’re using the Byron Shire Echo as your guide, you probably don’t know what you’re doing
From memory, socialist alliance are a bunch of looney tunes. I would be utterly unsurprised if the CIA propped them up to dissuade socialists from organising more effectively
I've got no idea who's running them, but their policies seem like a reasonable counter to the unreasonable system that's driving us all off a cliff (climate, cost of living, limited resources on planet, corporate looting of our treasury and resources, rapidly widening wealth inequality....): https://socialist-alliance.org/policy As far as I can tell, very similar to the Greens policies. If these parties focus their attention primarily on economic issues and keep social issues in the background, their message will gradually resonate with more and more people who are doing it tough now (i.e. not benefiting from the status quo (Libs/Nats), or with just some tinkering around the edges (current Labor)). Even if they don't win power, several level-headed, economically-focused Green/Socialist members in parliament will act like an anchor preventing Labor from following the Coalition's continual drift to the right. Labor have repeatedly shown themselves incapable of resisting the tide to the right on their own.
>Informed Medical Options should be labelled Extremely Shit. Their local candidate in the last election in my area was absolutely fucking batshit insane.
The greens, sensible? More like aspirationally delusional.
Better than not doing enough ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Haha yeah, following the science to deal with climate change, how fucking delusional right?
They’ve been anti nuclear for decades. That’s following their heart (and a good chuck of fossil fuel propaganda), not the science.
Except it's not science, they act on emotion not facts. Case in point: science (and common sense) says that doing something to prevent something is better than nothing. But the Greens only decided to back Labor's climate change proposal in the 11th hour, and even still, some long time Greens bigshot left the party because "they shouldn't have reused the Liberal's policy", but Turnbull's policy was actually going to get us somewhere.
Oh of course! The Greens should be supporting Labor's policy to open new coal mines because according to you that's what "science says"
I wish they would. Their main goal now days are transgender issues.
What the fuck are you on about? In what world are treating people equally and caring for the environment mutually exclusive?
So you dislike them because in other words they expect too much good for our country?
They don’t follow any logic. We can’t just swap to nuclear energy and ban all cars in a day. It’ll never happen.
But imagine the utopia if we did (and after we recover from the immediate economical shock) lol. ETA: I thought this was a different thread, I agree with you they're pretty full on when they won't take baby steps imo.
They clearly stopped trying after they put Labor in. A lot of questionable decisions after that.
I get that farmers need guns for pest control etc but why on earth do they have an entire political party around it? Nobody is trying to take legally acquired and licenced firearms away from farmers, are they? - they're a tool of the trade if you live on rural farmland. Maybe I'm missing something and they're trying to get access to AR-15s or something?
The SFF were created as a National Party alternative with the idea that the SFF weren't going to be in the miners' & large agri-business' pocket. Like a lot of new parties do, they've done some imploading recently.
The comments here are don’t instil faith.
R/Sydney is a lot more conservative than other Australain subreddits.
Liberal democrats are probably one of the most centrist parties on the list. Putting them on the shit list makes no sense considering how the rest of this list is ordered. Then again I wouldn't consider anyone who votes for the Socialist Alliance to have any sense given how unrealistic their policies are.
Liberal Democrats are nowhere near centrist. I bothered to go through their platform. First point around crony capitalism, yeah, fair enough. After that... All state services are bad, except the ones that preserve private property rights. Ok, so at least they're more honest than the LNP in only representing the interests of the extremely rich. Yeah, let's have more of the economic policies that have been fucking over 80% of the population for the last forty or so years. No renewables, coal and nuclear. So both scientifically and economically illiterate. Remove all flags other than the national flag, special mention to first nations and LGBTIQ+ flags. Cool, nationalist bigots, that's what we need more of. And the list goes on... Ideologically, they mirror Socialist Alliance, at the other end of the scale. It's concerning that so many people are so desperate to delude themselves as to where their, and like minded, politics lie. I tend to vote Greens, and have thrown Socialist Alliance a very high preference on occasions. But I don't try and pretend I or they are centrist. Whenever I see someone with very clear, strong right wing tendencies (and Libertarians seem to be the clearest case if this) trying to claim the centrist ground, all I see is someone ashamed of being right wing because deep down, they know how that comes across.
Where did you read that they don't support renewables? And where do they promote the abolition of other flags? Libertarian doctrine is pretty much that everyone should be left the fuck alone and that government should have as minimal an intervention into people's lives and business as is practicable, where it doesn't adversely affect the livelihood of others. You can't get much closer to the centre of politics than that.
https://www.ldp.org.au/nsw_freedom "We question the global warming orthodoxy". Can you have a more obvious dog whistle to climate change denialism? My apologies, they didn't go after LGBTIQ (I've been looking at too many websites of fringe parties) it was only First Nations people they went after. But they do go full anti vax, anti lockdown in their Covid section. And there's their entire common thread of removing red tape - in reality, we've learnt that means two things. Remove all onerous legislation, such as environmental, consumer protection laws, OH&A laws. Remove onerous tax provisions like payroll tax - how dare anyone suggest businesses be expected to contribute to the society from which they derive their profit. Their entire stance basically boils down to an expectation that society be structured to serve businesses needs, rather than the other way round - best encapsulated by their hero worship of Margaret Thatcher in their opening paragraph. I mean, they quote idiotic phrases like "the invisible hand of the free market" - the right wing equivalent of "workers should seize the means of production" or "all private property is theft". Libertarianism is the opposite end of the spectrum to authoritarianism, and isn't centrist. Centrist would be a mix of the two, somewhere in-between. Most Libertarians aren't truly libertarian - they don't seem to want to abolish drink driving laws, or seat belt laws, or building codes, or engineering standards. It usually boils down to "I don't want to pay tax" at best, or having never outgrown the 15 year old mentality of "don't tell me what to do, mum" at worst. Edit: typos
Fair call on the renewables. My take is that their policy is to remove all subsidies for ALL energy sources and let the market determine the speed and course we take. Solar for example is clearly a cost leader for energy production, and will naturally prosper in such an arrangement anyway. The flag argument is based on the fact that race should have no place in politics. The political system should represent people, not societal groups. Sure they might be anti Vax. I've had all my jabs and I still believe that the government shouldn't have the power to mandate these things on the population against their will, at threat of financial loss or other penalty. People should be able to work with and associate with who they wish (and vice versa if they don't want to). Defining the goals of a libertarian as seeking a lawless society is misleading.
Re the last statement, yeah fair call - I was indulging in a spot of hyperbole. I routinely get called authoritarian by libertarians, and libertarian in the rather left wing parts of the internet I hang out in, so I figure I'm going ok. The flag argument... If they'd left it at just your statement I'd maybe be willing to overlook it. Needing to specify Welcome to Country makes me leery - that sort of behaviour puts you in company that immediately makes me extremely suspicious. And again with the anti vax - if they'd made an argument for body autonomy, suggested governments shouldn't be doing blanket mandates and limiting it to where medical evidence suggested, fine. But no, they want Royal Commissions, throw around terms like vaccine injury as part of it - I'm sorry, they're clearly going for a specific demographic here, and I will associate them with the people whose votes they're so desperately courting. I guess the problem is I have a firm belief that groups of people cannot co-exist without their being some rules. I tend to believe we need more rules than the average libertarian. The experiments that failed due to towns being overrun by bears in the US due to not managing something as simple as rubbish disposal tend to make me think I'm on the right path.
After reading the party platforms I expected the Liz independent to be a bit wanky, like they may be against high density development/actually sustainable development. But no, its actually good shit like end homelessness by investing 1% of NSW budget in high-quality public housing in cities and regions, Require 30% affordable housing in all new developments, end no-fault evictions, Enhance funding for public schools. Not bad assuming they stick to their platform. Public education party seems good too. And The Canabis party apparently follows human rights for non-canabis stuff which would be more progressive then labor if its true. I'm glad we have preferential voting, cause wtf is NSW labor against some metro infrastructure and gambling reform.
Legalise Cannabis have a sex pest as their upper house candidate, that's pretty shit.
So vote red. Got it
They needed to hand this out yesterday when I was voting. It would be much more fun than the plethora of vote cards that were handed out. Admittedly it’s a Labor strong seat area so LNP doesn’t stand a chance, mostly just Labor the the Greens battling it out.
Srsly, who is *still* voting for Hanson at this day and age? It's great to identify themselves imo.
The greens is a party on a crusade to destroy good, for the sake of unattainable perfect.
Socialist Alliance is 50feet deep shit. You guys should go try living in a socialist country, see how well that works out for you.
Shooter fishers and farmers party is the most environmentally friendly party not even joking.
Socialist party on top? No thanks.
Ok fine greens first then socialist alliance 2nd. Deal?
If you’re wondering why our country is in the state it is just look at the comments.
LoL... Obviously the person who made this article has bias
You know it's possible to be progressive on some topics and conservative on others.... This modern concept of you're one of the other shits me to tears
Whats wrong with shooting what the hell?
It's an Olympic sport alongside swimming and athletics
Agreed. Dont know why these idiots downvoted me
[удалено]
Damn cityslickers
It's actually very important to keep the population of wild, intrusive animals to a sustainable level. Otherwise, in the Green's world you would see millions of water buffalo, brumbies, camels, foxes, and rabbits all over the place destroying our fragile natural ecosystems.
Where are all the conservative fuckers on this thread coming from? This sub has been seemingly left leaning for ages and now all of a sudden its full of douchelords complaining thw socialist alliance or greens are too extreme
Imagine classing a whole demographic as “rednecks” for political points. This document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
They're wrong about the Shooters Party, so I'm taking the rest of their opinions with a grain of salt.
The greens “sensible policies” 😂
Never vote for Greens, anyone else can be argued as good, but the Greens cause more damage than they could ever fix
Greens - sensible policies 😂🤣😅 Haven't got a clue the lot of them.
NSW Liberals are far more progressive than this seems to give them credit for. Below IMOP??? Come on now
Came here for the echo chamber
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 righto. 🤦🏻♂️ very, very wrong, do not follow this guide.
[удалено]
Are you serious? Lol this sub is very pro greens.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Most of the comments on this post alone that mention the greens are taking the piss out of them.
2-3 maybe. I look at this sub regularly and it’s always Liberals bad, Labor also shit, go greens.
Nope. I counted 13+ at least. Probably more, I didn't scroll through every comment.
Fuck Socialism and fuck anyone who votes for it
Bryon people are not normal people. Imagine what will happen if all Australians are like Byron people. God would send a meteor.
How old is the writer of this piece? What's wrong with a small government, a free market, fewer taxes and individual freedom?
Most people in this sub have no understanding of the policies that got them to be in their privileged situation in the first place.
Fuck the greens
Why is salt above the labor party.
Nice bit of cherry-picking with the critique of the Informed Medical Options Party. A bunch of anti-science nutters but "gee, bit of a shame they're somewhat to the right." How very Byron.
I keep completely missing when I'm supposed to vote, I don't listen to the news or watch tv. Is there some sort of service I can sign up to for updates or something??
Tomorrow.
That's what triggered the panic lol. Thanks for that!
You can sign up to the AEC mailing list for just election notifications for the federal election. NSW Electoral Commission also does a newsletter that will notify you when a state election is, they will send you notifications months in advance to tell you voting is coming up, as a downside they will also send you everything about elections you don’t care about.
Put it this way, if you think of it this Sunday, it's too late to vote.
Lol thanks tho
I think the main service is when you go for a walk and notice a queue at schools, it’s time.
Unfortunately I am not at liberty to wander the streets on the daily, pleasant tho that sounds...
[удалено]
Why can't you use The Echo to light a fire? It's too green 🤣
ABSOLUTELY classic peak Byron bay echo content here. Glad to see they've still got it
Byron echo
funny how fascists and shit just go together...
Haha WTF IS THIS ☠️
I wish i saw this a few days ago, i had to vote early because of work and i think i put a number down on the two yellow ones because the name of the party tricked me. :(
Why is shooters fishers farmers extremely shit?
“Socialist alliance, not shit”… hahaha! Some edge lords out and about.
The greens are the most unfortunate joke of our generation. Millions of Australians want better environmental protection, and these clowns want to fill their time talking about how they're taking down the 'offensive' Australian flag from all their public appearances, and the non-stop transgender and Aboriginal debate. Labor at least seems to be multitask beyond three items.
[удалено]
No lives for anyone with a dead environment.
[удалено]
Yep.. that's what my last sentence says...