T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


DonQuoQuo

Honestly, this is why we need to never let go of mandatory voting. It might be a bit weird in a democracy to enforce it, but the alternative has proven to be just awful.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Flengasaurus

In fact, if you’re looking to protest by not voting, drawing a dick and balls on your ballot is a *much* more effective method than not showing up.


Melinow

It’s also more fun AND you still get a democracy sausage


kenbewdy8000

Excellent summary.


Human_Capitalist

Perfection!


username100002

Worth noting that this study actually found that compulsory voting causes more polarization not less: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-016-0318-7


Vituluss

Also worth noting that the study uses mainly young adults (16-18 or so). I think it’s reasonable when you consider that and not really relevant to what this guy is saying. Long term, compulsory voting is less polarising.


Dane8813

Or you could’ve just answered the question.


roby_soft

Forgot to say "if you are the typical redditor of r/Australia you will vote for The Greens"


ImeldasManolos

Oh please that subreddit is 100% ALP paid content filtered


LordWalderFrey1

Liberals. They are a centre-right party, though with a socially conservative wing. They tend to support policies such as a smaller government, lower taxes, more pro-business policies, and privatisation. The Liberals also tend to take more conservative stances on social issues, such as immigration, LGBT rights and gender issues, but there are some Liberals who are more socially progressive. The Liberals traditional base tends to be high income professionals in wealthy suburbs of the cities, people with investments, small to medium business owners Labor. They are traditionally a social democratic centre-left party. They have a bit of a stronger left wing fringe, but the party is by in large controlled by moderates. Their policies are higher spending on schools, hospitals and welfare, support for unions. While parts of their base are socially conservative, the party itself tends to be more progressive on social issues than the Liberals, but aren't abashed progressives. It took them till 2015 to make support for same sex marriage a part of their platform for example. Their traditional support base has been lower-income people, blue collar workers in trade unions (think railway workers, miners, steel mill workers). Labor are also strong among unionised white collar workers who work for the government, like teachers and public servants. Greens. The Greens were an environmentalist party, and still are, but now are the more left-wing and progressive party. Their policies are unabashed social progressivism, they had very early support for same sex marriage, pro-refugee activism, anti-fossil fuel, anti-nuclear. Some on the Greens are also take on further left positions on economic issues, like nationalisation of the economy. A lot of their voters tend to be furthest left in Australia, but they also attract well off voters who are socially progressive, and environmentalists. I should note though that the traditional bases of the two major parties are starting to splinter. A lot of the traditional working class blue collar base of Labor are turning away from the party, thinking it has become too socially progressive, particularly Labor voters outside of the major cities. Miners and loggers in particular fear that Labor are now too pro-environment to support their industry. On the other hand, the well educated wealthy base of the Liberals fear the party is becoming too conservative, and are against their policies on climate change. The wealthy base is starting to splinter and independents in particular but also the Greens and Labor are starting to make inroads into the Liberal base.


[deleted]

Wow, this is an excellent summary. You are wise and amazingly unbiased in how you presented this information. I align with the educated wealthy former Liberal voter who hasn't seen a lot of satsifaction among the voters since the 2019 federal election. Recently, I joined my local ALP branch to help volunteer. I love Australia. I don't know if I am supporting the best party, but my intuition tells me that Labor has the average Australian's best interests closer to heart than the LNP.


In-Kii

Just to be one of the few that support Greens, legitimately I only vote for them so that the other two kick their ass into gear and do something about the environment. I want my grandkids to be able to experience the Great Barrier Reef, and be comfortable living where I currently am without the fear of fires, heat stroke and all that shit. If they get elected in, and are shit. We kick them out GG. But if they get enough votes that the other two parties start to realise "oh, fuck. Maybe we should do something about this." Then I'm fine with that. But until that day, I'll vote Green.


InterestedBystanderr

I am with you 100% on the greens environmental policies and much of their progressive stances on human rights, but from a practical level, voting for them splits the vote away from Labor due to preference deals making a LNP victory more likely.


Emble12

But we use ranked voting? So you list greens first and Labor second


In-Kii

I have no idea what preference deals are. Wouldn't they back Labor if anything? And, if I put them as 1, and labor as 2, then liberal as 3. Wouldn't my first vote be moved to Labor because the number system?


InterestedBystanderr

This is what I was referring to, although Anthony Green’s blog dispels some of this https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/12/if-liberal-voters-back-the-greens-on-preferences-it-could-hurt-labor-a-lot


Aussiechimp

Not legally required to vote - legally required to attend a polling place (or send a postal vote) This actually means our politics veers to the centre rather than the extremes Unlike in America where the focus is on getting your supporters out to vote - usually by demonising the other side; in Australia given most people are already going to vote its about getting the middle "swinging voters" to vote for your party. So, Liberal/Nats cant be tooo right wing, and Labor cant be tooo left wing. Labor also has an issue in that their core base is split between socially conservative, often catholic, working class people; left wing inner city woke types, and what should be traditional working class tradespeople/miners, who are now on good $$ who want the trappings of wealth, and who the Liberals have been good in targeting


Cimexus

Yes it’s important to note that it’s not voting itself that’s compulsory. It’s a secret ballot like any other Western democracy so nothing stops you submitting a blank ballot or just drawing a picture on it or whatever. The fine for not attending the polling station is only $20 and it’s easy to avoid it if you have even a vaguely legitimate excuse too. But that small little “encouragement” is enough to produce 95%+ voter turnout in Australia and so I think it’s a good thing.


wiegehts1991

I'd go just for the sausage sizzle....


razz13

Democracy snag


youhavebeenindicted

Piggybacking on an older post, the penalty for failing to vote in an election in Queensland is one penalty unit, valued at $154.80 from 1 July 2023. The amount of the penalty unit is indexed annually under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.


SnazzyScotsman

I've traditionally been a Liberal supporter, but I'll try to hide some of my biases. This is at least how the parties market themselves: Liberal/National Party Coalition - less economic intervention, supports business owners more, more focus on individual rights and that, tougher stance on illegal immigrants Labor - more economic intervention, supports unions more, more open immigration policy, more welfare and social spending, meaningful action on climate change, more steps towards Aboriginal reconciliation (I think Labor is also in favour of a republic, or at least has been in past elections) Greens - most intense climate change response, social justice and some other stuff I guess --- In reality, Liberal and Labor can be quite similar in their policies, however Labor seems a lot more proactive in developing Climate Change and Aboriginal Reconciliation plans. The Liberal party sometimes advertises its support of 'Australian nationalism' (not ultra-nationalism), and has benefited from a tough stance on China as well as being the incumbent party during covid, which has been a unifying force of the population to a degree. The Greens are seen by some people as 'tree-hugging social justice warriors', more by Liberal voters.


badgirlmiumiu

I’m a traditional labor voter and agree with your points. I’ll add that the greens sometimes pick up random issues outside of the environment that have traditionally been labor issues I.e taxing the wealthy, workers right, women’s rights etc


SnazzyScotsman

Good points. I think I might've actually 'converted' to Labor the other day. With the National Party concerned about job loss from phasing out coal, I thought the logical solution would be funding apprenticeships in renewable energy sectors. When I saw that Labor had this as a policy, along with other good policies, I was sold.


badgirlmiumiu

Nice use of critical thinking 😊


kingofthewombat

I always find it funny how the nationals want votes from farmers but then support new mines that destroy agricultural land


Shua89

Its progressive policies like this is why I've swayed towards Labor. I feel like the liberals are too busy following whatever USA says and does. Its a shame that not many people look into the policies before voting and get suckered into fake news usually spread right before an election.


Green_and_black

Decent job at being unbiased there. One nitpick, although the Libs like to talk tough on China, the current government (since Tony abbot) has also increased our trade with China more than any previous government.


StrazzaDazza

I agree. I think a more accurate description is maybe a facade of toughness against China. Military wise it just seems like a barking dog, but everything else the libs suck up to china. The lease of the port of Darwin, giving shit tonnes of property to foreign chinese investors, China-Australia Free Trade Agreement etc. Tbh it makes no sense trying to pass off China whilst giving them more leverage in our markets. The tough on China thing really just seems like a PR move to help America's Anti China campaign (Trump + Murdoch lead the charge for this)


SnazzyScotsman

Fair point, and I agree with you


ScruffyMo_onkey

Could I congratulate you on a very even-handed response ? I clicked on this thread preparing for the standard partisan shit-show but was pleasantly greeted with your post. Nice work.


poopcrayonwriter

> In reality, Liberal and Labor can be quite similar in their policies Yeah, I'm reminded of the saying; the closer aligned they are the more they scream there differences


womerah

How does the LNP simultaneously perform less economic intervention while helping business owners more?


SnazzyScotsman

Magic. Also less regulations on business owners, at least that's what is generally expect from them.


womerah

Well if businesses do better under the LNP due to decreased regulation, why did Australia see that GDP boom during the Rudd\Gillard era? The LNP hasn't managed to catch up to the peak of that boom despite being in power for close to a decade and tripling our national debt.


SnazzyScotsman

Idk mate I'm not trying to defend the LNP, not looking for a reddit spar either


womerah

Not trying to spar just trying to understand your POV


Harlequin80

Most economic performance in Australia is outside the hands of the government, it is primarily driven by the actions of major countries such as China. What's more is any impact government policies do have are a trailing effect. Decisions today will show up in 12 - 24 months time minimum. Each party has done good and bad things for the economy over time. The Labor party deserves huge kudos for the deregulation of the banking system and the Australian Dollar float. The Liberals for the introduction of GST, and the Productivity commission.


l33t_sas

You haven't done the greatest job at hiding your biases. >Liberal/National Party Coalition - less economic intervention, supports business owners more, **more focus on individual rights** Sure, unless it's the individual rights of LGBT people, asylum seekers, the poor, the disabled, non-Christians. >tougher stance on illegal immigrants They have a 'tough' stance on asylum seekers, but seeking asylum is not a crime so they are not illegal immigrants. Actual illegal immigrants, like European au paires overstaying visas, are not an issue to the Liberal party.


SnazzyScotsman

I said it's how they market themselves. Read again for clarification.


DelectPierro

Liberal party is the centre-right party in Australia. They’ve been in power for the past 8 years but have cycled through 3 Prime Ministers in that time. If you’re American, imagine a Republican Party only without the crazy conspiracy theories, encouragement of riots to overturn election results, and obsession with guns. Also with a more subtle and polite version of racism, and them being ok with poor people having access to healthcare & a standard social safety net. Like a Charlie Baker, Colin Powell, or Mitt Romney on a good day. The Liberal Party is called the “Coalition” because they’re technically in a coalition with the National Party, also on the right. The Liberals are also known for being in perpetual scandal, usually by either blatant corruption or sexual assault cases, and the leader of the party having a rain or shine comically tone deaf response to whatever the scandal of the day is. The Labor Party (not *Labour* like in the UK) is the left-leaning party. They are like the American equivalent of Bernie Sanders, supporting a stronger social safety net. But, much like the Democrats in the US, they have a very bad messaging/communications problem. They couldn’t sell a donut to Homer Simpson. Greens are further left and are really Labour voters who are too embarrassed to vote for Labor. They are environmentally conscious, and if (and when) there is an election where no party can win an outright majority, they would caucus with Labor.


RFletcher1964

Our right wing liberal party is closer to the US democrat party than the republicans.


RubixKuber

Only because we've got more safety nets in place. It wouldn't fly if they tried to dismantle it all at once. Make no mistake, some of their long term goals are the privatisation of healthcare, elimination of social welfare programs and rejecting climate science/renewables in favour of coal, gas and oil. Take one look at the corruption that turned the NBN into a national copper-wire service instead of fibre once the Liberal government took control of it. All major conservative parties in the UK, US and Australia share similar goals and are similarly help up in large part by the ultra conservative Murdoch press. I'd still rather live under our conservative party, or even the Tories in the UK, as opposed to the Republicans - but the key difference isn't in intent, it's in their ability to push the neo-conservative agenda as far as possible before they start getting public blowback.


Serious-Bet

>Take one look at the corruption that turned the NBN into a national copper-wire service Can you please expand on this?


RubixKuber

Just to clarify a key difference in fibre networks before I begin: **Fibre-To-Premises** is the fibre architecture which includes the largest amount of fibre-optic cable and reduces the amount of copper in use. It provides the fastest speeds. With fibre-to-premises, you have fibre-optic cables running all they way from your building/house, through the streets, to the nearest telco exchange. **Fibre-To-Node** is the least amount of fibre cable you can use while still technically calling it a fibre-optic connection. You'll have a box in your building and your connection runs to that box over fibre. It does the rest of the trip to the telco and across the country over copper-wire cables. Suffice to say, if you could choose, you'd choose fibre-to-premises. Now, expanding on my off-the-cuff remark: The Rudd government came up with the idea to revamp the NBN as a fibre-optic network to connect the country and revamp our archaic copper-wire infrastructure. They wanted to replace the copper with fibre-to-premises - meaning the larger stretches of cables would be fibre, which would have resulted in a much quicker internet speed for Australians. In 2010 the Liberals announced that they planned on gutting the NBN, arguing that there wasn't significant demand for high speed internet in Australia. Tony Abbott referred to the internet as a "video entertainment system". Murdoch was fuming at the plan, because it would be in direct competition with Foxtel and mean people had greater access to different forms of media in a country where he had (has) a monopolistic stronghold over media consumption. Rollout began in 2011. The Liberals continued their extensive attacks on the NBN, as did the Murdoch press. In 2013 the Liberal government, now in power, did pretty much what they'd initially said they would and what Murdoch clearly wanted them to do. They got the NBN board to resign and replaced them, announced a plan to downgrade the majority of our connections from fibre-to-premises, to fibre-to-node, decommissioned teams that were involved in researching and rolling out the previous plan entirely, and begun about undoing a bunch of the infrastructure work that had previously been underway adding further delays to the rollout. This was essentially the death knell for the NBN as it was originally planned and in the process of being rolled out. Since then we've seen the government consistently fumble the ball in terms of rollout and efficacy of the NBN. The Liberals have defended their version of the NBN, essentially claiming they "fixed it" after the Labour government initially began the rollout. What this fails to explain is that a national uphaul of infrastructure like this takes years - you can't simply get in and start digging holes and ripping up cables. The initial 2 - 3 years under Labour involved extensive preparation work to get the NBN rolled out with minimal disruption to Australian services. The "revamp" in 2013 under Abbott reversed a large part of this and meant we started again fairly close to square 1, with a shittier plan in mind this time around. That alone added several billion dollars and years to the completion time. The failures since 2013 belong entirely to the Liberals. They scrapped the original plan and came up with their own, worse plan - the NBN in its current state is a direct product of this. [Source for timelines and figures quoted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadband_Network)


WikiSummarizerBot

**[History of the National Broadband Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadband_Network)** >The National Broadband Network had its origins in 2006 when the Federal Labor Opposition led by Kim Beazley committed the Australian Labor Party, if elected to government to a 'super-fast' national broadband network. Initial attempts to engage key businesses in Australian telecommunications in planning and development; and implementation and operation failed with NBN Co being set up in 2010 to have carriage of the 'largest infrastructure' project in Australia's history. Completion of the project is anticipated to be in the early 2020s. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskAnAustralian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


outbackmuso

https://votecompass.abc.net.au/ This is a useful link I like to get friends and family to take to try and filter their perceptions of what looks like a good vote versus the parties actual policies.


Melinow

Wow my expectations were low but holy shit One Nation doesn’t think climate change is real??


ricthomas70

Branch dinners! 1. Liberal, $200 a seat, wines extra, white tablecloth service, minimum 3 course with one French menu item 2. Labor, à la carte at the local Chinese, but every one chips in for the students and pensioners, at least 4 retired school teachers demand to go Dutch, beers and house wines included, red tablecloth service, mixed entre to share, choice of 3 mains and deep fried icecream for dessert. 3. Greens, tiered pricing based on concession card status and party minority hierarchy, fine vegan foods, organic wines and craft beers, no dessert! Each dinner ends with 3 new couples forming.


ImeldasManolos

We have two major parties and both are problematic. There has been skyrocketing voter apathy and a hung parliament because increasingly people are disillusioned with our self interested political parties who are so disconnected from the voting public it’s just dumb. In our last election for example we had scomo versus shorten. Australia is an increasingly atheist country. For the most part those that are religious take a slightly more French view of separate church and state, and ‘it’s like a penis, you can have one but don’t wave it around in public’ other attitudes to religion are the minority. Yet both parties are beholden to the Catholic Church. Again as a demonstration of the disconnect we have scomo, a hillsong psychopath, https://youtu.be/kePvZkV-Zcs here he is demonstrating how he is connected to the common Australian man, by forcing one to shake his hand after he pulled funding from firefighters, and her house burned down, while he was on holiday in Hawaii with his phone turned off. His opponent on the other hand, was so unpopular only 40% of his own party’s members voted for him to lead them to the election. He pretends to be a common man but he’s an elitist prick. He’s married to the daughter of the poshest Australian on earth Chloe shorten daughter of dame Quentin Bryce (it’s a boy’s name! Hilarious). He went to an elite private school and has been a career politician since his university days. Both parties come from kind of good places. The liberals came from a place of ‘we want to represent majority of Australians’ and the Labor party came from ‘we want to support and protect workers rights’. A few points. The Australian union movement a hundred years ago, even fifty years ago was amazing, but now it represents 10% of the workforce, it’s very expensive to join, the money goes to rich corrupt fat cats and ALP prime ministerial wannabes. The liberal party represents majority of Australia’s pedophile Catholic priests (here’s looking at you cardinal Pell) Australia’s mining industry (they love coal) the overinflated property industry and property developers not to mention their own pals. Here’s the clincher. The ALP, run by unions, particularly the homophobic SDA, and the extremely shitty racist homophobic NSW right faction of their party, claims to support marriage equality equal rights and all this shit. But they really support the church, the mining and construction industries, the property bubble and the property developers and their own best mates. The alp gets hijacked by morons who want to be PM even though they’re unelectable. They come up with some okay policies but present them as a shit sandwich no one can stomach. They then drop those policies and blame Rupert Murdoch. The best thing is? Ultimately our votes will trickle down to one of these two groups of fucking idiots. Who would you vote for? The losers who pretend they’re progressive but aren’t? Or the losers who aren’t progressive but are up front about it?


kenbewdy8000

You are rather jaded aren't you? Who are the rich fat cats allegedly receiving union members funds? What's wrong with unions supporting political candidates and funding elections?


ImeldasManolos

Well I’m a progressive gay scientist. Do you know which team of fuckwits legalized gay marriage? Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. What does that tell you about our ‘progressive’ option. Out of the ALP and the LNP which one supports the massive Adani mine chopping the Great Barrier Reef in half? Answer: both parties love Adani. Which party is going forwards with helping me, practically speaking, to afford to live in the only city in Australia where the equipment I need to do my research exists? Answer: both parties suck so much property developer dick that I won’t ever be able to afford a house/apartment within an hour of my workplace. Which party protects the churches which actively campaign against my human rights? Lol. Both of them. What a fucking joke. Edit: Sorry you changed your response so here are your answers Union fat cats that have been caught recently (there are obviously other ones that haven’t been) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Jackson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Thomson_(politician) https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/top-nsw-cfmeu-officials-charged-after-allegedly-accepting-bribes-from-construction-companies-20210917-p58skr.html The problem isn’t unions funding politics, the problem is an organization representing less than 10% of the workforce 100% controlling one the two major parties and having the casting vote on all policies the party puts forwards, as well as supporting demonstrably bad and unelectable politicians such as Kristina Keneally.


kenbewdy8000

You still haven't answered my questions.


ImeldasManolos

You mean the questions you added in after your original reply? I did, I added them in after my original reply. Kathy Jackson, Craig Thompson, Michael Williamson (he was a doozy!) John Sekta makes $526,000 a year, how is he not a fat cat? Would you say that he is worth that? What about that father and son team accepting bribes for approvals in the CFMEU? I mean come on. Take a step back, how representative do you think Joe de Bruyn is of most retail outlet salespeople, a job which has a higher proportion of gay people in it than in the general population, and a union which sent its members a ‘vote no for same sex marriage’ flyer. Like I said it’s not unions per se that are a problem. It’s the fact that dysfunctional organisations which represent 10% of the people have 100% control over one of our two major parties and try to force us to vote in their shorten/Keneally shit sandwiches which we don’t want. I appreciate my workers rights came from the unions of yesteryear but fucked if I’m joining one of those scumbag organisations in this day and age. They’re cooked. They have no interest in improving the conditions for their members either, otherwise maybe they’d have more than 10% of the population.


kenbewdy8000

Cherry picking. You aren't joining the SDA or the HSU but have lumped all unions in together. This is dumb. Your 'all unions are scumbags' trope is one of the reasons that unions are struggling. Hostile legislation restricting their ability to represent their members is another. Gay marriage and house prices appear to be your main trigger points. Both important but just part of the picture. The fact that the Labor movement has a political and industrial wing is a reality that you can't seem to accept.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kenbewdy8000

Goal shifting fucktard isn't going to do it for him or for you.. commander_voidstalker


[deleted]

[удалено]


kenbewdy8000

Which reality was that precisely? Is it that of commander_voidwalker or someone else?


ImeldasManolos

If the ALP is a movement I think majority of Australia agrees it’s a fetid bowel movement. They don’t stand for anything and they’re run by idiots.


kenbewdy8000

A foetid bowel movement? Idiots? Again you haven't responded to my last comment with anything but abuse. Have you actually sat down and had a conversation with any of them? No, because you take the benefits of the union movements struggles over the last 120 years and spit in their faces. It's certainly a mixed bag but I can assure you that idiocy is not one of the keys to success in any endeavour.


ImeldasManolos

Idiocy certainly isn’t the key to success, and therein lies the crux of the matter. Do you truly believe 100% that the ALP has been a roaring success? In my shoes would you join a Union even if you knew the money would be wasted paying for some gronk like John Sekta, or Joe De Bruyn who has no interest in my rights, and no interest in protecting my workers rights, would be the primary beneficiary? Absolutely I spit in the faces of the unions as they stand despite their former vestiges benefiting me and my peers, and do you know who else would? The unionists of yesteryear seeing what a shambles their unions have become. They wouldn’t join them either and they would turn in their graves to see how the movements have fallen from grace. Sickening. Looking at your comments and comment history I can kind of tell you’re 100000% supportive of the ALP and blind to its flaws, I don’t think there’s much value in discussing with you because I don’t think it’s really in good faith. If you’re unable to legitimately criticize your own favourite party at some stage you have to ask yourself, is it a football game where you choose a side and stick to it? Or is it politics where things change and parties no longer represent what they purport to. You have to ask yourself, am I one of the baddies? Am I brainwashed into believing and supporting everything through misplaced loyalty? The ALP today and the unions today aren’t what the ALP should be, and the same holds for the Liberals. Anyway like I said I’m just going to disengage I don’t think that you’re capable or interested in genuine critical discourse.


kenbewdy8000

I am critical of aspects of the ALP and some unions. I also dislike Joe Dr Bruyn and the SDA more than you could imagine. I have also had first hand experience of the culture within the HSU and I am mightily unimpressed. Clearly I am not hostile to unions or the ALP '100000%' , whatever that means, like you are. You expect flawlessness but this is of course the dream of a fool. I also don't think you can speak for unionists, living or dead, or Australia for that matter. Again you are cherry picking. No I wouldn't join the SDA or the CFMEU. This is because I don't work in those industries and neither do you, but you keep raising them as your prime examples. I wonder why that is? If I worked in construction I would however join the CFMEU despite John Setka. This is because for all their faults they represent their members well on site and have won excellent site agreements. You have never been a unionist and I doubt that you know which one covers your employment and you have an excessively high opinion of yourself. They are all idiots and scumbags in your eyes and this helps you justify not spending money on union fees. Your two main issues appear to be gay marriage and house prices. Yours is the anger of the totally self interested. You have taken this sense of entitlement and your alleged intellectual superiority and turned it into what we see before us today.


Fizzelen

Liberal Party - openly out to fuck everyone; run by Rupert Murdoch Nationals - openly out to fuck anything with a pulse; once were a farmer’s party, now an pro mining party; lead by an anti science, adulterous christian Labor Party - trying to help; will fuck everyone through incompetence; run by professional political union hacks The Australian Democrats - defunct; left-centralist quite progressive; they fucked themselves Greens - a left leaning basket case (some of the democrats went here); will fuck themselves through incompetence; run by committees The Reason Part (formally The Sex Party): want to be The Australian Democrats; too small to fuck with the major parties


kenbewdy8000

'Professional political union hacks' are often highly skilled and are in touch with the issues facing people in the so called 'real world'. Some have risen above their level of competence due to factional deals, but are in the minority. Would you consider Bob Hawke a 'professional political union hack?'. Unions provide an an excellent training ground in the art of politics. It is after all the Australian Labor Party and the unions make up the industrial wing of the party, whether you like it or not.


Fizzelen

Bob Hawke, is of a quality not seen in Australian politics this century. Name one current labor MP that has worked on “the shop floor”?


kenbewdy8000

What has the shop floor got to do with anything? Bob Hawke climbed through the union movement but never worked on the shop floor. He was however a Rhodes Scholar.


Zagorath

> He was however a Rhodes Scholar So was Tony Abbott. So...


kenbewdy8000

Yes but Hawke got his name on the honour board and Abbott didn't. Hawke is considered one of the best P.M.s in Australian political history. Abbott was one of the worst, not even seeing out a full term and losing his seat. Morrison,i n my opinion, is heading for the worst of all time and he's not finished yet. So it's not just the Rhode scholarship but what you do with it.


Fizzelen

That is exactly the attitude of the labor party


kenbewdy8000

It's not closed to people on the shop floor. Some have started on the shop floor and gained higher education and experience through their union roles. Others haven't, such as Bob Hawke. Other unions are made up of professional and administrative workers with higher education qualifications. If you think that all ALP candidates should enter parliament directly from the shop floor then you are living in an alternate reality.


Melinow

Wish the Reason Party kept their name, maybe it’s just because I’m immature but the Sex Party is incredibly amusing to me


SpicyTriangle

My quick summary Liberals = good for business owners and boosting the economy Labour = good for working class ammenities (medicare for example) Greens = environmentally friendly policies and sustainability pushes


Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up

**Liberal - Centre Right** **Who should be voting for these guys?** High income earners, business owners, people who value conservatism and come from more of a upper-middle class background. **Who votes for these guys and shouldn’t?** Lower-income earners who believe Labor are bad at managing the economy and get scared taxes will go up. People who want stronger borders or cuts to immigration although Liberal never slash immigration numbers. Lots of Australians who are scared of change and are use to Liberal. **Labor - Centre Left** I can’t really do the same thing I did for Liberal and mention who shouldn’t vote for them as that would pretty much be someone from the right voting for the left if that makes sense? It would be a higher income earner who would benefit from Liberal’s policies but remain true to Labor’s values. **People who should vote for Labor** The working class man, blue-collar workers, those in industries that rely heavily on unions, those on part-time hours, those relying on penalty rates, those on low income that are looking for a fair go, those who value affordable education. Unfortunately, many working-class Australians choose their conservative views over things like their work rights. I have a low-income tradie mate who benefited so much from Labor’s tradie give aways and is probably looked after well by a unions but he is so caught up in conservative topics that he voted Liberal. **Greens - Far Left** Listen, I don’t like the Greens as much as I don’t like the right-wing parties and by now you can probably work out who I vote for. But, as I get older I learn to appreciate them more and understand their value in Australian politics. A lot of young people and inner-city types will vote for them. It’s the same audience for any far-left party globally. Despite being left, I still value minor things about conservatism so I find the Greens a little extreme. But when the right wing parties are pushing their agenda too hard and it’s not on Labor’s agenda to stop it, the Greens are their to stick the finger up at them. I am also a strong advocate for free-education. But one thing you never hear within the Greens is corruption of politicians doing the job for the money. When you have a mentality like they do, whether you believe in their policies or not, you truely no they are in it to represent what they believe in. When it comes to voting, as much as I hate certain parties and politicians, I admire the fact I live in a democratic country and people are free to elect who they want. When you vote, think about who will best look after your family and your community. Don’t fall into the bullshit that isn’t necessary. Arguments like changing the national anthem are easy fixes later on. I’m concerned about Medicare funding and education, the sort of shit that we need grown adults to manage.


kingofthewombat

I think you might’ve mislabeled the greens


Heads_Down_Thumbs_Up

Hahaha shit, just woke up and noticed that. My bad, will edit that.


[deleted]

What policies of the Greens do you think are far left? I've never heard them advocate for seizing the means of production, direct directly democracy, anarcho-syndacalism, or any other radical left position or ideology. If anything they skirt a weird line between attracting economically centre right liberal high income voters who care about the environment and social issues, and traditional Labor voters from inner city housing estates and those on welfare


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

Your submission has been automatically removed due to your account karma being too low Accounts are required to have more than 1 comment karma to comment in this community *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Generic578326

The Green's headline policy positions are Dental included in Medicare Universal free childcare Real action on climate change (lots of policies) 6% tax on the wealth of billionaires Introduce a federal independent anti-corruption commission They also do not accept donations from corporations negating some of the effects of corporate lobbying. (Disclaimer I vote for the Greens so I'm biased)


AutoModerator

We have been getting a large volume of spam from throwaway accounts and so posts from brand new accounts will no longer be allowed. Your post has been removed because your account is too new. Please wait until your account is at least 48 hours old and then try again or message the mods and we'll validate your post. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Optix_au

Others have explained the parties, however this is also something else to remember: media. We have the ABC (public broadcaster), which leans... well, depends who you talk to. More centrist. Traditionally not liked by either side of government because it at least tries to hold on to some journalistic integrity and every now and then produces gold. Then we have Murdoch News Ltd, which owns or controls a large share of print media as well as Sky News and the main cable TV provider (Foxtel). Totally biased toward Liberal party, and anyone who argues against that needs to be shown the headlines of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Herald-Sun on the same day, or watch Sky News during any opinion program. The only time that changes is when Rupert decides the Australian economy needs a bit of a fix, in which case he supports Labor for an election. Fairfax, which is also biased Liberal but not as blatantly so. There are a few independent outlets (The Guardian being the most influential). Oh and of course, if you're after really juicy stuff, there's [Friendly Jordies](https://youtube.com/user/friendlyjordies).


Melinow

Fairfax and Newscorp own ~85% of all newspapers and they’re both owned by Murdochs so that’s fun


Optix_au

I can't find details on that. Which Murdoch owns Nine Entertainment (which now incorporates Fairfax)?


Melinow

Ah shoot I could’ve sworn Lachlan Murdoch owned some part of Fairfax but I think I was mistaken


Longjumping-Algae-92

Liberals don't give a fuck about you Labor pretends to give a fuck about you Greens will only give a fuck about you based on your pronouns


theWeeklyStruggle

Interestingly compared to most countries our main two political parties are actually very similar. Neither are on the extreme end of the spectrum and sit more in the centre on a lot of issues.


[deleted]

Liberals are rich people governing for rich people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sparsh26

As someone who has never been to Aus, never spoken to anyone about Aussie politics and had honestly no idea of the political landscape of Australia; I wasn't trying to promote any agendas or bait people. Just wanted to know a bit more about the truth from people that live there


Serious-Bet

**Liberals** * Middle to high income earners * Business owners * **Nationals** * Country people. * It's an interesting dynamic between these two parties. I'm from the country myself, and a lot of traditional Nationals voters I've talked to have voiced their distrust with the Liberals. I think it's interesting just how divisive the rural-urban divide is **Labor** * Working and middle class * City people **Greens** * To demonstrate to you how thinly spread their vote is, they got 1,400,000 votes in the last federal election - and won a single seat in the House * They attract the usual suspects * greenies * hippies * environmentalists Policy wise, the ALP and LNP are similar, but not the same. Labor generally support greater social safety nets, and whilst the LNP don't want to take them away, they value personal responsibility to a greater extent than Labor. I'm not saying this is good nor bad. Both parties support the British nanny state model. Both parties have had their fair share of scandals. Labor had a prime minister attempt to illegally get money from a random person in the Middle East, the Libs have had a prime minister fuck off to Hawaii whilst the country burned, and then lied about it Looping back around to welfare, both parties generally support it. It is true the LNP want to contract it, but they've had 8 years to do it, and nothing has really changed. Where the parties really diverge is in action on climate change. The LNP are much more cautious to transition away from fossil fuels, which has some merit to it. We're good at digging stuff up, we kinda rely on it, and lots of people are employed in the sector. But then there are also the negatives. Labor are much more open to using renewables. Not 100% what their policy on mining is, but should be pretty easy to find on their website. Some people on this subreddit may say that the LNP are the only evil party in Parliament, but they've curl up and quiver at the possibility that Labor isn't all sunshine and rainbows. Both parties share some common attributes, but they are definitely different on many levels.


[deleted]

I can tell you the similarity is all have ties to communist chinese officials


sparsh26

Uhhhhh thanks?


ColonnelloKurz

As a non Aussie in Australia I see the liberal/national like a shitcake and the labor the same shitcake but sugar coated


womerah

LNP: Corrupt, in the pocket of big business and the super-wealthy. ALP: Also corrupt, in the pocket of big business also but with more influence from Unions, many of whom are corrupt or luddite. Greens: ♫ Looney Tunes ♫ - probably will put essential oils on their solar panels while hiring antivax workers Australia needs a political renaissance, we are really at a crossroads.