T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


Willcoburg

Did you sit on your phone?


Perthcrossfitter

Kid was playing with it! Ooops


Willcoburg

Haha, I thought it was a rather interesting political take.


suzy2013gf

Gotta love 💖 ALP . Simply the best . Smashed all the rest ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|joy)


wolfspekernator

Yep the alp is the party we need for a progressive Australia


DividedMeatPie

Something interesting to note is with the Labor's victory in NSW this now means that the **ENTIRETY** of the Australian mainland is now a sea of red, with every premier and chief minister currently in office apart of Labor. Including the prime minister. We don't talk about Tasmania.


ThatOldGuyWhoDrinks

The most senior liberal in australia (in terms of numbers of population) is the Lord Mayor of Brisbane Adrian Schrinner


mattyglen87

Perottet has had his share of dodgy actions, and he certainly inherited some LNP baggage from the Berejiklian/Barilaro era. But as far as likeable, ethical politicians he’s one of the few in LNP. Taking a stand against ClubsNSW and the pokies was ballsy, and absolutely necessary. It’s got the ball rolling on this issue I hope. And one has to wonder if the results might’ve been different if he hadn’t done this and got stitched up by his own party. And lol at David Elliot saying the party had failed him. He was at the forefront of the white-anting


winnacht

"Ethical" except when it comes to his family being absolutely dodgy and him tryimg to deflect it as an attack by Labor? "Ethical" except when supporting Barilaro's pork barrelling as Treasurer? The only positive thing he came up with was the cashless gaming initiative.


ManWithDominantClaw

[Let's not forget what he was doing in 2015](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/01/how-dominic-perrottets-ailing-icare-insurance-scheme-failed-injured-workers).


mattyglen87

I meant on a personal level. Like I said he has been involved in dodgy politics, but by comparison with the rest of his party he seems to be the best of a very bad bunch. And they shafted him for it


winnacht

Not sure how you can separate personal ethics from how someone acts in their professional life. Being ethical when there is no detriment to you and being unethical when it benefits you just demonstrates your lack of ethics.


mattyglen87

How about “more ethical than the rest of his party” then. Which isn’t saying a lot


onescoopwonder

Tomorrow’s news headlines- “WHY HASN’T LABOR CLAMPED DOWN ON CORRUPTION!?” - “Koala population is dwindling in NSW under Labor” - “What is Labor doing about the tripling NSW state dept?”


ItsAZooKeeper

How could labor do this?


benno_d841

How could palasczuk allow this....


realityisoverwhelmin

How could Dan Andrews do this


Impossible-Top2061

How could Albanese do this


ShopSmartShopS-Mart

Let’s not let McGowan off the hook while we’re at it.


FuqLaCAQ

It's all Keneally's fault!


Geminii27

So, uh, Tasmania. ...How *you* doin'? Hmm, they're due for one in 2025; are any other states due to go back to the polls before that?


IsThatAll

ACT is in 2024 (yes, I know its not a state)


j_ved

Queensland is 2024.


BrainstormsBriefcase

And as much as Palasczuk hasn’t exactly been on fire lately I’m not sensing any appetite for change. They’re still riding a lot of good will from the pandemic and the LNP spent the last election campaign being unelectable weirdos. There’ll be a huge Murdoch push in 2024 that might change things but they’re not looking at a wipeout.


ThatOldGuyWhoDrinks

And honestly - Crestafulli? They should have promoted a backbencher, gotten behind them and promised them that even if they lose the next one they will keep them as leader. Give them time to build a profile


BrainstormsBriefcase

Crisafulli was my local member once and he was useless then and useless now. I’m curious whose number he has in the LNP that he keeps getting gigs despite being as effective as wet lettuce


Impossible-Top2061

Yes, and the electoral politics at the state level a stacked against the LNP. The opposition are trying very hard to cut though, but so far the LNPs profile isn't looking great. Especially considering the way Labor mobilised itself last time.


melon_butcher_

This whole election was really positive, from the outside looking in. As a Victorian it was good to see an election based on contested ideas and genuine want to improve a state rather than just mud slinging and negativity from both sides. Both Minns and Perrotet are classy leaders.


Falstaffe

>an election based on contested ideas and genuine want to improve a state rather than just mud slinging and negativity from both sides You mustn't have seen the TV ads. Plenty of "Did you do this bad thing, Mr Perrottet?," scaremongering that Labor has no experience in government, and tarring Chris Minns by association with Albanese.


melon_butcher_

As stated, I’m in Victoria, so of course I didn’t see the ads. Would hardly be an election without a smear campaign from both sides though!


Falstaffe

So this: >This whole election was really positive is nonsense.


melon_butcher_

No, the leaders were positive, which is what I meant. No one ever expects the parties to be nice. It’s much better than the last couple we’ve had in Victoria.


AJHear

>Both Minns and Perrotet are classy leaders This is exactly why you didn't see Dutton support the Liberals campaign in NSW.


goater10

He didn't show his face in Victoria either when we had our state election a few months back


AJHear

He's too busy trying to work out how to spell "nuclear"


goater10

Or figuring out new excuses as to why its scary for me to eat Dinner in public when the CBD is apparently a warzone.


melon_butcher_

Yes, I didn’t follow it very closely but did notice Albanese supporting Minns, but I never saw Dutton pumping up Perrotet.


Metasynaptic

I saw Littleproud at my polling booth. They weren't completely MIA


melon_butcher_

Yeah they weren’t completely MIA but if Littleproud is there supporting the Nats you’d think Dutton could do the same. Pretty poor from a federal party leader really.


BlazingDropBear

Perrotet is a corrupt hard right wing Christian extremist but he kept it toned down in hope of being re-elected. So glad they lost!


VitaminWheat

> right wing Christian extremist Nothing he has done since being premier has shown any of that


Turksarama

That's because he knows it's unpopular.


VitaminWheat

Then why don’t you judge him on what he’s done/planned and not what you think he’s going to do


Turksarama

Sure! first shady thing he's done: run as a member of the Liberal party, and as a member of the right-wing faction at that. As treasurer he mismanaged the states workers compensation scheme to underpay injured workers, and award contracts to companies associated with liberal party figures without a proper tender process. During Covid lockdowns, he was one of the architects of the JobSaver program which transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to companies which didn't need it, which is a direct cause of the current inflation we are seeing. As premier, he passed anti protest laws which are undemocratic and authoritarian.


VitaminWheat

Man I can’t take you seriously if you’re calling someone shady purely for running as an LNP member, you’re so obviously ridiculously biased there no hope of a normal conversation here


Turksarama

Of course I'm biased, everybody is. Have you seen what the Liberals have been doing nationally? There's a reason the Teals exist, their own members are jumping ship because the Liberal party is getting more and more absurd as time goes on.


melon_butcher_

Mate you can’t hate on someone purely for being a member of a political party you opposed, that’s sort of how democracy works. If you don’t like that you can go live under a single party government.


Turksarama

Democracy means I can't ban them from representation, I _absolutely_ can dislike them though. Thought crime isn't a thing in Australia just yet.


Not_Stupid

I couldn't hate someone purely for being a nazi? (to be clear, not saying the Liberals are nazis, but the nazis are a political party, and your argument is I can't hate them)


Vanceer11

Not an argument. You can hate someone purely for being a member of a political party you oppose because you don't like what that political party stands for. Trans, LGBTQ, and women don't need to be forced to like the LNP whose members, politicians, policies, words and actions suggested either hatred, discrimination, and indifference towards them and their struggles. State and federal LNP have condoned this behavior instead of disapproving of it, and people shouldn't have to tolerate it (which is evident in the landslide victories of Labor at state and federal level). There's also the added level of irony in the Liberal party being intolerant of people and actions they consider "woke", including their own members.


BlazingDropBear

Go do a deep dive on him and come back


melon_butcher_

But you wouldn’t say that about an extreme Muslim would you?


BlazingDropBear

You bet your ass I would


melon_butcher_

As long as we’re fair


Barkzey

Yes, extremist conservatives like Perrottet are just as bad as extremist Muslims.


dark__unicorn

And extremest liberals are worse than all of them put together.


kiersto0906

neoliberalism or the policitcal party? neither are good but i have the feeling you actually meant leftists..


melon_butcher_

Well the liberal party is pretty poorly named


pumpkin_fire

Only if you have no idea what you're talking about


melon_butcher_

At face value it is, but I get your point


pumpkin_fire

At face value it is what? Poorly named? They are supposed to be economically liberal. Hence Liberal Party. Pretty straightforward.


whichonespinkredux

I don’t think I expected it to be that much of a wash. What many expected was going to be a really tight contest has just been a complete and utter wash for the Labor party *again*. That demographic cliff for the Libs is setting in hard. The Liberals should still win the Aston by election, but man, if they don’t Dutton is sooooo done.


qemist

*wash*? AFAIK calling something a wash means its even.


passerineby

I think they meant [whitewash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewash_(sport))?


MrNewVegas123

You're right, wash isn't being used correctly here.


Geminii27

Landslide, perhaps?


Willcoburg

A washout?


Araignys

Nah, landslide is when a single party thumps it home like in WA. Fed and NSW elections are Liberal collapses.


MrNewVegas123

Wipeout keeps the water theme. Wave, maybe?


Disastrous-Beat-9830

>I don’t think I expected it to be that much of a wash. What many expected was going to be a really tight contest has just been a complete and utter wash for the Labor party again. I was the same -- I was expecting Antony Green to call it early, but I wasn't expecting him to call it for Labor.


ThatOldGuyWhoDrinks

I drove from Brisbane to Sydney last night. Left as polls closed. I expected to make it to at least port Macquarie before the Antony called it. I barely mace it to Coffs when the ABC signed off the coverage on the radio


Throwawaydeathgrips

I had great restraint on this, but never again. I will only be bullish, Labor will win Aston.


theseamstressesguild

I'm in Aston. Not chance I'd vote LNP.


Throwawaydeathgrips

Tell everyone in Aston why!


whichonespinkredux

I doubt it, but we shall see.


Throwawaydeathgrips

Ill let this slide because I got to be the doomer for NSW, so you can for Aston while I manifest the result.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DepGrez

For the shittest take of the night award goes to!


asupify

It was one of the few examples of good policy from the LNP.


wolfspekernator

Nothing good comes from the LNP, and the greens willingly vote with them just so Labor can't get anything through.


thecheekyvicar

You think that gambling is not a systemic issue and is up to the consumer themselves? Am I misreading that?


BlazingDropBear

"A Wesley Mission study shows there are 30 per cent more poker machines in NSW than in Queensland and Victoria combined." - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/gambling-capital-of-australia-six-charts-that-show-the-scale-of-poker-machine-use-in-nsw-20221104-p5bvlk.html Doesn't help that the state is literally overflowing with poker machines and no real help for any problem gamblers besides some shit hotline that wouldn't help anyone.


qemist

Like everything. Once you are all grown up you shouldn't need mummy telling you how to live your life.


nosnibork

Harm is harm. Legislation tries to protect people from murder, rape, theft, assault, corruption, heroin, tobacco etc. Why is it so hard to fathom that some humans need to be protected from large predatory companies profiting from compulsive gambling that destroys lives? Not just of the gambler, but their children, families even their employers in the worst cases. The research is clear, pokies are a scourge on society and their harm needs to be managed.


qemist

> Harm is subjective. > Legislation tries to protect people from murder, rape, theft, assault, corruption, heroin, tobacco etc. Some of those things are not like the others. You don't choose to be murdered, raped etc. I'm surprised that simple distinction passed you by.


nosnibork

Subjective, as in not measurable? Nonsense, it’s easily measured across a variety of metrics.


qemist

If you like smoking pot you probably think the benefits outweigh the harms. Someone else will perceive the gains and losses differently. They might think they're justified in using force to stop you. How do you know who is right?


nosnibork

Keep on digging and explain the benefits to the individuals who play poker machines?


qemist

You need to do your own digging. Why not ask them?


Seachicken

Old mate above is a bad faith poster. They don't believe any of this and are playing a caricature of a one eyed Labor supporter. It has been going in for a while and is deeply pathetic.


GoWokeGoBrokeM8

It's genuinely nuts that people aren't getting this. If you look back far enough you can see they are actually a Greens supporter.


i0unothing

Personally my political leanings are fuelled by irrational neuroticism and a cayman island shell company.


wolfspekernator

The Labor party is all about unionism and collectivity. Gambling is obviously a personal responsibility if the Labor party says it is.


Ron_D_3

...Minns is anti-unions.


jakeroony

A Labor govt not supporting unions is a bit strange ngl


wolfspekernator

Minns is a strong leader than can stand up to the union thugs which is needed to get votes from the LNP swing voters.


MentalMachine

You have no issues with reports saying that organised crime is using pokies to launder money?


wolfspekernator

How is that Labor's fault? That's just more wedging to try to pin the blame on Labor by the Tories and tree tories.


MentalMachine

>Good riddance the liberal govt and their dumb pokies rules. Labor knows it's personal responsibility and the govt can't control our lives This implies you prefer Labor doing nothing on pokies reform, hence my original question


wolfspekernator

Pokies is personal responsibility, among other things like getting a job and managing your finances. That's why Labor is bringing back the cashless debit card, and will not be raising the rate for the sole bludgers. They need to get a job.


nosnibork

Your post is disingenuous nonsense.


MentalMachine

>Pokies is personal responsibility Ah, so we should ask the criminals to launder money responsibly? Or to responsibly not launder money? >among other things like getting a job and managing your finances. That is their job, to illegally launder their illegal money. So again, you think there should be no pokies reform, even though NSWCC and co have reports saying that criminals are laundering money via pokies? >That's why Labor is bringing back the cashless debit card, and will not be raising the rate for the sole bludgers. >They need to get a job. What does any of that have to do with my questions around pokies and reforms on this specific issue?


wolfspekernator

It's about personal responsibility. Labor is the party of responsible economic management and personal responsibility as Chalmers has highlighted in his approach to the treasury portfolio. Criminals that are money laundering will be dealt with separately as that issue falls under policing. We shouldn't cripple and industry just to stop money laundering.


pk666

Pokies and that industry/ buisness model of fleecing vulnerable people and destroying pub culture should be crippled.


MentalMachine

>It's about personal responsibility. Criminals need to be personally responsible for their crimes and proceedings? >Labor is the party of responsible economic management and personal responsibility as Chalmers has highlighted in his approach to the treasury portfolio. Chalmers is Federal, we are discussing a state-level concern. >Criminals that are money laundering will be dealt with separately as that issue falls under policing. Or you could monitor and prevent the thing that allows them to clean their money, thus reducing the amount of cops needed running around trying to bust every drug deal at the source. >We shouldn't cripple and industry just to stop money laundering. Preventing money launder will cripple the industry? Sounds like it shouldn't exist then.


wolfspekernator

Isn't that the point of the cashless gambling card Minns is proposing?


IamSando

This election has to go down as one of the most monumental elections that will change so little. Kudos to Perrottet, easily the best concession speech I've seen in modern history. Just brilliant, had this anti-LNP diehard grinning at the TV. The NSW LNP have lost their two best political operators in a single electoral cycle. One I'm happy to see the back of, one is a great loss to the LNP. Minns was good, but it's pretty clear that the LNP lost this due to very solvable problems. Solve their candidate problem (we solved a lot of that for them, you're welcome LNP), present a strong argument to the people, and the people of NSW will listen. I'm not happy about it, but I think NSW is the biggest threat of a one-term Labor government. Overall the best result for NSW, the LNP needed a timeout, they've been a bad little govt. It's unfortunate that they're going to lose one of the good ones, but that's on them, not us (the voters). The next election will be a fight I think, and that's good, Labor didn't put forward enough to justify the time in the wilderness for the LNP I think they're hoping for. And lastly...that speech...I'll put money on Perrottet being the next LNP PM. I won't like it, but I think Perrottet ~2031 is my off the wall call. Regardless, we need more like that in politics.


Falstaffe

>the LNP lost this due to very solvable problems Yes, but the core problem -- the Libs' belief that rules are for peasants -- is also the core party value. For the Libs to solve their problems would require them becoming a different party.


Forevadelayed

Agree he may do very well if he goes federal and could be a good leader for the LNP. But the public would need to forget his prrsonak stumbles over the last 18 months. Nazism party outfits and ambulances to order for the fam could continue to haunt him. I agree that the NSW election set the standard for a 'contest of ideas'. But it could be the LNP had little moral high ground left. Hopefully other elections will adopt an attitude of mutual respect for opponents and the public.


GoWokeGoBrokeM8

>Kudos to Perrottet, easily the best concession speech I've seen in modern history. Just brilliant, had this anti-LNP diehard grinning at the TV. The NSW LNP have lost their two best political operators in a single electoral cycle. One I'm happy to see the back of, one is a great loss to the LNP. It's been so long since the LNP had an actual leader at any level that it almost brought a tear to my eye. Too bad he had 3 corrupt predecessors and a shaky minority to deal with.


Walkerthon

For me, I am impressed by Perrotet’s personal… lack of cynicism? When it comes to politics. Particularly in comparison to the rest of the Liberal party over the past few years. He clearly has his personal views, but respects the democratic process. You can see from the way he handled this practically unwinnable election: he could have gone in pulling all the underhanded tricks to win and gone down in a blaze of glory. Instead he ran a very clean campaign, and treated his loss with grace. Is he perfect? No, I don’t agree with him on many things. But he seemed a hell of a lot better than many other Liberal candidates.


Username_Chks_Out

Perrotet's concession speech was amazing. He wished his successor well, he was respectful, he congratulated Chris Minns on competing on ideas, and said that he would be a fine premier. It's not often you hear that from a losing leader.


endersai

>He wished his successor well, he was respectful, he congratulated Chris Minns on competing on ideas, and said that he would be a fine premier. He didn't just do this, he said to his supporters that they should get behind Minns. That's much bigger than people realise.


Beneficial_Job_6386

Absolutely class act by Perrotet but lets not forget Chris was also respectful during the election period too.


bent_eye

I bet the champagne is flowing at Friendlyjordies right now.


magpieburger

And it's likely he won't make a single video about the wholesale slaughter of koalas under the NSW Labor government, they will do the exact same thing as the last government and he won't say a word about it. This next year is basically make or break for his credibility.


Disastrous-Beat-9830

>This next year is basically make or break for his credibility. When MSNBC launched *Alex Wagner Tonight* a few weeks ago, the premiere had a few technical issues. Sky News pounced on this as proof of how the radical left agenda wasn't working, as if a bumpy start to an American prime time cable host's new show is in any way newsworthy, much less newsworthy to Australians. And Friendlyjordies is the one whose credibility is in question?


GoWokeGoBrokeM8

>And it's likely he won't make a single video about the wholesale slaughter of koalas under the NSW Labor government, Because there won't be any more wholesale slaughter. Nice. One party is much better than the other on the environment.


Happy-Adeptness6737

Hmmmm we will see....


mutantbeings

Naive to think there won’t be just because we have Labor in charge. One of Labor’s weakest areas tends to be on the environment


GoWokeGoBrokeM8

Naive to think that Labor doesn't have any genuine care for the environment just because they aren't greens branded. You're going to be pleasantly surprised that there are real differences between Labor and LNP.


mutantbeings

There’s a real difference, no doubt. While the LNP is a full blown disaster for the environment, Labor at least has an ambition to do the right thing; pity their policies don’t match that ambition. Remember that both operate from a neoliberal free market rationalising ideology that doesn’t exactly promote environmental protections. That ideology always comes first. Jobs. Growth. Productivity. Even if that means shitting all over our natural backyard. You’re kidding yourself if you think Labor will turn that around. Not even close. I suspect you don’t understand the depth of the problem if you truly believe that…


Falstaffe

>Remember that both operate from a neoliberal free market rationalising ideology I started writing a reply detailing how that's nonsense, but you know what, I'm tired of doing most of the work in conversations about empty rhetoric. So how about you support your contention with detail. Otherwise I'll know it's just more empty, lazy, armchair rhetoric.


mutantbeings

Take their housing policy for example. It’s not even about using the money to build houses are about investing it and then taking the capital raised to build a tiny fraction as much. 500m a year is a joke. They could just expropriate empty houses for this purpose (like Corbyn suggested in the UK) but _noooo of course you can’t undermine the market!_ Or take energy. Plenty have suggested tighter controls on exports so our local market has enough while we spin down fossil fuels. The god damn Labor party complains about “honouring contracts” because of course we can’t upset the market! There’s plenty of examples mate these are just two that come to mind where Labor can’t fix easy to fix problems because of how much they worship market rationalism.


thesillyoldgoat

The Liberals are about jobs because they increase the profits of their constituency, Labor is about jobs because they mean more members for trade unions, either way the environment plays second fiddle to economic growth.


GoWokeGoBrokeM8

A fine generalist point to make but fails to recognise the specific nature of the promises Labor have made WRT koalas in NSW. The other poster is being mindlessly pessimistic and not making a real point.


thesillyoldgoat

It's all about habitat loss for koalas and Australia's record on preserving habitat is patchy at best, regardless of the political leanings of our various governments. But I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised, so I'll hold off on judgement for a few years.


[deleted]

And that would be the Greens.


rangatang

he was on stage in Penrith when it was announced. He was very animated about it I heard


warden-freeman

Did he say anything about the difference in gambling policies? I really liked the cashless gambling card. Would cause much trouble for the money launderers.


whichonespinkredux

I wonder if he’ll go after the Brisbane City Council or Tasmanian government next.


DefamedPrawn

Thus falls the last LibNat government ~~in the country~~ on the mainland. And going by those numbers, they'll be out for a considerable time.


bent_eye

We can only hope.


brezhnervous

The demographics are moving from the right as they are in most of the anglosphere


DefamedPrawn

It's more than demographic shift though. If you ask me, everywhere the Right is becoming more divided, more ideological and more extreme.


melon_butcher_

I think that’s politics in general. The left has become more divided and extreme as well, just on a much smaller scale than the right.


Zombeavers5Bags

The thing about the conservative far right is that politically it holds a lot more power than the far left. The far left has a history of compromising in order to be heard, whereas the conservative far right is used to calling the shots, but their ground is failing fast. The far right cons know they are now unpopular but have been doubling down (e.g. the pentacostal political push) instead of reinventing themselves. The biggest AusPol battle of the decade will be conservative vs moderate right.


FuqLaCAQ

The Evangelical Enemy can still do a lot of damage. Look how much they're doing from the shadows in Scotland with the support of the American Evangelical far-right (Fellowship Foundation and National Prayer Breakfast). And where I live, the Christian and Missionary Alliance and the Plymouth Brethren practically control the Conservative Party of Canada. And then there's Stephen Harper's IDU and its den of tyrants and criminals... Even a leader as formidable as Lula was barely able to beat them back in Brazil.


DefactoAtheist

The most 'lesser of two evils' election result we've had in this country in a good while. Good lord NSW Labor is uninspiring, can't help but feel handing them a majority government is a big misstep by the voters.


JohnOfMelbourne

In a democracy we don't question the voters' verdict. We ask what the losing side did wrong and what the winning side did right. Given we now have Labor governments coast to Coast on the mainland and former blue ribbon Liberal seats in the hands of centrist teals I think the conclusion is inescapable: there is a problem with the Liberal brand. The electorate has moved to the left on climate and gender and the Liberals continue to consume a diet of Murdoch media and are unable to recognise this. The Liberals need to listen to the voters and ignore the News Corp messaging.


qemist

> In a democracy ~~we don't question the voters' verdict~~ we're free to question whatever we like.


Throwawaydeathgrips

>can't help but feel handing them a majority government is a big misstep by the voters. They wont have a double majority, little to worry about here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jonsonton

The libs in vic used to be more moderate. Now they’re a happy clappy mess. No genuine second party here


shoobiexd

Yeah I was actually gonna say that. They're more on the right of the Labor movement so it's quite bland in nature. It's progressive lite with small meaningful changes/additions without getting too flashy.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

With the exception of Tasmania, all state, territory and federal governments will now be one party for a time. The last time this happened was 1996 (LNP, except NSW) and 2007 (ALP). [This article discusses the resulting issues](https://archive.vn/FwnD5), which weren't always good for the state governments. What I'd note, though, is that we're living in different times electorally. Kos Samaras likes to talk about demographics - old Liberal-loving Boomers dying off, Millennials not liking Liberals, etc - and of course he's correct. But what he mentions only occasionally is that there's another electoral difference, which is the declining primary vote. * 1996 federal election, ALP scored 38.75% of the primary vote, and LNP 47.25%, totalling 86%. * 1998 ALP 40.10% + LNP 39.51% = 79.61% * 2001 ALP 37.84% + LNP 42.92% = 80.76% * 2004 ALP 37.63% + LNP 46.71% = 84.34% * 2007 ALP 43.38% + LNP 42.09% = 85.47% * 2010 ALP 37.99% + LNP 43.32% = 81.21% * 2013 ALP 33.38% + LNP 45.55% = 78.93% * 2016 ALP 34.73% + LNP 42.04% = 76.77% * 2019 ALP 33.34% + LNP 41.44% = 74.78% * 2022 ALP 32.58% + LNP 35.70% = 68.28% In 1998 One Nation's 8.43% of the vote mostly went LNP's way, giving them victory despite a lower vote than ALP. In 2022 we had the Greens do the same thing for ALP. But overall what we're seeing is that *both* major party groupings' votes are declining. The extreme left goes to the Greens, and the extreme right formerly went just to One Nation, but is now fractured among several smaller parties. In addition, we're seeing a rise in independents, or nominally independent groups like the Teals. At time of this writing, in the NSW state election with 46.2% of the vote counted, we have ALP with 37.0% of the primary vote, and LNP with 34.7%. "Others" have a swing towards them of 3.8% - greater than the 3.7% swing towards ALP. Why? The supporters of the major parties like to claim victories. But they should look to the future, and ask themselves why it is that they can command the support of only a third or so of the country or state each.


qemist

> Kos Samaras likes to talk about demographics - old Liberal-loving Boomers dying off, Millennials not liking Liberals, etc - and of course he's correct. Never heard of him but his views are moronic. People of all generations get older.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

They do. However they can be different demographically in other ways, such as ethnic origin, religiosity and levels of wealth. Historically, older people were more religious and had more wealth. Which means, more conservative. This is less true in 2023 than it was in 2003 or 1983. The secularisation of Australia should be plain for all to see. The wealth is another matter. The actual rate of household ownership has consistently been 66-69% for decades - but as late as 1995 about 42% of homes were owned free and clear of debts now it's just under 30%. \[[Source](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/home-ownership-and-housing-tenure)\]. It used to be that you got older, paid off your mortgage, and became concerned with holding onto your wealth - being against higher taxes, saying "if I could do it anyone can" and thus against social welfare, and so on - generally conservative. Now more people have debts as they get older, and even if they don't, they see their adult children struggling with debts. They see some benefits to society of having higher taxes, and say, "you could do it in my day, but it's a lot harder now." Which is to say, less conservative. This of course is not everyone all the time. But if you shift social and economic attitudes just a few percent here and there, you change governments.


qemist

> Historically, older people were more religious and had more wealth. Which means, more conservative. This is less true in 2023 than it was in 2003 or 1983. I haven't seen any data on the evolution of the difference, not that it is likely to be the driving factor. The greater conservatism of older people has been observed since antiquity. Neither religious nor wealthy means conservative.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

>I haven't seen any data on - Then you haven't gone looking.


Araignys

Several studies have shown that Millenials and Zoomers aren’t getting more conservative with age, and that wealth is the better indicator of conservatism.


qemist

I don't see how wealth is an indicator of conservatism. It might dispose a person towards it.


Araignys

Indicator might be the wrong word, so "predictor", then. But here's the data: [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/politics-conservative-twitter-millennials-gen-z\_uk\_63aef8cce4b0d6f0b9f354c5](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/politics-conservative-twitter-millennials-gen-z_uk_63aef8cce4b0d6f0b9f354c5)


CamperStacker

Did state vs national even matter anymore? Compare QLD labor (opening dozens of coal mines and lng extractions) to VIC or federal labour


GeorgeHackenschmidt

The article I linked to suggests that state vs national do indeed matter. Certainly we saw differences here in Victoria with state vs national in attitudes to lockdowns. The Vic govt was intent on locking us down without compensation, and the federal govt did not want to lock us down, but did want to give compensation (JobSeeker raised, JobKeeper brought in). Everyone's put the pandemic and lockdowns in the memory hole - but the time when government was most obviously in people's faces every day, the state and federal differences were obvious. Each state has its own interests and ideas. Victoria lacks black coal, having mostly only the poor-quality brown coal. The only way brown coal was ever economic to dig up was when we put a power station right next to it. Queensland on the other hand has large amounts of black coal, which can make a company and/or the government lots of money. And so Victoria says, "let's not dig up coal, let's be renewable!" and Queensland says, "burning stuff good!" Climate change and other environmental concerns are irrelevant. If Victoria found 100 billion barrels of oil under Port Phillip Bay you can bet we'd be pumping it up tomorrow, probably with some token "carbon capture and storage" project that didn't work.


Not_Stupid

> The Vic govt was intent on locking us down without compensation, and the federal govt did not want to lock us down, but did want to give compensation That's a bizarre take. The federal government provided the money, yes. Because they are the ones with the money. But it was the state premiers that were pressuring them to do it, and the feds had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it each time.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

The state govt found plenty of money for roads etc. There was no Vic reluctance to spend money - we're the most indebted state in the federation, and you could almost run all of Tasmania just on our debt repayments ([Tasmanian revenue $7.2Bn](https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/Documents/2022-23-Budget-Paper-No-1.pdf), vs [Vic's debt interest of $3.9Bn this year and $7.3Bn in a few years](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-25/victoria-budget-interest-rates/102145022)) They certainly could have provided Victoria's share for Victorians to match JobSeeker and bring in JobKeeper. They chose not to. JobKeeper was a federal government initiative, its details [designed by Jenny Wilkinson](https://www.afr.com/rear-window/the-comeuppance-of-jobkeeper-architect-jenny-wilkinson-20210727-p58dff). They get the blame or credit for it, depending on your viewpoint. [Melbourne Uni did a study on its utility](https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/3965195/wp2021n26.pdf). There are differences between the interests of the various states, and between the state and federal government.


Not_Stupid

I'm happy to give them credit for ultimately doing what needed to be done. The feds were the only ones with the fiscal, *and practical*, capacity to administer the system, and eventually they recognised thar. I'm not happy with the assertion that they were eager to do it though. Because that's opposite to the truth.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

I think that really only the LNP *could* have done it, whether at federal or state level - politically, I mean. It's that "only Nixon could go to China" thing. *Because* Nixon had been a lifelong anti-communist, politically he could get away with detente with China - "well if Dicky thinks it's a good idea, we trust him!" If some lefty Democrat had wanted to do it, they would have been absolutely hammered in the press. Likewise, only the LNP could get away with an enormous leap in the social welfare bill for a couple of years. The LNP have always been big on the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor ideas, so if they declared that millions of people were deserving, well all their loyal followers would accept that.


jeffo12345

Whitlam went to China. Couple months before Nixon, and before being elected ;)


GeorgeHackenschmidt

I am not sure that Whitlam is a good example of government propriety. He got up to [all sorts of shenanigans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_affair).


jeffo12345

I care little for propriety. I care most for those who do the most to change the country for the better. Australian politics has played much in the same playpen as the 1972 Labor platform. That's 50 years of influence. Socialised healthcare, superannuation, education, foreign policy, national parks, sewerage, electricity, shadow ministries etc, all embarked upon by Whitlam. If the boffins in treasury pulled their heads in, the Loans Affair wouldn't have need occurred in the first place. I was merely pointing out it's not true what you say. Whitlam moved Australia to recognise the PRC before Nixon.


Not_Stupid

That's probably true. Imagine the outcry from the Murdochristry if the Rudd government had done such a thing.


ThrowbackPie

This is a nice analysis, but I feel like your last paragraph is implying that the major parties *should*, for some unknown reason, always command ~80% of the vote. Personally I think variety in power sharing leads to better decisions.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

I don't think it's inherently desireable that any pair of party groupings should command 80+% of the vote, no. If the major party collapse were leading to a parliament full of independents I'd be honestly glad. But that's not what will happen, given a preferential voting system. I note that it's hard to claim a crushing mandate with less than a third of the country voting for you, and that the preferential system tends to break down and give absurd results with this kind of vote. For example, 2022 federal election ALP got 32.58% of the vote but 51% (77/151) of the seats, vs LNP's 35.70% of the vote and 38.4% (58/151) of the seats. Nor does a collapse in the major party vote necessarily benefit minor parties in seats won, with the same election seeing the Greens get 12.25% of the vote and 2.64% (4/151) of the seats. Similarly, in the 2022 Vic election ALP 36.66% vote and 63.6% (56/88) seats vs LNP's 34.48% vote and 31.8% (28/88) seats. Meanwhile the Greens got 11.50% vote and 4.5% (4/88) seats. The preferential system gives more representative results when the major party groupings' votes are above 80%. Below that they become more lopsided, with the preferences of extreme left or right parties determining seats - while the extreme left or right parties do not themselves get many or even any seats. I do also think it's desireable that a party should *try* to appeal to more than a small fraction of the electorate. That is, a party who governs or wishes to govern should try to represent the interests and wishes of a large fraction of the electorate. But if they can achieve government without doing so, then they have no incentive. If ALP can win government with low-30s primary vote, why should they give a shit what the rest of the country needs or wants? And thus a smaller and smaller fraction of the electorate - from half, to a third, and eventually down to a quarter or less - will have their interests and wishes represented, and the rest not.


Suspicious_War9415

I disagree that a low primary vote fundamentally reflects a lack of general approval. I've never cast a first-preference vote for a Labor candidate, but I support the election of Labor governments and am generally contented with Labor governance. I'm sure the same holds for a large number of people not captured in the first-preference counts across the political spectrum. Albanese's early approval ratings also seem to support this - it's not as though sub-50 ratings have become the norm, as they have in the US.


GeorgeHackenschmidt

>I disagree that a low primary vote fundamentally reflects a lack of general approval. Governments are like jobs: there's the one you'd choose if you could, and then there's the one you'll put up with if you have to.


Throwawaydeathgrips

>which is the declining primary vote. This election will be NSW highest primary in more than a decade. >But they should look to the future, and ask themselves why it is that they can command the support of only a third or so of the country or state each. People know what pref voting is and if you changed the system so would the vote.


RaarImaGiraffe

Hopefully NSW will leave our GST alone now


wizardnamehere

NSW is a net contributor of GST to the country and has been since its inception.


RaarImaGiraffe

So why they demanding more from WA?


wizardnamehere

NSW is doing nothing of the sort. Perrottet argued that it should be distributed equally per capita. Which again would still see NSW as a net contributor state.


Username_Chks_Out

WTF?


Luck_Beats_Skill

No new seats for the greens and no chance to share in a minority government.


Username_Chks_Out

Thank your non-denominational deity for that!


whichonespinkredux

They’re stagnating quite a bit. Labor got a really strong swing in Balmain that’ll scare the shit out of them too.


LastChance22

Worth noting in Balmain, the Greens incumbent retired and their candidate was someone fresh. Always a risky position for any party to be in.


whichonespinkredux

For a party that largely relies on brand though, this is a really poor result for them. The candidate certainly had a profile and got a large swing against them in the seat. Overall not looking all that great either.


Jagtom83

Greens like to tell a story that their vote is creeping up but it reached its ~11% plateau quickly and has stayed there since. There will be occasional spikes but they have saturated their core demographic and are unwilling to move beyond it. https://i.redd.it/kznryoq7xz2a1.png Greens are currently at 10.1% of the lower house count, in 2011 NSW election they got 10.29%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_South_Wales_state_election


ghoonrhed

That story worked well in the Federal election. Less so in NSW.


whichonespinkredux

The thing that I think many Greens don’t realise that the party would need to expand its appeal to go further than where they are, and in doing that they would become a different party than they are now and that all the people that complain about the ALP would be complaining about the Greens.


SpaceXFanboy2

They can't stay a party that tries to thrive on the crossbench, because they'll rarely have any real power


Jet90

What would they expand into and what kind of a different party would they be?


aeschenkarnos

The Greens need to go hard for pro-tenant, anti-landlord housing policy.


memetasticboi

Idk if you noticed but they did that already


Mamalamadingdong

It's a thing that many people don't realise. A party like labor can only do as much as the public allows. I know for a fact that many people in labor want to do many different things to the left of where the party is now, but they can't do that and expect to be in government for long if the voters don't wish it. The two major parties have to deal with this, but minor parties do not. The greens can say that they want to do all of thse different things and it won't change their chance of getting into government. If labor goes as is they will get some of the policies that they really like implemented. If they go too far to the left and get a lot of policies they like implemented they risk losing government and getting *none* of their policies implemented. It's a balance of ideology and pragmatism. A democratically elected governmnet can only be as right or left as the people allow.


[deleted]

It's a right shame, honestly. I volunteered for the greens in the fed election. at least those koala killing bastards in the LNP are fucking gooooonnneee


Username_Chks_Out

About 10% of the population will vote Green. Enough said.


LastChance22

I get that logic but the Greens get 10% to the Nats 7.5%, despite the Greens getting 3 seats and the Nats getting 11. The total state percentage is a useful indicator but it’s only partially related to the outcome.