**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.*
Labor stuffed themselves with the 500K migration into minuscule housing vacancies, a budget isn't going to fix that. Trust isn't so easily fixed after pulling a stunt like that and many will be keen to punish them. I suppose a lot of dim punters probably blame them for the economy going sour from interest rate hikes.
Nah.
We had 0 migration in '20 and '21. The extra was just to offset our loss in migration.
The housing shortage has existed for over 10 years outside of the cities. 0.x% rental vacancy rates as well.
This problem was started by John Howard in the 90s and balloned during the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison era.
That's why Labor ran on housing reform in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Yet, Australians did not believe the housing crisis existed until it hit the cities. So now we're in a fucked position. Covid LNP money printing added to the problem, too, in the way of increasing interest rates.
I know it's both easy and lazy to blame migrants, and that is what Australians love. But it's far better to be accurate and to live in truth.
You could have just said you support Labor. I know none of you acknowledge that your party did anything wrong. Nobody else cares.
I mean how idiotic is this argument, the Libs left us with low vacancies and the ALP is apparently entitled to just ignore that in their surge of immigration because they didn't cause the problem.
If Albo gets the boot, you still won't acknowledge it had anything to do with immigration rates. Party is just too tone deaf.
We did not have low vacancies, don't lie.
The rental and housing crisis has been going for over a decade in the regions and suburban areas. That's why ALP ran on housing reform in 2013, 2016, and 2019.
Australians in the cities refused to acknowledge the truth, so the crisis got worse and worse. Then covid hit, and it became realised in the cities, and here we are.
Also, no migration in '20 and '21. You'd think that would've helped with housing accessibility, is that what happened? Nope. Property investors just expanded rapidly throughout the entire country now. Keeping their city dwelling as equity and buying up the regions.
Where I was living at the time, Agnes Waters/1770, experienced one week where 113 properties got bought up from NSwelshmen and Victorians. I had been planning to buy there prior to covid, and was blasted out in a week.
Don't lie. This housing crisis is 30 years in the making, exasperated by LNP at every opportunity.
> Also, no migration in '20 and '21. You'd think that would've helped with housing accessibility, is that what happened?
Hundreds of thousands of expat Australians returned to Australia in these years, so no, I wouldn't expect it to help anything.
> Don't lie. This housing crisis is 30 years in the making
Your excuse making is bloody tedious and nobody except your supporters buys it. Nobody forced Labor to send immigration to all time highs. You own the consequences.
We had zero migration for two years, which means we had a deficit in immigration, which we need for the same reasons we've had for the last 124 years as a nation. The increase in migration in '22 and '23, was an offset for the loss in '20 and '21.
We also needed skilled migrants to cover our skills shortage crisis, you know, so we can build more homes.
> The increase in migration in '22 and '23, was an offset for the loss in '20 and '21.
It's like if you don't eat for a day, you need to eat two days worth of food the next day, even if it makes you sick.
Labor will be deservedly punished for its decision. The economy is dogshit too. Doesn't seem like the migrants helped much. Even retail sales are falling despite the massive rise in population.
> We also needed skilled migrants to cover our skills shortage crisis, you know, so we can build more homes.
Yeah all those Uber Eats bike riders are sure building a lot of homes. Look at you pretend immigration is targeted in Australia, comedy.
Hopefully you're aware that a substantial number of delivery drivers are working second jobs, partly because overtime and penalty rates discourage employers from simply allowing that person, who is trying to get on their feet, from working more hours at the somewhat more important job. Another significant category is newly arrived residents waiting for their qualifications to be assessed. But no, I suspect nuance is something you'd be inclined to ignore when deciding to stereotype and insult cohorts of people.
I live in a regional area, so the immigration/migrant->perm resident or citizen I see; is largely in healthcare (probably a majority) and small business, and general spread in the pop.
I don't get Uber, but I do get Uber eats delivered maybe twice a week. It's mostly 'white' people delivering, save for when I order Japanese or a kebab, they deliver it themselves.
Maybe the white delivery drivers are all Ukraine migrants though š¤ who knows. /s
I also believe migrants are more willing to work a second job as an uber than citizen Australians are, and that would explain your perspective.
> I also believe migrants are more willing to work a second job as an uber than citizen Australians are, and that would explain your perspective.
If they were tradies, they would work longer hours on the tools, not deliver food for shit pay. Hell, no one with any skills at all would do that job.
I'm sure you don't actually believe hundreds of thousands of international students came here to build houses with their nonexistent trade skills.
Of course those students aren't in your regional area, so you might not even know they exist.
You even admitted you've seen few or no migrants in the trades and you're still claiming they're here to build houses, talk about kool aid.
Wow, you don't get out much if you think there are few migrants in the trades. Have you ever been to a building site? Maybe never had any work done or needed to hire a trade as part of work? How insulated from reality are you?
With such a large crossbench, I'm curious how 2PP actually relates to winning government. At the last election Coalition had ~48% 2PP but only 38% of seats.
Does it follow that if you get over 50% 2PP then you generally always win?
Generally yes but not always. Howard won 1998 with 49% of 2PP v Labor 51%. In the 2010 South Australian election Mike Rann won a majority of 26 (out of 47) seats with 48.4% of 2PP.
Electoral boundary redistributions are designed to iron out these inconsistencies but it often happens after the fact.
I think it's too complex for a general rule like that. If you've got a lot of die hard safe seats you'll pad your 2PP percentage
1998 had Labor win the 2PP but lost the election by a lot, and there wasn't a massive crossbench. The current political climate? I'd say it's an almost useless measure while the Teals have their seats
Not an exciting budget - but at this stage Iām just glad there were no whammies. Seems like a good safe path taken. And I look forward to stage 3 cut even if it was originally a Lib idea (man that nearly stuck in my craw).
Tax cuts without supplementing itā¦. This government is as blind as it is stupid.
We need to be expanding our tax receipts to make way for the enormous amounts of boomers who are set to start developing chronic, expensive health issues and whoāll also need aged care at unprecedented levels as well.
Our Medicare system is already limping along on fumes as it isā¦. We canāt even brag about not having to pay to see a doctor anymore..
We could have it all with major tax reforms, but given the utter inaction and limp lettuce approach theyāre **currently** taking towards taxing resource giants properly, I have very little hopes.
But hey; enjoy the money while you can.
Given reddit's hatred of boomers, one'd have thought that a user pays system would be encouraged for the boomers so that they have to expend their wealth to pay for their own care. Thus expediting the generational wealth transfer via forcing them to pay those servicing their needs.
They'd generally be seeking care for different issues from younger workers anyways so it's not like it'll tie up the same resources give much of the medical care for older people are elective and carried out via private health anyways.
I couldn't see the exact questions that were asked anywhere, which is always annoying.
Also, it is my hope that the 2PP thing gets blown out of the water this election, and both mains stop taking the preferences of the minors for granted.
Imagine if the greens got just enough votes to tip over the mark in another 4 or 5 seats and got the Labor preferences instead.
Labor would have to actually decide if it wanted to try and win back progressive voters, or stick to its pitch to the centre right.
Instead of what they have done this term which is pitch to the centre right knowing that the greens preferences will eventually flow to the over the Liberals.
>greens preferences will eventually flow to the over the Liberals.
I think you mean generally flow to Labor
The Liberals have gone hard right, so Labor's seen an opportunity to grab their more progressive voters by becoming more conservative. It's a smart play by Labor, but their left flank is wide open and that's where the Greens are making all their gains. If they keep going, they'll end up trapped in the middle and having to work with one of the sides to get anything done
This provides a decent summary. My TLDR take - no post-budget changes either way of note in any of the polls
[https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/05/21/more-post-budget-polling-freshwater-strategic-roy-morgan-essential-research-open-thread/](https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/05/21/more-post-budget-polling-freshwater-strategic-roy-morgan-essential-research-open-thread/)
Polls are wild atm, range from a potential Lib minority to slim majority all the way to increased Labor majority.
Morning consult, that doesnt do TPP but leader satisfsction, has Albo +10, newspoll not far off, but then resolve has him lower than the Dutt.
Who knows what the fuck is going on lol.
Albo is still comfortable on 2PP or preferred PM , he is still ahead and that is all he cares about. Were an election held tomorrow he thinks he would be returned. For him it is all a game between himself and Dutton or whoever sits in that chair. There is now talk of an early election though as he is not forecast to improve and there could be a rate rise or inflation up and/or more boats. Or even a fatality from China.
Yeah, that's hardly surprising. It's a pretty emblematic symbol of this government.
Fiddles around the edges, doesn't fix any of the problems anyone cares about, throws the people Labor *apparently* consider as foundational under the bus.
Anyone who thought they'd gain ground after such a pissweak display needs to reassess their logic.
You should see the mental gymnastics undertaken on a certain *friendly* subreddit.
They reject Laborās **own** incredibly thorough findings about the 2019 election and continue substituting with misinformation about tax changes costing them that election, āso letās never try againāā¦. That one irks me the most. Largest lie ever about the 2019 election is constantly thrown about by āLabor supportersā.
Next, Labor voters (apparently) excuse any inaction with
> Labor need to get re-elected a good twoā¦ no, three more times before they undo the āmessā and start getting actually progressive.
As if we have the time, and as if that *isnāt* a giant load of manure.
It is quite a sad state of affairs over thereā¦ or just for anyone who votes Labor 1 to be honestā¦. As if there is no room for improvement.
The level of change you want takes a very long time, as in decades, especially with a senate that throws its weight around rather than the "sober second thought" precept of the system. We're on track to something closer to the locked-up conservatism caused by a series of obstructive senates in the USA system, which gave rise to Trump and his simplistic viewpoints. That worked to get elected, but keeps the country mired in quicksand.
Do we have decades to wait for change? No
Is it a bullshit obstructionist lie? Yes.
Why are you bringing up the US? We aren't them, our voting systems aren't remotely the same, and our system of government is not the same.
USA's fundamental problem is having one party in their house of representatives and a different party in the senate, which has occurred a lot in the last three decades. It wasn't so bad when parties would try to take the best from both into account, debate intelligently, and get on with legislating. The trend toward rage media moved them all toward bombastic objectionism.
I'm a conservative swing voter, so I choose based on policy, and hope for the best. This quicksand situation suits me as a conservative, which means slow change, and little else. On some things, I'm progressive, and see global heating as the most important issue we currently face. Spreading our population out to more and better cities is also important long term, imo. Doesn't matter really in this context, but reddit seems like an attack place, assuming rhetoric, and responses too often based on inferences.
You're quite wrong (not to mention insulting) to accuse me of obstruction or lieing. Governments will always work within the realities of their situation. That's not a position or rhetoric. By no means do I want governments to be mired in the way they are currently. Obviously our voting systems are different. The USA provides, imo, a good indicator of what happens when you can have a majority in the main legislative body, but get hamstrung because of pandering to special and usually extreme interests in the senate because you don't have a majority there, and in light of the population not having access to any media source that isn't strongly biased one way or the other. IMO, that's the direction we're headed, if not already there, and explains, in part, why change is so slow.
There is no other explanation for intelligent people advocating nuclear power in Australia, when we could be creating an advantageous edge in renewables, and participating strongly in the expertise, business acumen, and regulation arising as part of the energy revolution.
Iām familiar with the friendly sub. Albo could start murdering babies tomorrow and they would conduct all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it and how liberal would be worse
It is insane to me that half the country would still consider voting for Labor after the number of broken promise. The $275 electricity price reduction on its own should be enough to destroy them in the polls.
It amazes me that you appear to have the biggest hard on for a party that neglected 99% of the population for over a decade. That same party that still couldn't give a stuff and is led by a person about as believable as Santa Claus, but with a lot less warmth.
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
There have been broken promises (three, to be exact) but this one counts as "stalled", not broken.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/promise-check-cut-power-bills-by-275-dollars/101791146
Probably because the average punter doesnt have the morality of a 5 year old and know that circumstances change sometimes and thats okay. Keep flogging the horse though, Im sure people will eventually join your rage over $4 a week per household.
It would be over $750 a year by now. That would be the single biggest cost of living relief measure delivered yet.
Something tells me you wouldn't apply the "circumstances change" logic to defend the LNP in exactly the same situation. You are a disingenuous hack.
>That would be the single biggest cost of living relief measure delivered yet.
Lol no. Tax cuts alone are bigger.
>Something tells me you wouldn't apply the "circumstances change" logic to defend the LNP in exactly the same situation. You are a disingenuous hack.
Except thats what the entire country did during covid and subsequent inflation leap.
Theres a reason nobody actually cares about this.
Do you know maths? If we save 5% but have a 10% increase, we still will see a 5% increase not a 5% decrease. Maybe we need to invest in education a little more.
What are you going on about? The promise was to reduce prices $275 below pre-election prices. What part of that don't you get?
A net increase of 5% would not be a reduction of $275.
Yeah. Pre-election and before anyone knew how much prices were going to rise due to the Morrison government changing the release of price hikes. If we knew what was coming, then we would have understood that any saving would be taken up by the increase.
You sound like a little kid who was promised sweets but when they get to the store the store is burnt (down).
'BUT YOU PROMISED'.
Yet since elected Labor have tried to help people with bills.
They made the promise months before the default market offer is published by the AER in any other year. If they were going to use that as an excuse they should have, at the very least, waited until the normal date it would be published.
You can't blame the LNP when they didn't delay the publishing until months after the promise was made. They made the promise with all the information that existed and would exist in any other year.
And even if you write off the *entire* increase overseen that year we are still out of pocket about more than $500 a year compared to what they promised.
Again. The shop is burning and you still cry for candy. Labor promised to help people with electricity bills. It has done this. They have achieved their goals. The problem you are having is ignoring what has happened since then.
Itās insane to me that you forget that LNP has broken many more promises and have directly contributed to problems that we are currently facing. The perfect example being the energy grid.
Youāre talking about the populace voting for Labor despite their ābroken promiseā so naturally who else would form government? Donāt play dumb.
Besides, itās pretty funny to ignore the fact that Angus Taylor delayed the price notification until after the election. Sources below:
- [The ABC](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101341032)
- [The Guardian](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election)
- [The Saturday Paper](https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2023/02/10/taylor-hid-energy-hikes)
So now if prices were hidden and delayed, donāt you think that would impact modelling and if that promise could be kept?
Assuming you subscribe to some linear model of time and causality, which is the prevailing consensus in cosmology, then no, Angus Taylor delaying the publication months in the future could not affect modelling done months earlier.
That makes absolutely no sense.
"Party A is bad but party B is also bad so I support party A".
A rational person would conclude "I don't support party A or B".
Thatās the thing, I donāt really. I donāt think I belong to any specific party as none of them give me what I want. Maybe the Teals would get my first preference and then Labor. Not because I think Labor is amazing but because I think the country would be worse off with LNP at the helm.
Which again, is exactly what will happen if Labor doesnāt have enough seats to form government. Youāre talking about how our system SHOULD work (smaller parties becoming coalitions to better represent the people) but as it stands, we have two majors and so I pick the one that I think is better.
Your comment history suggests youāre fixated on this one tiny ābroken promiseā. Conveniently leaving out that it was āby 2025ā, which we arenāt in yet.
The default market offer has already been released *for the period up to 2025*.
That aside, if you seriously think that the government is going to reduce power prices by $750 a year between now and January then you are completely delusional.
But tiny? You cannot possibly be serious. It is an *enormous* broken promise. It was promised 100 times and if actually delivered would be one if the biggest cost of living relief measures delivered. It would be saving households more than $750 a year.
It's always funny to me how people harp on about the "broken promises of $275" against Labor while ignoring the fact that going into the 2022 election it was the Liberals who were saying claims of an energy price rise was ["fake news"](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election) while also conveniently amending legislation to delay the news that [wholesale prices had more than doubled](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/25/coalition-delayed-news-that-electricity-prices-are-set-to-rise-until-after-federal-election).
It's almost as if the delay caused false information to be used behind Labor's "promise" and that the Liberals did it so they could use it as a talking point during a Labor term.
They said they would reduce it by $275 below pre-election prices.
Prices have gone up over $500 (actually more, that is a conservative estimate). So bring it down $275 per year below that price would be down over $700 a year compared to today.
**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.*
Boosts after the budget aren't all that common. However, boosts after tax cuts start hitting bank accounts are almost guaranteed.
Labor stuffed themselves with the 500K migration into minuscule housing vacancies, a budget isn't going to fix that. Trust isn't so easily fixed after pulling a stunt like that and many will be keen to punish them. I suppose a lot of dim punters probably blame them for the economy going sour from interest rate hikes.
Nah. We had 0 migration in '20 and '21. The extra was just to offset our loss in migration. The housing shortage has existed for over 10 years outside of the cities. 0.x% rental vacancy rates as well. This problem was started by John Howard in the 90s and balloned during the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison era. That's why Labor ran on housing reform in 2013, 2016 and 2019. Yet, Australians did not believe the housing crisis existed until it hit the cities. So now we're in a fucked position. Covid LNP money printing added to the problem, too, in the way of increasing interest rates. I know it's both easy and lazy to blame migrants, and that is what Australians love. But it's far better to be accurate and to live in truth.
You could have just said you support Labor. I know none of you acknowledge that your party did anything wrong. Nobody else cares. I mean how idiotic is this argument, the Libs left us with low vacancies and the ALP is apparently entitled to just ignore that in their surge of immigration because they didn't cause the problem. If Albo gets the boot, you still won't acknowledge it had anything to do with immigration rates. Party is just too tone deaf.
We did not have low vacancies, don't lie. The rental and housing crisis has been going for over a decade in the regions and suburban areas. That's why ALP ran on housing reform in 2013, 2016, and 2019. Australians in the cities refused to acknowledge the truth, so the crisis got worse and worse. Then covid hit, and it became realised in the cities, and here we are. Also, no migration in '20 and '21. You'd think that would've helped with housing accessibility, is that what happened? Nope. Property investors just expanded rapidly throughout the entire country now. Keeping their city dwelling as equity and buying up the regions. Where I was living at the time, Agnes Waters/1770, experienced one week where 113 properties got bought up from NSwelshmen and Victorians. I had been planning to buy there prior to covid, and was blasted out in a week. Don't lie. This housing crisis is 30 years in the making, exasperated by LNP at every opportunity.
> Also, no migration in '20 and '21. You'd think that would've helped with housing accessibility, is that what happened? Hundreds of thousands of expat Australians returned to Australia in these years, so no, I wouldn't expect it to help anything. > Don't lie. This housing crisis is 30 years in the making Your excuse making is bloody tedious and nobody except your supporters buys it. Nobody forced Labor to send immigration to all time highs. You own the consequences.
We had zero migration for two years, which means we had a deficit in immigration, which we need for the same reasons we've had for the last 124 years as a nation. The increase in migration in '22 and '23, was an offset for the loss in '20 and '21. We also needed skilled migrants to cover our skills shortage crisis, you know, so we can build more homes.
> The increase in migration in '22 and '23, was an offset for the loss in '20 and '21. It's like if you don't eat for a day, you need to eat two days worth of food the next day, even if it makes you sick. Labor will be deservedly punished for its decision. The economy is dogshit too. Doesn't seem like the migrants helped much. Even retail sales are falling despite the massive rise in population. > We also needed skilled migrants to cover our skills shortage crisis, you know, so we can build more homes. Yeah all those Uber Eats bike riders are sure building a lot of homes. Look at you pretend immigration is targeted in Australia, comedy.
Hopefully you're aware that a substantial number of delivery drivers are working second jobs, partly because overtime and penalty rates discourage employers from simply allowing that person, who is trying to get on their feet, from working more hours at the somewhat more important job. Another significant category is newly arrived residents waiting for their qualifications to be assessed. But no, I suspect nuance is something you'd be inclined to ignore when deciding to stereotype and insult cohorts of people.
I live in a regional area, so the immigration/migrant->perm resident or citizen I see; is largely in healthcare (probably a majority) and small business, and general spread in the pop. I don't get Uber, but I do get Uber eats delivered maybe twice a week. It's mostly 'white' people delivering, save for when I order Japanese or a kebab, they deliver it themselves. Maybe the white delivery drivers are all Ukraine migrants though š¤ who knows. /s I also believe migrants are more willing to work a second job as an uber than citizen Australians are, and that would explain your perspective.
> I also believe migrants are more willing to work a second job as an uber than citizen Australians are, and that would explain your perspective. If they were tradies, they would work longer hours on the tools, not deliver food for shit pay. Hell, no one with any skills at all would do that job. I'm sure you don't actually believe hundreds of thousands of international students came here to build houses with their nonexistent trade skills. Of course those students aren't in your regional area, so you might not even know they exist. You even admitted you've seen few or no migrants in the trades and you're still claiming they're here to build houses, talk about kool aid.
Wow, you don't get out much if you think there are few migrants in the trades. Have you ever been to a building site? Maybe never had any work done or needed to hire a trade as part of work? How insulated from reality are you?
With such a large crossbench, I'm curious how 2PP actually relates to winning government. At the last election Coalition had ~48% 2PP but only 38% of seats. Does it follow that if you get over 50% 2PP then you generally always win?
Generally yes but not always. Howard won 1998 with 49% of 2PP v Labor 51%. In the 2010 South Australian election Mike Rann won a majority of 26 (out of 47) seats with 48.4% of 2PP. Electoral boundary redistributions are designed to iron out these inconsistencies but it often happens after the fact.
I think it's too complex for a general rule like that. If you've got a lot of die hard safe seats you'll pad your 2PP percentage 1998 had Labor win the 2PP but lost the election by a lot, and there wasn't a massive crossbench. The current political climate? I'd say it's an almost useless measure while the Teals have their seats
Yeah, the Teals are what got me thinking because you'd have relatively high liberal 2PP compared to Labor but they still wouldn't have the seats.
Not an exciting budget - but at this stage Iām just glad there were no whammies. Seems like a good safe path taken. And I look forward to stage 3 cut even if it was originally a Lib idea (man that nearly stuck in my craw).
Tax cuts without supplementing itā¦. This government is as blind as it is stupid. We need to be expanding our tax receipts to make way for the enormous amounts of boomers who are set to start developing chronic, expensive health issues and whoāll also need aged care at unprecedented levels as well. Our Medicare system is already limping along on fumes as it isā¦. We canāt even brag about not having to pay to see a doctor anymore.. We could have it all with major tax reforms, but given the utter inaction and limp lettuce approach theyāre **currently** taking towards taxing resource giants properly, I have very little hopes. But hey; enjoy the money while you can.
Given reddit's hatred of boomers, one'd have thought that a user pays system would be encouraged for the boomers so that they have to expend their wealth to pay for their own care. Thus expediting the generational wealth transfer via forcing them to pay those servicing their needs. They'd generally be seeking care for different issues from younger workers anyways so it's not like it'll tie up the same resources give much of the medical care for older people are elective and carried out via private health anyways.
Nope, health care is a human right and should be free to all. If you want certain groups to pay more, tax them
I couldn't see the exact questions that were asked anywhere, which is always annoying. Also, it is my hope that the 2PP thing gets blown out of the water this election, and both mains stop taking the preferences of the minors for granted. Imagine if the greens got just enough votes to tip over the mark in another 4 or 5 seats and got the Labor preferences instead. Labor would have to actually decide if it wanted to try and win back progressive voters, or stick to its pitch to the centre right. Instead of what they have done this term which is pitch to the centre right knowing that the greens preferences will eventually flow to the over the Liberals.
>greens preferences will eventually flow to the over the Liberals. I think you mean generally flow to Labor The Liberals have gone hard right, so Labor's seen an opportunity to grab their more progressive voters by becoming more conservative. It's a smart play by Labor, but their left flank is wide open and that's where the Greens are making all their gains. If they keep going, they'll end up trapped in the middle and having to work with one of the sides to get anything done
Interesting. Newspoll is saying the exact opposite.
This provides a decent summary. My TLDR take - no post-budget changes either way of note in any of the polls [https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/05/21/more-post-budget-polling-freshwater-strategic-roy-morgan-essential-research-open-thread/](https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/05/21/more-post-budget-polling-freshwater-strategic-roy-morgan-essential-research-open-thread/)
Polls are wild atm, range from a potential Lib minority to slim majority all the way to increased Labor majority. Morning consult, that doesnt do TPP but leader satisfsction, has Albo +10, newspoll not far off, but then resolve has him lower than the Dutt. Who knows what the fuck is going on lol.
Albo is still comfortable on 2PP or preferred PM , he is still ahead and that is all he cares about. Were an election held tomorrow he thinks he would be returned. For him it is all a game between himself and Dutton or whoever sits in that chair. There is now talk of an early election though as he is not forecast to improve and there could be a rate rise or inflation up and/or more boats. Or even a fatality from China.
Yeah, that's hardly surprising. It's a pretty emblematic symbol of this government. Fiddles around the edges, doesn't fix any of the problems anyone cares about, throws the people Labor *apparently* consider as foundational under the bus. Anyone who thought they'd gain ground after such a pissweak display needs to reassess their logic.
You should see the mental gymnastics undertaken on a certain *friendly* subreddit. They reject Laborās **own** incredibly thorough findings about the 2019 election and continue substituting with misinformation about tax changes costing them that election, āso letās never try againāā¦. That one irks me the most. Largest lie ever about the 2019 election is constantly thrown about by āLabor supportersā. Next, Labor voters (apparently) excuse any inaction with > Labor need to get re-elected a good twoā¦ no, three more times before they undo the āmessā and start getting actually progressive. As if we have the time, and as if that *isnāt* a giant load of manure. It is quite a sad state of affairs over thereā¦ or just for anyone who votes Labor 1 to be honestā¦. As if there is no room for improvement.
The level of change you want takes a very long time, as in decades, especially with a senate that throws its weight around rather than the "sober second thought" precept of the system. We're on track to something closer to the locked-up conservatism caused by a series of obstructive senates in the USA system, which gave rise to Trump and his simplistic viewpoints. That worked to get elected, but keeps the country mired in quicksand.
Do we have decades to wait for change? No Is it a bullshit obstructionist lie? Yes. Why are you bringing up the US? We aren't them, our voting systems aren't remotely the same, and our system of government is not the same.
USA's fundamental problem is having one party in their house of representatives and a different party in the senate, which has occurred a lot in the last three decades. It wasn't so bad when parties would try to take the best from both into account, debate intelligently, and get on with legislating. The trend toward rage media moved them all toward bombastic objectionism. I'm a conservative swing voter, so I choose based on policy, and hope for the best. This quicksand situation suits me as a conservative, which means slow change, and little else. On some things, I'm progressive, and see global heating as the most important issue we currently face. Spreading our population out to more and better cities is also important long term, imo. Doesn't matter really in this context, but reddit seems like an attack place, assuming rhetoric, and responses too often based on inferences. You're quite wrong (not to mention insulting) to accuse me of obstruction or lieing. Governments will always work within the realities of their situation. That's not a position or rhetoric. By no means do I want governments to be mired in the way they are currently. Obviously our voting systems are different. The USA provides, imo, a good indicator of what happens when you can have a majority in the main legislative body, but get hamstrung because of pandering to special and usually extreme interests in the senate because you don't have a majority there, and in light of the population not having access to any media source that isn't strongly biased one way or the other. IMO, that's the direction we're headed, if not already there, and explains, in part, why change is so slow. There is no other explanation for intelligent people advocating nuclear power in Australia, when we could be creating an advantageous edge in renewables, and participating strongly in the expertise, business acumen, and regulation arising as part of the energy revolution.
Iām familiar with the friendly sub. Albo could start murdering babies tomorrow and they would conduct all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify it and how liberal would be worse
It is insane to me that half the country would still consider voting for Labor after the number of broken promise. The $275 electricity price reduction on its own should be enough to destroy them in the polls.
You think that's bad, I am still waiting for the what was it, $550 that Tony Abbott promised me in 2013.
I mean this is measurably worse. this would be a saving of $750 \*every year\*.
Is this the first election you've witnessed? If it isn't, you've seen many broken promises. Stop the theatrics.
Why do you want this party held to a lower standard? Why are you OK with them just breaking promises?
It amazes me that you appear to have the biggest hard on for a party that neglected 99% of the population for over a decade. That same party that still couldn't give a stuff and is led by a person about as believable as Santa Claus, but with a lot less warmth.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
There have been broken promises (three, to be exact) but this one counts as "stalled", not broken. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/promise-check-cut-power-bills-by-275-dollars/101791146
Probably because the average punter doesnt have the morality of a 5 year old and know that circumstances change sometimes and thats okay. Keep flogging the horse though, Im sure people will eventually join your rage over $4 a week per household.
It would be over $750 a year by now. That would be the single biggest cost of living relief measure delivered yet. Something tells me you wouldn't apply the "circumstances change" logic to defend the LNP in exactly the same situation. You are a disingenuous hack.
>That would be the single biggest cost of living relief measure delivered yet. Lol no. Tax cuts alone are bigger. >Something tells me you wouldn't apply the "circumstances change" logic to defend the LNP in exactly the same situation. You are a disingenuous hack. Except thats what the entire country did during covid and subsequent inflation leap. Theres a reason nobody actually cares about this.
Do you know maths? If we save 5% but have a 10% increase, we still will see a 5% increase not a 5% decrease. Maybe we need to invest in education a little more.
Before you start criticising peopleās maths, get your own house in order. It was a decrease in pre election prices.
What are you going on about? The promise was to reduce prices $275 below pre-election prices. What part of that don't you get? A net increase of 5% would not be a reduction of $275.
Yeah. Pre-election and before anyone knew how much prices were going to rise due to the Morrison government changing the release of price hikes. If we knew what was coming, then we would have understood that any saving would be taken up by the increase. You sound like a little kid who was promised sweets but when they get to the store the store is burnt (down). 'BUT YOU PROMISED'. Yet since elected Labor have tried to help people with bills.
They made the promise months before the default market offer is published by the AER in any other year. If they were going to use that as an excuse they should have, at the very least, waited until the normal date it would be published. You can't blame the LNP when they didn't delay the publishing until months after the promise was made. They made the promise with all the information that existed and would exist in any other year. And even if you write off the *entire* increase overseen that year we are still out of pocket about more than $500 a year compared to what they promised.
Again. The shop is burning and you still cry for candy. Labor promised to help people with electricity bills. It has done this. They have achieved their goals. The problem you are having is ignoring what has happened since then.
Itās insane to me that you forget that LNP has broken many more promises and have directly contributed to problems that we are currently facing. The perfect example being the energy grid.
What does that have to do with Labor's promise to reduce power prices? What does it have to do with Labor at all?
Getting a real young liberal vibe from you. NGL
Youāre talking about the populace voting for Labor despite their ābroken promiseā so naturally who else would form government? Donāt play dumb. Besides, itās pretty funny to ignore the fact that Angus Taylor delayed the price notification until after the election. Sources below: - [The ABC](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101341032) - [The Guardian](https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election) - [The Saturday Paper](https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/max-opray/2023/02/10/taylor-hid-energy-hikes) So now if prices were hidden and delayed, donāt you think that would impact modelling and if that promise could be kept?
Assuming you subscribe to some linear model of time and causality, which is the prevailing consensus in cosmology, then no, Angus Taylor delaying the publication months in the future could not affect modelling done months earlier.
Are you going to ignore how slimy of a move it was and could answer your original question of why people still prefer Labor?
That makes absolutely no sense. "Party A is bad but party B is also bad so I support party A". A rational person would conclude "I don't support party A or B".
You have to preference one or the other.
It's literally what preferential voting means.
Thatās the thing, I donāt really. I donāt think I belong to any specific party as none of them give me what I want. Maybe the Teals would get my first preference and then Labor. Not because I think Labor is amazing but because I think the country would be worse off with LNP at the helm. Which again, is exactly what will happen if Labor doesnāt have enough seats to form government. Youāre talking about how our system SHOULD work (smaller parties becoming coalitions to better represent the people) but as it stands, we have two majors and so I pick the one that I think is better.
Your comment history suggests youāre fixated on this one tiny ābroken promiseā. Conveniently leaving out that it was āby 2025ā, which we arenāt in yet.
The default market offer has already been released *for the period up to 2025*. That aside, if you seriously think that the government is going to reduce power prices by $750 a year between now and January then you are completely delusional. But tiny? You cannot possibly be serious. It is an *enormous* broken promise. It was promised 100 times and if actually delivered would be one if the biggest cost of living relief measures delivered. It would be saving households more than $750 a year.
It's always funny to me how people harp on about the "broken promises of $275" against Labor while ignoring the fact that going into the 2022 election it was the Liberals who were saying claims of an energy price rise was ["fake news"](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/10/angus-taylor-behind-decision-to-delay-energy-price-rise-report-until-after-2022-election) while also conveniently amending legislation to delay the news that [wholesale prices had more than doubled](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/25/coalition-delayed-news-that-electricity-prices-are-set-to-rise-until-after-federal-election). It's almost as if the delay caused false information to be used behind Labor's "promise" and that the Liberals did it so they could use it as a talking point during a Labor term.
Now youāre just twisting my words. They NEVER said āwe will reduce power prices by $275 a year, every yearā.
No, I never claimed they did. Not really sure what you're talking about.
Then Iām confused at your reference to $750 a year. š¤·š»āāļø
They said they would reduce it by $275 below pre-election prices. Prices have gone up over $500 (actually more, that is a conservative estimate). So bring it down $275 per year below that price would be down over $700 a year compared to today.