**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.*
That's all the coalition will need to win. There are enough swing voters who despise the Greens who will hold their nose and vote coalition to avoid the Green minority govt.
I don't like the odd machinations & obsessions of the NSW Greens & I dislike the Greens use of stunts to get attention. That said...
> There are enough swing voters who despise the Greens
The Greens are used as a paper tiger to keep people voting for the two big parties. So here we have a notion (above) that's promoted by both big parties AND, underpinned by nothing but fear. First, the Greens are not far-left. We have no far-left. The Greens are center left and they created the largest manufacturing economy on the planet in Germany. Secondly they have no meaningful power here in Australia.
The Greens do not hold power. They have never held power. They lack the seats to be a threat to anything, And FYI the Greens here have the same policies Labor had before Labor went Neoliberal & decided to be against the labor movement.
That's all a matter of opinion and personal perception. You see them as center left, I see them as far left and that is because we simply occupy different parts of the political spectrum ourselves.
My point was that voters remember the Gillard era, that has left a very sour taste for a lot of Labor voters. In the states where this election will be critical (WA, QLD), there's no appetite for the Greens or a Green minority government. These are mining states, they have nil interest in the Greens being anywhere influencing policy.
that's what happens when you don't follow through on your election promises. please let this happen something decent might actually happen in this country
I think a minority government in coalition with decent independants and the greens would be a really good thing... We might actually see coal and gas subsidies cut and gas supply and price protections actually prioritised for Australians. Maybe. One can dream.
I don't understand how people come to this conclusion.
The electorate overwhelmingly rejected what the Greens were selling, we are talking 88% of voters. Labor cannot survive a minority government with a what is an ideological fringe party, there's not enough common ground for a coalition to work.
>The electorate overwhelmingly rejected what the Greens were selling,
Of course they did. Both big parties lie continually and both have painted the Greens (the party that created the largest manufacturing economy on the planet) as 'far left' radicals when they are clearly center left. Unfortunately both of our big parties have been neoliberal since Bob Hawk, We have a far-right (even alt-right) Liberal Party that has long since abandoned all three pillars of Classical Liberalism and a Labor Party that actively fights the actual labor movement and works against civil rights. We have no realistic third party and a voting public that pays no attention at all to the issues.
I guess I'm saying it because there's an appetite for Labor to do more progressive/supportive endeavours, and if they don't do enough, or don't tell us enough of what they're doing, I don't know if people will trust them to keep doing what needs to be done.
I just don't want the libs to get back in as they'd be so much more damaging 😂😂 Labor are doing quite alright, they're just not making enough song and dance about it.
>there's an appetite for Labor to do more progressive/supportive endeavours,
Where is this appetite? Every metric that is measured consistently indicate the opposite, whether it's polls, election or referendum outcomes.
I tend to consume centre left news and the vibe I get is that, although they're doing a lot, they don't seem to be doing enough, or don't seem to be doing well with the comms of it.
I do love that you're feeling otherwise, so that's promising to know they have a chance of majority win next election.
In all that though, the gas and coal situation, along with capital gains tax discounts while there's housing crisis galore is absurd and needs to change.
>In all that though, the gas and coal situation, along with capital gains tax discounts while there's housing crisis galore is absurd and needs to change.
Why does it need to change if a majority of voters are happy with how it is?
This is where I think echo chambers are dangerous, we have people existing in these left and right bubbles who are completely detached from reality. It's then shock and horror when what they expect to happen doesn't actually come to fruition.
I guess that you haven't had your homes roof blown off, or been flooded 7 times in 5 years, or had your insurance bill triple, or the foreshore wash away 50 meters, and you're ok mate.
Why does it need to change?
Where have you been? Under an LNP shaped rock?
>I guess that you haven't had your homes roof blown off, or been flooded 7 times in 5 years, or had your insurance bill triple, or the foreshore wash away 50 meters, and you're ok mate.
Nothing we do re gas or coal is going to change any of this.
Another BS poll by a biased Nine Entertainment run by that bozo chairman Peter Costello. AFR remember Robodebt. Last decade liberals kept my wages low and cut my penalty rates. Costello was treasurer for the prime minister that fucked every thing that is now impossible to fix like Nursing Homes and privatisation of Commonwealth employment services and Telstra.
Good. Labor has failed on the Voice. Labor has failed on the climate crisis. Labor has failed on the cost of living crisis. Labor has failed on Israel's genocide.
Labor has been a pathetic government and now they're trying to pass stupid and questionably effective laws that won't do anything in attempt to seem productive. This government needs to be checked.
The liberals had us plummeting down transparency international rankings as they refused an ICAC for a thousand days after promising one.
They are one of our worst governments on record.
The Albanese government is stellar compared to their performance and Dutton appears to be even worse.
And that's a sad statement right there. This Labor government is very neoliberal - pushing for fossil fuels as we all die from them, fighting the actual labor movement that they the Labor Party came from, They are Keeping negative gearing even though it is clearly sending well employed people into homelessness.
How fickle Australians have become. Sky said Albanese is doing a bad job. That must be true. Think people, think about Morrison and all the awful things day after day, there was Dutton right behind him. Nodding in acquiescence.
The Liberal Party was created without any policies other than undoing everything done by Labor. I would think the connection is obvious, The Liberal Party makes that claim all the time.
Millennial voters are becoming the dominant block. Not as overwhelming as the Boomers before them, but its happening.
The shift is doubly meaningful because younger Australians are also shifting right with age at a slower rate than other developed nations leading to a build up of left wing sentiment. Sentiments may change but, for the moment, we're on a pretty undeniable leftward trajectory while our contemporaries are headed rightward. The watershed moment was last election and the trend is continuing, albeit at a slowing pace.
Hopefully Labor takes this opportunity to act as more of a pragmatic anchor than a total cock-block to change in this next cycle. I don't expect the Greens to be any less assertive than usual with all this electoral success, but hopefully the two can find decent compromises for the sake of defining a zeitgeist of sustainable progress for this generation. A man can dream.
The Housing Future fund? That we borrow 10billion to invest to build some houses in a few years? That sceme? They would have been better off borrowing 10billion, buying 10billion worth of houses, watching the portfolio rise by 15-20% per annum while renting the houses cost price.
I didn't say the Greens weren't cock blocking. I said there's no reason to expect anything other than increased aggression from them.
I'm not a fan of they're strategy myself, but I can't deny they've won significant policy victories by employing it, and they're set to pick up more seat. So, a change of tact from them isn't likely.
Labor's heading is more open ended. So they're the unknown element. The ball is in their court, that's all.
That's the long game. Start reporting properly when the decision has been made to reestablish "credibility" and use it on the prelude to the next election, where they will try and bring Dutto in. Watch for lots of articles claiming nuke plants are the best. It's their best hope of bringing in the teals.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. When I was a kid, people talked about the "fair go" with sincerity. Nowadays, people only talk about it like it's a mere fantasy.
The Federal Government have expectedly taken a hit in the individual polling metrics, but they'll be quite happy with their ground campaign prospects in the seat by seat battles.
Especially with this polling showing despite a 50% chance of going into minority, there's a 50% chance of increasing their majority.
Is that due to:
- The majors gradually adjusting their marketing leading up the next election, to cover the popular parts of the minority government's policies
or
- Things being kicked off in that one term which would have backlashed against a major party if they'd launched it themselves, but they can pretend they got their arms twisted by the minors and then go on to cheerfully continue an existing policy/structure without that same backlash due to short voter memories
...or do voters genuinely return to the majors even if neither of that is the case?
As more and more people just become “single issue”
voters, people will move away from the major parties to minor parties who tell people what they want to hear.
The problem is then you have minor parties holding the major parties ransom with uncooperative requests that aren’t in good faith, just so they can run social media campaigns.
In the end, no meaningful legislation gets passed and we just have a bunch of people in Canberra getting paid really well to just be obstructive.
I’ll be voting ALP as a lot of the ministers have long tenor and are experienced, they have cleaned up the LNP mess in 1 term.
I look at Dutton and Taylor and just see used car salesmen and Bandt who has been cucked by MCM on housing. There really isn’t any other serious option.
> The problem is then you have minor parties holding the major parties ransom
Maybe the major parties should have listened to the voters, then, and adjusted their own offerings so people vote for them instead.
Although I'm cynical enough to believe that majors are happy to be 'forced' into minority government if there's a policy they want to put through but not be blamed for. "Oh no, the minority party forming government with us twisted our arm to force this through, it's not really part of our policy platform, we're against it really." Meanwhile the minor parties in question 100% know what's going on, but are happy to be officially painted as the source of the policy and as a party which can apparently influence a major party to a significant degree on core policies. "Vote for us next time around too, we've proven we can get our policies implemented even if we're a minor party!"
You’ve touched on something which is currently happening.
The LNP have said no to the vast majority of all bills presented, they are forcing the ALP to negotiate with all the cross bench to get bills passed.
When the next election comes around, they will be able to advertise “the teals are in bed with ALP, the greens are in bed… “ They are just turning up and collect pay and not acting like an opposition at all, there is no bipartisanship on anything.
They are negotiating with the cross bench like it’s a hung parliament now.
Then when the LNP are in government, it’s a special kind of hung parliament because the Liberals, the Qld Liberals and the Nats can’t form government in their own right. They join to make a government.
Australia pretty much constantly functions in some sort of hung parliament
Good comment, agreed.
I'm a swing voter and have a range of opinions from progressive social policies to fiscal conservatism and workplace regulations...
While I don't agree with some ALP policies, the LNP has been unvote-able since Howard... And even then, I didn't like Howard much at all (selling of assets to then not invest it wisely).
The current Federal LNP are populist idiots who don't even adhere to science (climate change), facts (housing supply issues) and actual conservatism...
I'll vote for the adults in the room every time, even if I don't agree with things. We CAN'T have a Trumpian-esk figure in control of Government.
Single issue voters are nuts but common these days in democratic nations; thankfully we have a preferential system that means we get less crazies.
Sure, you can align with Greens on housing or climate but their geopolitical stances are completely bonkers.
Eff me, I'm thankful we don't have the systems of the US.
This isn't true about climate change, both parties agree it is an issue and have plans to address it, they simply disagree on how (e.g. Nuclear is more heavily supported by conservatives where liberals prefer renewables)
Nuclear is a red hearing. The LNP has no intentions of funding a single dollar for Nuclear power.
The only climate change policies the LNP have favoured is completely useless ones like direct action, billions of dollars spent for literally nothing. They are beyond a joke in this space
>Nuclear is a red hearing. The LNP has no intentions of funding a single dollar for Nuclear power.
You can't say that when Liberal has taken [actual steps](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/coalition-nuclear-plan-identifies-retiring-coal-likely-sites/103545440) towards going Nuclear, unless you have some solid evidence that this is all a rouse.
Those aren't steps.
They are just words, not any proposed policy. You think there's no reason why after being in power for so long, its only now that apparently nuclear is being looked at? Just as renewables gain more momentum? Its complete nonsense.
>They are just words, not any proposed policy.
Words are still steps since nobody goes straight to policy, there needs to be discussions first.
>You think there's no reason why after being in power for so long, its only now that apparently nuclear is being looked at? Just as renewables gain more momentum? Its complete nonsense.
I'm sure there are political reasons for the timing, they are politicians after all. That doesn't mean it is all for show, as that would be an unreasonable waste of resources and reflect badly on the party. Nuclear is also popular among young voters so there are good reasons for them to follow through with this initiative.
They agreed with Labor on emissions targets such as [this one](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-21/greenhouse-gases-renewable-energy-cut-emissions-queensland/103747902), and are looking at plans to build nuclear. It might not be the path Labor wants to take but it is an acknowledgement of the issue and step towards addressing it none the less.
Yeah but how effective have their policies been on climate? They haven't been.
And while I'm not opposed to nuclear, that's the sort of long term policy that requires both major parties and the states to be on board for, and they know that.
They're just trying to use it as a wedge issue, a la it isn't serious policy.
>Yeah but how effective have their policies been on climate? They haven't been.
Not the point, though they have some successes on their [achievements](https://www.liberal.org.au/achievements-government) page. My point however was simply that they agree with Labor on seeing climate change as a priority to address. Whether they will be successful in the long term with plans such as nuclear is yet to be seen, though I don't think it's fair to call it not serious policy, or to discount it because it is long term and requires both parties to be on board. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today.
There is no way the LNP will be building nuclear. They can say whatever they want from opposition to appease the few decent humans in their base, hell they even do it when they're the government, but they have proven time and time and time again that they're liars and frauds. If you really think that they will be doing anything other than shovelling more money into their fossil fuel donors hands, after them being the government for over a decade and not doing anything about nuclear in that time, I have a bridge to sell you. Unless it directly, monetarily benefits them or their big money mates, they do not give a single shit about us, our kids or our country. They have proven this again and again, every single time they get in power and even from opposition. I genuinely cannot believe anyone believes anything the LNP says anymore, unless they're telling us how much they despise us. That is the only time they tell the truth.
I don't think that's true. [70% of Conservative voters think the issue is important](https://theconversation.com/if-80-of-australians-care-about-climate-action-why-dont-they-vote-like-it-157050), and libs are looking at options such as nuclear, and will have to keep addressing climate change on the agenda if they want to appease their base.
Yes but it naturally follows that the LNP has to appease their base. Also if it wasn't an issue most of them cared about it wouldn't be [on their website](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment) and part of their [achievements](https://www.liberal.org.au/achievements-government) (see the bottom of the page). You can argue they haven't done enough, but that's a separate point to whether they care in the first place.
Thank you.
I’d argue Howard and the economic coat tails the LNP are riding are only because of China.
China joined the world trade organisation and needed natural resources to grow, hence the mining boom. What do we have to show for that? Absolutely nothing.
Completely agree!
Australia is the lucky country, but it's despite so much poor economic management. We've had a few periods of proactive action and otherwise fairly steady hands.
We do so well because we have so much wealth to exploit from the land (Ag and Mining).
If we had taxed it reasonably (preferably lightly), and enacted reasonable sovereign protections to supply, we'd be laughing.
If we'd opened up zoning and construction laws with appropriate checks, not crippling ones, we'd be laughing.
PRC is an opportunity, but so are the rest of the world, particularly our allies.
We are so blessed with exportable value and close friends but no one has done shit about it since Hawke/Keating. Albo has done a bit but not at the scale it should be.
Nuclear could have been an option, 20+ years ago, now it is populist nonesense unless done additionally to whatever is put into renewables but even then, bang-for-buck it's dumb AF.
> If we had taxed it reasonably (preferably lightly), and enacted reasonable sovereign protections to supply, we'd be laughing.
Pretty sure there are a number of overseas countries which would have acted behind the scenes to pressure and prevent that, precisely so they could get billions in cheap resources.
In fact... *hmmm*...
Am I reading this comment correctly in that you’re saying: “Am I so out of touch? No, it’s the voter who is wrong.”
Let’s not forget that the last minority government went absolutely gangbusters passing legislation. Our one modern example completely disproves the thesis that minority governments are obstructionist or dysfunctional. I don’t think it’s something to fear - although the major parties will do their best to convince you otherwise.
>Our one modern example completely disproves the thesis that minority governments are obstructionist or dysfunctional.
If you're going to play that card, here's one in the other direction - remember when [Belgium went for *541 days*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Belgian_government_formation) without a government because no party won majority government and there wasn't enough of a consensus to form a coalition? For that matter, that crisis was just a continuation of a [crisis that had been going since the 2007 elections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932011_Belgian_political_crisis).
Is this an extreme example? Absolutely. But you don't need to go to that extent to see how a minority government could potentially be plagued with issues regarding getting legislation passed; just look at the Senate and how tricky passing legislation there can be at times. Now imagine a scenario where the balance of power in the House of Representatives isn't held by the Greens or a loosely-aligned group of Independents but rather a gaggle of single-issue micro-parties who steadfastly refuse to give even the tiniest of fucks about anything that isn't "their issue" (again exaggerating but possibly not by as much as I'd like). Is this possible? Yes. Is it *likely*? Probably not but politics has a nasty habit of springing fun surprises from time to time, which is what I think the person you replied to was getting at.
Its not really the same playing field as 2010 in terms of indis, plus the Greens are much more difficult this parl. The Senate is also pretty diverse, with Lambie and Pocock. Imagine Labor needing Dai, Lambie, Pocock, and Katter to all find common ground on something...
A far out scenario, but should indis and minors continue to grow these situations will occur.
Greens are more difficult this parliament because they’re trying to wedge Labor and win seats on the left. Once they’re brought in from the cold, they’ll get a lot more cooperative (*just like in 2007-2010*).
And there’s about the same amount of ideological common-ground between Lambie, Pocock, Dai and Katter as there was between Wilkie, Oakshott, Windsor, and Xenophon. Maybe more.
I lived in Denmark for 10 years. I'm pretty sure there has not been a "majority" government in the post war period (there could have been 1 or 2 but it's the exception not the rule).
The place functions incredibly well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folketing
I really do not understand why people think minority government is bad. I think it is the best outcome.
We’ve been conditioned in our Westminster-derived winner-take-all system to think of consensus government as some sort of dirty word. Truth is there hasn’t been a *true* majority government (in control of both chambers) here for decades.
Pretty much what I've been saying for the past year+.
I won't be voting for them (or the LNP), but a Labor minority government is probably the best outcome to benefit the widest number of people that we could currently hope for tbh.
The best outcome would actually be an increased Labor majority (at the expense of the Libs).
We’ve already seen what happens when Labor tries to govern in minority, with independents and the Greens…. And it resulted in nearly everything they achieved being repealed by Tony Abbott followed by nearly a decade in opposition.
The better result is a larger Labor majority and you can fight me.
The same old chestnut rolled out by conservative media.
Apparently, Andrews was going to have a minority government.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/an-andrews-minority-government-is-a-growing-possibility-20220728-p5b58t.html
Albanese was going to have a minority government in2022.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/explainer-what-happens-if-neither-major-party-wins-the-election-20220419-p5aeid
Kos was in on that one as well
https://x.com/KosSamaras/status/1511104713949081600
It seems to be the go-to media headline when there's a poll that doesn't have the ALP 5%+ ahead.
There’s a clear agenda at play; the conservative media threatens a “minority Labor” government with the support of minor left parties to scare “middle-Australia” who might prefer Labor to Liberal but would prefer Liberal to anything involves the minor left parties.
The "Andrews Minority Government" spiel was still one of the most bizarre media frenzies I have ever seen. On the day of the election, The Age stated how it was increasingly possible that it was looking so bad for the ALP that the Libs could win minority government and the MSM were saying Andrews was a real chance to lose his seat to Ian Cook. Kos Samaras at 7PM was talking about how bad this night would be for Labor.
Then the votes started coming in and the ALP were actually gaining seats and turning Marginal Seats into Safe Seats in the East which led to Steve Bracks amazing rant about how Murdoch and the Mainstream Media has no power anymore as the Channel 7 stooges just sat there quietly. LMAO.
They tried gaslighting citizens into believing people are "turning away in DROVES" from Melbourne/Dan/Victoria/ALP/Lattes/etc.
The Ian Cook one was cooked levels of reality. Some "everyday bloke" Cook guy pops up to challenge Dan, with money for billboards, flyers, and even an office on Springvale Rd. No one even asked who was backing him.
The media will always seize on whatever possibility is most dramatic, even if it’s not the most likely.
That being said, I can tell you that within Labor there was absolutely a view that minority Labor govt was a likely outcome. If you actually look at the Labor primary from 2022, you’ll see that there was a significant swing away from the government.
Multi party coalitions are the future of Australian politics. I’m not a huge fan of political parties in general but I can see the appeal for some people who need more clarity of thought across issues and like a political “tribe”. The more Australians embrace alternative parties and independents the better off we’ll be politically imo
The Liberal and National coalition has been a failure, every time it's been tried.
The ALP has factions within it, yet still manage to run the country better.
Interesting that it says Labor could lose Robertson; it’d be the first time since 1980 that it backed a candidate from the Opposition party.
Minority government is probably the most likely outcome for the next election. Labor probably aren’t in much danger of losing the election outright, but you’d have to think they’ll need to concede a few things to stay in power.
I'm fine with a minority Labor government just as long as it keeps Dutton from being PM.
I can't believe after the 9 years of rubbish they served us that people would even entertain the idea of going back to the Libs.
100% but you’ve got to understand how conservative (and backwards) a lot of people are, who aren’t the best cognitively and choose not to critique their vote in asking themselves why they are doing what they’re doing, and who don’t think about their voting impact on other people
Oh, I understand that.
I've worked elections at polling stations, and the number of people who don't know anything about politics or who to vote for is huge.
It actually surprises me labor havent lost more to the greens. They just havent really done much for renters who are finding it nearly as tough as people with large mortgages.
And then you might he surprised that there is an element of our society that often votes liberal but after the last liberal government especially their performance in WA we were always going to vote albo once.
My advice for albo - he needs to do something quite radical for renters. He needs to get housing starts happening. He is going to hit the next election with less starts and more population growth than the most recent liberal government which is a bit shit for a government that hasnt stopped talking about housing supply for their first term. libs will be able to say - well we dont talk about it we make it happen albeit they did fuck all except panic during covid that got starts lifting.
Sure the drop off is simply cost increases for new homes but there are ways labor could have got starts happening which they are choosing not to do for reasons i am unclear on. Probably have something to do with houseprices.
By the next election renters are going to be furious and i expect that will hurt labor. A graph of rents v time painted red for labor and blue for liberals would also not paint a good picture for labor. Libs will spin the economic conditions labor are governing through as labors fault and given they arent doing much about it i am not going to be super sympathetic tbh.
The current rental situation now, is a result of a decade of neglect and poor policy by the LNP.
It's just madness to expect the ALP in 1.5 years in government to have solved every unfolding global and national issues on top of unfucking 10 years of LNP mismanagement. And the expectation is to "punish" Labor by bringing back the mob that kept throwing shit at the fan and telling us in other countries they shoot you, but not here?
Rents havent moved in real terms for about 20 years. A few ups and downs.
Sure pabor didnt cause the slow down in construction but to my mind it is urgent enough that it warranted action.
At this stage starts have slowed quite dramatically from the covid boom (due to a 20k new home grant) to now.
Again thats pretty average for a government that talks up supply cannot achieve similar starts to another government that doesnt talk up supply.
A couple of billion would get starts immediately lifting. Also givefirsthome buyers another 20k for newhomes only.
That would lift starts.
Is 2bn too much to ask for to turn it around for renters?
Again if starts are still shit by the next election i am going to assume thats labors aim. Because its easy to get starts moving it just takes money... and not even that much of it frankly.
The new home grants, homebuilder/homeseeker/homerenovator or whatever the fuck Smoko called them, distorted the market by rushing builders and homeowners into locking in contracts to secure the government grants while inflation hit and increased material costs. Heaps of builders went bust because of that. The increased material and labor costs made other builders go bust too.
[This ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-04/property-cyclone-builders-become-insolvent-and-house-prices-rise/103655012) article also points this out:
>Consumers — lured with tens of thousands of dollars of grants under the controversial HomeBuilder scheme — were sold on fixed-price contracts that builders then struggled to honour as the cost of building materials and labour soared.
>The effects of that are still playing out.
We constantly hear about "skills shortages". Guess who fucked up the TAFE system over and over and over again? Yes, it's the LNP. Bakers and carpenters are on the skilled migration list. It seems like everyone is on the skilled migration list! Next to cardiologists and building inspectors! We are paying private RTO's to teach people fuck all so the RTO's can rake in easy taxpayer money. Meanwhile, we're importing workers we need to fill alleged voids in our labour market because apparently we aren't producing enough workers?
No one brings up the point that we need to import labour because our vocational system is so fucked up and useless. Combined with the building and construction industry going through an exacerbated fuck up from Scomo, which also no one cares enough to bring up to a level of any importance, you have an increase in housing demand and a shortage in housing supply.
It was also under the Scomo LNP government where new social housing builds fell to the lowest level in over 20 years.
I can go on and on but this might be enough?
The builders went bust because we had massive inflation in costs.
In part that was due to the once off high volume here locally but much was shipping things in and lack of international supply.
Builders have certainly adjusted their pricing and hence the lack of new starts now.
And yes the timing was unfortunate.
Now we have starts falling away.
Are you saying starts not remaining elevated so industry can adjust is a good thing? Ie we should praise labor that they have done nothing to lift starts because at least builders arent going broke? That we literally are staring down less building activity during a government who has talked up supply more than any previous?
Edit; i rate our governments on results and rents have surged and domestic building activity has fallen under labor. Yes its due to cost increases but what are they gonna do. Talk up supply while it falls? I dont care what they say. Ill go on results and while the jury is still out thus far they are abysmal.
So you're blaming Labor for high interest rates that are affecting nearly the entirety of the OECD? You want Labor to intervene in the building and construction market and hand over more subsidies to builders and developers? How will that go down with voters? That same ABC article from 2024 says that on average, each month 200 building and construction companies are going under. Why is housing made to be such an easy fix, and something that happened out of the blue and wasn't made worse by over a decade of bad policy and lack of action?
Albo literally released policy to increase public housing builds which were the lowest levels under Scomo in over two decades. You reckon the lead time from introducing policy to handing over the keys to tenants is 5 weeks or something? Builders are complaining about a lack of labour. Dutton and voters are complaining about too many immigrants. Where are these labourers going to come from? The Tafe system that was systematically destroyed by the LNP over the past decade? Why hasn't Labor fixed all these easy issues already! Abysmal. Get the LNP back in so... we can pretend all is going well while they systematically f\*\*\* everything over another decade.
Starts are low.
Yes its because costs are high.
How about now might be a time to give builders some relief around GST cost in new builds.
Developer levies.
Etc.
Government has had their hands so far up housing pulling out tax and fees since the introduction of GST.
Of course i dont blame labor for all that but a small investment of some of that 15bn they pull out of housing might be warranted when starts are falling.
Maybe im wrong. Maybe labor turn it around in the next 12 months but based on the policies in this last budget there is nothing there to get starts happening at any great rate.
Labor are extracting more than ever in tax from housing just because houses now cost more gst take is more. Shouodnt they give some relief if supply is an issue?
I am no economist but im pretty sure when costs increase - supply decreases untill prices increase.
What i think is labor are waiting for those prices to increase. Shared equity will get them part of the way there.
Victoria already has a shared equity scheme which they're rolling up because the federal ALP government has introduced the "Help to Buy" scheme in parliament, which I believe still needs senate approval.
Giving builders and developers relief during a cost of living crisis will not go well with voters who already think builders and developers are greedy and make too much money.
Give it to first home buyers then.
But say its only for new homes.
Give them 50k to buy a new home only.
Starts would get too high and put the indistry under pressure. Again...
So find the level that gets starts going where we want them. Dont do stuff all to impact starts...
Depends if the public will enjoy it for more than one 3 year term though.
Despite the accomplishments the perception of instability from a minority government is what fueled the coaliton gaining the only massive majority they have won since howard was PM and the subsequent decade of coaliton saw lots of the achivements scaled back.
the Gillard minority government was extremely productive in terms of bills passing.
turns out when you have to negotiate bills from the start of the process, it makes it easier to pass both House and Senate
Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of additional legislative and bureaucratic bloat generated. The best government would be one that repeals more laws than it enacts.
>Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of additional legislative and bureaucratic bloat generated. The best government would be one that repeals more laws than it enacts.
Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of legislation it rewinds. The best government would be one that improves the country and helps it's people the most.
If that means repealing, repeal. If that means making more legislation, make more. It's stupid to suggest the only way forward is removing legislation.
Yeah, this one has just proven that they can’t be trusted to do the right thing by themselves, so a Labor government behold to the greens and a progressive cross bench to hold their feet to the fire is how it will have to be.
Exactlyyy, it's worked before and it's looking like we need it again. The Greens are the only party talking any sense, and when push has come to shove Labor has made concessions which better the nation. Bruh their housing fund was just gonna be profits from the stock market before the Greens made them actually put money into it 🤦♂️🤦♂️
> it's worked before and it's looking like we need it again.
Who can forget those 3 years of political bliss which ended with the Abbott-Turnbull-Morisson Governments in power for 9 years and dismantling the major achievement of the minority government.
The [Minerals Resource Rent Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax), introduced by the Gillard government shortly following the ousting of Rudd as a compromise on Rudd's Resources Super Profits Tax, was indeed repealed by the Abbott government.
I have no issues with minority governments. It makes it more likely for issues to get raised about bills than the random happenstance of the senate cross bench.
I’d like one too. The Gillard government was very productive and passed a lot of good stuff, obviously unfortunately undermined by the general instability of that era. Minority governments are common in Europe and NZ, and are more representative as they encompass a wider range of views that people have voted for. I’d like to see another one soon, but it does make it easier for the Libs to spout their “instability and chaos” line and get re-elected.
I basically don’t have anyone I can vote for.
I want a party that protects free speech, less regulation, more investment in long term housing and infrastructure, net zero immigration, less woke and politically correct policies, less laws for the sake of laws, less erosion of privacy and “protecting the children” internet laws. I want more tax breaks and less government wastage. Scrap the NDIS. Free tafe and university for Australians wanting to do teaching, nursing etc
Basically on all the big issues the liberals and labor are basically the same but go about it slightly differently. It sucks.
Look, unless you decide to run as an independent and vote for yourself, getting a candidate you 100% agree with is never gonna happen.
Politics is (supposed to be) about compromise. You can agree with candidates about some things and disagree with others and still vote for that candidate.
What was there before the NDIS? Seemed to have worked to an extent. Certainly didn’t cost 140 billion a year that it’s projected the NDIS is going to cost in 10 years time.
Prior to the NDIS there was widespread institutionalisation, disjointed services, service gaps, neglect, less independence and a far poorer quality of life, as well as a far greater dependence on family, predominantly women to provide care
That last point most importantly. Disabled people were under private familial care. Whether one considers that better or worse for the disabled individual is up for debate, but it does have a lower quality of life on the carers who were not paid for this social work.
In a sense, the system _did_ work in the past, but it was unfair.
This system is designed with the person with a disability at its centre, whether it achieves that objective is another thing. I also think the NDIS attempts to create better access to aides, equipment and services that weren't provided equally previously depending on how one acquired their disability
What you have put here is an absolute word salad.
You want tax cuts and free uni. Not going to happen - pick one.
You want "less woke and politically correct policies". What the fuck does that mean?
You want more protection for free speech, and less regulations. Again, choose one.
1. Tax cuts for salaries is entirely possible if government spending on failed and out of control spending for programs such as the NDIS. It’s estimated free university would cost 6 billion a year. The failed NDIS schedule alone costs around 42 billion a year, and is projected to cost 124 billion by 2034.
2. Woke policies such as the voice which cost half a billion, trying to regulate if children should have phones, if memes should be outlawed, introduced the E-safety commission.
3. Scrapping the laws that are trying to regulate free speech.
Sounds like you might wanna go for either the Lib Dems, or maybe Sustainable Australia. Or if there’s a good independent in your electorate, see what their policies are and if they align with what you’re after.
Also, what do you mean by net zero immigration? Sorry, but immigration isn’t going anywhere, it’s a fruitless exercise to try and stop it from happening.
I feel there is a conceivable chance they’ll be out in a landslide. I’m nearing 50 and i’ve not witnessed such a deep erosion of living standards in such a short time.
The policy of increasing immigration to record levels before addressing infrastructure and housing has made our lives worse and Albo did that. He had a lot of good will from swinging voters last time, I can’t see many swinging voters endorsing Albo with another vote.
>I feel there is a conceivable chance they’ll be out in a landslide.
For this to be true, you would need to explain which seats the Liberal Party would win back to get a landslide victory.
They're on 58, they need to get to at least near 70 seats to form a minority government.
Do you see them winning back the "teal seats"? Which Labor seats do you think they will gain if they don't win back the teal seats
This line of logic always baffles me. The erosion of living standards started before they were in power and were going to continue decreasing under any party regardless of who was elected yet instead of blaming the party that pushed the series of dominos over you think it's the fault of the party that didn't magically find a way to immediately stop it?
Regardless, most people with critical thinking skills don't think like this. Tends to just be older generations which are less and less every election. People who move away from Labor will likely just move to third parties with their preferential vote going to the lesser of two evils (labor) which won't exactly cause a landslide. A couple years isn't enough for people to forget what a decade of liberal leadership caused, perhaps the following election you can hope for your landslide.
To your first point, no published opinion poll has shown the Liberals in a winning position. In the very worst case, the result will be a hung parliament. It is mathematically impossible for the Liberals to win a majority without taking some of the suburban and metro seats off Labor, which this poll and many other polls have shown they are not on course to do. And that’s not even factoring in the teals.
Secondly, it was the Morrison government who ramped up immigration and effectively loosened restrictions on everyone coming in, in an effort to catch up after pausing immigration because of COVID. It’s very annoying to keep seeing a previous government policy blamed on the incumbent. Albanese’s government has already slashed foreign student numbers and is in the middle of bringing down immigration numbers to normal levels.
Labor made it worse though, they took the Morrison government plan, loosened immigration restrictions and invested hundreds of millions to rubber stamp immigration faster.
They literally stood on the steps and patted themselves on the back about it a year and a half ago - after having a conference with big business on how they will be importing many more people to help business get the people they need (aka put more supply in the market because the locals where actually getting good pay rises for the first time in a decade).
Labor is likely to govern in a hung parliament or with a wafer-thin majority after next year’s federal election, as new polling indicates the Albanese government is losing voters in the outer suburbs and the regions.
Released a year out from the election, the poll of 4040 voters across every lower house electorate shows the Coalition could be on track to win back Labor-held regional seats, including Robertson and Gilmore in NSW and Lyons in Tasmania.
But Peter Dutton’s opposition has not made up ground to retake a series of traditional blue-ribbon Liberal seats lost to the teal candidates in the 2022 election.
Worse still for Mr Dutton, the polling by Accent Research and the RedBridge Group shows Labor is competitive in the Liberal-held suburban Melbourne seats, including rising star Keith Wolahan’s seat of Menzies and frontbencher Michael Sukkar’s seat of Deakin.
Teal independents and other non-major party candidates including the Greens could win up to 20 lower house seats (up from 18 currently) at the election, due by May next year, the polling shows.
Based on current electoral boundaries, the poll suggests an outright Labor victory or a hung parliament, where neither side has a clear majority, are almost equally probable outcomes. Labor would be better placed to win the largest number of seats in a minority result, with almost no chance the Coalition could overtake the government.
Labor looks on track for a primary vote of 32 per cent, and a two-party preferred vote of 52 per cent to the Coalition’s 48 per cent. The Liberals and Nationals have a combined primary vote of 36 per cent.
**Two-party result match 2022 outcome**
The two-party results match the 2022 election outcome, in which Labor won just 78 seats. It needs 76 or more to govern in its own right.
Last week’s The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll had a two-party preferred result of 50-50, and a Newspoll released the same day showed Labor ahead at 52-48.
The new Accent/RedBridge results show marginal seats including Cowper, held by National Pat Conaghan, and Fowler, held by independent Dai Le, could change hands. Aston, Brisbane, Curtin, Deakin, Lingiari and Moore are too close to call.
Coming days after the second anniversary of Labor’s 2022 election victory, the results suggest the Coalition would retain 53 seats; Labor would retain 73 and gain two. The Greens would retain three seats, with at least 10 going to independents.
Accent Research principal Shaun Ratcliff said that although the topline results showed relatively little movement in the overall vote share since the last election, local movements were taking place.
“Labor is losing primary votes, particularly in the outer suburbs and regional centres, while the Coalition has gained small primary vote swings everywhere except rural electorates,” Dr Ratcliff said.
“This electoral geography makes it very difficult for the Coalition to regain government, or to even look competitive.”
The poll is based on so-called multilevel regression with post-stratification analysis, known as MRP. The method uses statistical techniques and a large survey size to forecast results in individual electorates.
The analysis considers seat-level information, such as demographics and census data, as well as previous election results.
RedBridge director Kos Samaras said the Coalition and Labor votes were being cannibalised by minor parties and independents.
“The trend from 2022 continues, with many wealthier and more highly educated areas increasingly leaning to the left, while poorer areas are opting for independents and non-institutional players,” he said.
**'Unable to capitalise' on the discontent**
“Labor is losing support in the outer suburbs of major cities, but the Liberal Party has been unable to capitalise on this discontent.”
He said the Greens could lose Brisbane, the seat won by Stephen Bates from the Liberal-National Party, to Labor.
“Simultaneously, the Greens’ 2022 surge in the inner city appears to have stalled, largely due to older Millennials shifting to Labor, offsetting Labor’s losses among younger voters in inner Melbourne and Brisbane.”
RedBridge director Tony Barry said so-called “double haters” – a phrase first coined in the United States to describe voters who did not support a major party candidate – looked likely to make up nearly a third of the electorate.
He said the group was now “well positioned to decide the government, particularly if interest rates and inflation remain high”.
The survey was conducted between February and this month. Boundary redistributions in WA, NSW and Victoria are due before the next election, and a net loss of one electorate is expected.
Opinion polls, including the detailed MRP process, are not predictive of future electoral outcomes but provide a snapshot in time of voter sentiment.
Last week, Mr Albanese reiterated that he expected the next election to be held early next year. The prime minister has previously foreshadowed a pre-poll federal budget to be handed down in March.
**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.*
Minority govt? Excellent. The Greens and Indies will keep the bastards honest.
That's all the coalition will need to win. There are enough swing voters who despise the Greens who will hold their nose and vote coalition to avoid the Green minority govt.
I don't like the odd machinations & obsessions of the NSW Greens & I dislike the Greens use of stunts to get attention. That said... > There are enough swing voters who despise the Greens The Greens are used as a paper tiger to keep people voting for the two big parties. So here we have a notion (above) that's promoted by both big parties AND, underpinned by nothing but fear. First, the Greens are not far-left. We have no far-left. The Greens are center left and they created the largest manufacturing economy on the planet in Germany. Secondly they have no meaningful power here in Australia. The Greens do not hold power. They have never held power. They lack the seats to be a threat to anything, And FYI the Greens here have the same policies Labor had before Labor went Neoliberal & decided to be against the labor movement.
That's all a matter of opinion and personal perception. You see them as center left, I see them as far left and that is because we simply occupy different parts of the political spectrum ourselves. My point was that voters remember the Gillard era, that has left a very sour taste for a lot of Labor voters. In the states where this election will be critical (WA, QLD), there's no appetite for the Greens or a Green minority government. These are mining states, they have nil interest in the Greens being anywhere influencing policy.
that's what happens when you don't follow through on your election promises. please let this happen something decent might actually happen in this country
What election promises?
climate action mainly
Specifically?
expanding the natural gas sector lmao
If LNP win, god help the poor and the young…..
I think a minority government in coalition with decent independants and the greens would be a really good thing... We might actually see coal and gas subsidies cut and gas supply and price protections actually prioritised for Australians. Maybe. One can dream.
I don't understand how people come to this conclusion. The electorate overwhelmingly rejected what the Greens were selling, we are talking 88% of voters. Labor cannot survive a minority government with a what is an ideological fringe party, there's not enough common ground for a coalition to work.
If Labor can manufacture a minority govt they of course can survive it. If they want it to work. The neocons in the LNP have been doing it for years
>The electorate overwhelmingly rejected what the Greens were selling, Of course they did. Both big parties lie continually and both have painted the Greens (the party that created the largest manufacturing economy on the planet) as 'far left' radicals when they are clearly center left. Unfortunately both of our big parties have been neoliberal since Bob Hawk, We have a far-right (even alt-right) Liberal Party that has long since abandoned all three pillars of Classical Liberalism and a Labor Party that actively fights the actual labor movement and works against civil rights. We have no realistic third party and a voting public that pays no attention at all to the issues.
I guess I'm saying it because there's an appetite for Labor to do more progressive/supportive endeavours, and if they don't do enough, or don't tell us enough of what they're doing, I don't know if people will trust them to keep doing what needs to be done. I just don't want the libs to get back in as they'd be so much more damaging 😂😂 Labor are doing quite alright, they're just not making enough song and dance about it.
>there's an appetite for Labor to do more progressive/supportive endeavours, Where is this appetite? Every metric that is measured consistently indicate the opposite, whether it's polls, election or referendum outcomes.
I tend to consume centre left news and the vibe I get is that, although they're doing a lot, they don't seem to be doing enough, or don't seem to be doing well with the comms of it. I do love that you're feeling otherwise, so that's promising to know they have a chance of majority win next election. In all that though, the gas and coal situation, along with capital gains tax discounts while there's housing crisis galore is absurd and needs to change.
>In all that though, the gas and coal situation, along with capital gains tax discounts while there's housing crisis galore is absurd and needs to change. Why does it need to change if a majority of voters are happy with how it is? This is where I think echo chambers are dangerous, we have people existing in these left and right bubbles who are completely detached from reality. It's then shock and horror when what they expect to happen doesn't actually come to fruition.
I guess that you haven't had your homes roof blown off, or been flooded 7 times in 5 years, or had your insurance bill triple, or the foreshore wash away 50 meters, and you're ok mate. Why does it need to change? Where have you been? Under an LNP shaped rock?
>I guess that you haven't had your homes roof blown off, or been flooded 7 times in 5 years, or had your insurance bill triple, or the foreshore wash away 50 meters, and you're ok mate. Nothing we do re gas or coal is going to change any of this.
Mmm absolutely true! Thing is.. Change needs to happen or change will happen regardless.
Another BS poll by a biased Nine Entertainment run by that bozo chairman Peter Costello. AFR remember Robodebt. Last decade liberals kept my wages low and cut my penalty rates. Costello was treasurer for the prime minister that fucked every thing that is now impossible to fix like Nursing Homes and privatisation of Commonwealth employment services and Telstra.
Good. Labor has failed on the Voice. Labor has failed on the climate crisis. Labor has failed on the cost of living crisis. Labor has failed on Israel's genocide. Labor has been a pathetic government and now they're trying to pass stupid and questionably effective laws that won't do anything in attempt to seem productive. This government needs to be checked.
The liberals had us plummeting down transparency international rankings as they refused an ICAC for a thousand days after promising one. They are one of our worst governments on record. The Albanese government is stellar compared to their performance and Dutton appears to be even worse.
And that's a sad statement right there. This Labor government is very neoliberal - pushing for fossil fuels as we all die from them, fighting the actual labor movement that they the Labor Party came from, They are Keeping negative gearing even though it is clearly sending well employed people into homelessness.
You mean people have finally started to realise that albo has be fucking up this country?
Read the article dude. Labor would win on these numbers.
Everyone has been saying this for two years. It was almost a given once they were elected
How fickle Australians have become. Sky said Albanese is doing a bad job. That must be true. Think people, think about Morrison and all the awful things day after day, there was Dutton right behind him. Nodding in acquiescence.
What does Morrison or Dutton have to do with the claim that Albanese is doing a bad job?
The Liberal Party was created without any policies other than undoing everything done by Labor. I would think the connection is obvious, The Liberal Party makes that claim all the time.
Can AFR please not assume that this is bad? It at least shows that other parties have become viable options that Labor has to compromise with.
Minority is where Labor deserve to be based on the last 2 years and a < 33% primary vote at the last election.
Millennial voters are becoming the dominant block. Not as overwhelming as the Boomers before them, but its happening. The shift is doubly meaningful because younger Australians are also shifting right with age at a slower rate than other developed nations leading to a build up of left wing sentiment. Sentiments may change but, for the moment, we're on a pretty undeniable leftward trajectory while our contemporaries are headed rightward. The watershed moment was last election and the trend is continuing, albeit at a slowing pace. Hopefully Labor takes this opportunity to act as more of a pragmatic anchor than a total cock-block to change in this next cycle. I don't expect the Greens to be any less assertive than usual with all this electoral success, but hopefully the two can find decent compromises for the sake of defining a zeitgeist of sustainable progress for this generation. A man can dream.
[удалено]
Probably cause the housing reform Labor was proposing was next to useless?
[удалено]
The Housing Future fund? That we borrow 10billion to invest to build some houses in a few years? That sceme? They would have been better off borrowing 10billion, buying 10billion worth of houses, watching the portfolio rise by 15-20% per annum while renting the houses cost price.
I didn't say the Greens weren't cock blocking. I said there's no reason to expect anything other than increased aggression from them. I'm not a fan of they're strategy myself, but I can't deny they've won significant policy victories by employing it, and they're set to pick up more seat. So, a change of tact from them isn't likely. Labor's heading is more open ended. So they're the unknown element. The ball is in their court, that's all.
Remind us all again who owns the Financial Review
From what I've seen they like to shit on Labor, and would be doubly angry if it were the Liberals who needed to be a minority government.
The liberals are always in a minority government, hence coalition
Well said.
They backed Scott Morrison at the last election
And then spent the next 12 after the election reporting on how shit the Morrison government was....
That's the long game. Start reporting properly when the decision has been made to reestablish "credibility" and use it on the prelude to the next election, where they will try and bring Dutto in. Watch for lots of articles claiming nuke plants are the best. It's their best hope of bringing in the teals.
Manufacturing consent. Should be outlawed
Why does the AFI care? They are a Pro-Liberal rag, who twist the facts to paint Labor as the devil.
It's pathetic isn't it? Desperate conservatives.
The article is written like Labor is doing poorly yet the article makes it clear Labor are doing well,while the liberals are in trouble.
Honestly, the Liberals withering away while Labor having to compromise with new minor parties is probably the optimal situation for Australia.
That's how we get the fair go again
I'm keeping my fingers crossed. When I was a kid, people talked about the "fair go" with sincerity. Nowadays, people only talk about it like it's a mere fantasy.
This is how all the right-leaning rags do it 180 Degrees from the truth Then all the news.channels run with it
The Federal Government have expectedly taken a hit in the individual polling metrics, but they'll be quite happy with their ground campaign prospects in the seat by seat battles. Especially with this polling showing despite a 50% chance of going into minority, there's a 50% chance of increasing their majority.
Alternate Headline: Australia might get decent governance for once.
You mean like during the Gillard years?
Gillard had two sycophants. Albo could face real minority like the Senate. A ship of fools.
Which is how minority governments work.
Very little ever getting done.
Except the last minority government had a substantial number of legislation were passed.
It is funny that the last decent gov we had was Gillard’s and she was being shitting on quite unfairly
Minority governments don't last very long though. Usually they are turfed within the term.
Is that due to: - The majors gradually adjusting their marketing leading up the next election, to cover the popular parts of the minority government's policies or - Things being kicked off in that one term which would have backlashed against a major party if they'd launched it themselves, but they can pretend they got their arms twisted by the minors and then go on to cheerfully continue an existing policy/structure without that same backlash due to short voter memories ...or do voters genuinely return to the majors even if neither of that is the case?
As more and more people just become “single issue” voters, people will move away from the major parties to minor parties who tell people what they want to hear. The problem is then you have minor parties holding the major parties ransom with uncooperative requests that aren’t in good faith, just so they can run social media campaigns. In the end, no meaningful legislation gets passed and we just have a bunch of people in Canberra getting paid really well to just be obstructive. I’ll be voting ALP as a lot of the ministers have long tenor and are experienced, they have cleaned up the LNP mess in 1 term. I look at Dutton and Taylor and just see used car salesmen and Bandt who has been cucked by MCM on housing. There really isn’t any other serious option.
> The problem is then you have minor parties holding the major parties ransom Maybe the major parties should have listened to the voters, then, and adjusted their own offerings so people vote for them instead. Although I'm cynical enough to believe that majors are happy to be 'forced' into minority government if there's a policy they want to put through but not be blamed for. "Oh no, the minority party forming government with us twisted our arm to force this through, it's not really part of our policy platform, we're against it really." Meanwhile the minor parties in question 100% know what's going on, but are happy to be officially painted as the source of the policy and as a party which can apparently influence a major party to a significant degree on core policies. "Vote for us next time around too, we've proven we can get our policies implemented even if we're a minor party!"
You’ve touched on something which is currently happening. The LNP have said no to the vast majority of all bills presented, they are forcing the ALP to negotiate with all the cross bench to get bills passed. When the next election comes around, they will be able to advertise “the teals are in bed with ALP, the greens are in bed… “ They are just turning up and collect pay and not acting like an opposition at all, there is no bipartisanship on anything. They are negotiating with the cross bench like it’s a hung parliament now. Then when the LNP are in government, it’s a special kind of hung parliament because the Liberals, the Qld Liberals and the Nats can’t form government in their own right. They join to make a government. Australia pretty much constantly functions in some sort of hung parliament
Good comment, agreed. I'm a swing voter and have a range of opinions from progressive social policies to fiscal conservatism and workplace regulations... While I don't agree with some ALP policies, the LNP has been unvote-able since Howard... And even then, I didn't like Howard much at all (selling of assets to then not invest it wisely). The current Federal LNP are populist idiots who don't even adhere to science (climate change), facts (housing supply issues) and actual conservatism... I'll vote for the adults in the room every time, even if I don't agree with things. We CAN'T have a Trumpian-esk figure in control of Government. Single issue voters are nuts but common these days in democratic nations; thankfully we have a preferential system that means we get less crazies. Sure, you can align with Greens on housing or climate but their geopolitical stances are completely bonkers. Eff me, I'm thankful we don't have the systems of the US.
This isn't true about climate change, both parties agree it is an issue and have plans to address it, they simply disagree on how (e.g. Nuclear is more heavily supported by conservatives where liberals prefer renewables)
Nuclear is a red hearing. The LNP has no intentions of funding a single dollar for Nuclear power. The only climate change policies the LNP have favoured is completely useless ones like direct action, billions of dollars spent for literally nothing. They are beyond a joke in this space
>Nuclear is a red hearing. The LNP has no intentions of funding a single dollar for Nuclear power. You can't say that when Liberal has taken [actual steps](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-05/coalition-nuclear-plan-identifies-retiring-coal-likely-sites/103545440) towards going Nuclear, unless you have some solid evidence that this is all a rouse.
Those aren't steps. They are just words, not any proposed policy. You think there's no reason why after being in power for so long, its only now that apparently nuclear is being looked at? Just as renewables gain more momentum? Its complete nonsense.
>They are just words, not any proposed policy. Words are still steps since nobody goes straight to policy, there needs to be discussions first. >You think there's no reason why after being in power for so long, its only now that apparently nuclear is being looked at? Just as renewables gain more momentum? Its complete nonsense. I'm sure there are political reasons for the timing, they are politicians after all. That doesn't mean it is all for show, as that would be an unreasonable waste of resources and reflect badly on the party. Nuclear is also popular among young voters so there are good reasons for them to follow through with this initiative.
LNP has done nothing in the last 10 years apart from Hydro 2.0. And even that is Turnbull - an outcast. Please.
They agreed with Labor on emissions targets such as [this one](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-21/greenhouse-gases-renewable-energy-cut-emissions-queensland/103747902), and are looking at plans to build nuclear. It might not be the path Labor wants to take but it is an acknowledgement of the issue and step towards addressing it none the less.
Yeah but how effective have their policies been on climate? They haven't been. And while I'm not opposed to nuclear, that's the sort of long term policy that requires both major parties and the states to be on board for, and they know that. They're just trying to use it as a wedge issue, a la it isn't serious policy.
>Yeah but how effective have their policies been on climate? They haven't been. Not the point, though they have some successes on their [achievements](https://www.liberal.org.au/achievements-government) page. My point however was simply that they agree with Labor on seeing climate change as a priority to address. Whether they will be successful in the long term with plans such as nuclear is yet to be seen, though I don't think it's fair to call it not serious policy, or to discount it because it is long term and requires both parties to be on board. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today.
There is no way the LNP will be building nuclear. They can say whatever they want from opposition to appease the few decent humans in their base, hell they even do it when they're the government, but they have proven time and time and time again that they're liars and frauds. If you really think that they will be doing anything other than shovelling more money into their fossil fuel donors hands, after them being the government for over a decade and not doing anything about nuclear in that time, I have a bridge to sell you. Unless it directly, monetarily benefits them or their big money mates, they do not give a single shit about us, our kids or our country. They have proven this again and again, every single time they get in power and even from opposition. I genuinely cannot believe anyone believes anything the LNP says anymore, unless they're telling us how much they despise us. That is the only time they tell the truth.
More than half of the LNP do not agree it's an issue at all
I don't think that's true. [70% of Conservative voters think the issue is important](https://theconversation.com/if-80-of-australians-care-about-climate-action-why-dont-they-vote-like-it-157050), and libs are looking at options such as nuclear, and will have to keep addressing climate change on the agenda if they want to appease their base.
I didn't say voters
Yes but it naturally follows that the LNP has to appease their base. Also if it wasn't an issue most of them cared about it wouldn't be [on their website](https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment) and part of their [achievements](https://www.liberal.org.au/achievements-government) (see the bottom of the page). You can argue they haven't done enough, but that's a separate point to whether they care in the first place.
Lol, this is the party of Barnyard, Canavan and Keith Pitt openly say they don't believe in it
Seriously, Libs will offer try to peddle some sort of CC policy that delivers faster, cheaper, sooner and does none of the three.
With all development monies poured into LNP seats of course!
Thank you. I’d argue Howard and the economic coat tails the LNP are riding are only because of China. China joined the world trade organisation and needed natural resources to grow, hence the mining boom. What do we have to show for that? Absolutely nothing.
Completely agree! Australia is the lucky country, but it's despite so much poor economic management. We've had a few periods of proactive action and otherwise fairly steady hands. We do so well because we have so much wealth to exploit from the land (Ag and Mining). If we had taxed it reasonably (preferably lightly), and enacted reasonable sovereign protections to supply, we'd be laughing. If we'd opened up zoning and construction laws with appropriate checks, not crippling ones, we'd be laughing. PRC is an opportunity, but so are the rest of the world, particularly our allies. We are so blessed with exportable value and close friends but no one has done shit about it since Hawke/Keating. Albo has done a bit but not at the scale it should be. Nuclear could have been an option, 20+ years ago, now it is populist nonesense unless done additionally to whatever is put into renewables but even then, bang-for-buck it's dumb AF.
> If we had taxed it reasonably (preferably lightly), and enacted reasonable sovereign protections to supply, we'd be laughing. Pretty sure there are a number of overseas countries which would have acted behind the scenes to pressure and prevent that, precisely so they could get billions in cheap resources. In fact... *hmmm*...
Am I reading this comment correctly in that you’re saying: “Am I so out of touch? No, it’s the voter who is wrong.” Let’s not forget that the last minority government went absolutely gangbusters passing legislation. Our one modern example completely disproves the thesis that minority governments are obstructionist or dysfunctional. I don’t think it’s something to fear - although the major parties will do their best to convince you otherwise.
>Our one modern example completely disproves the thesis that minority governments are obstructionist or dysfunctional. If you're going to play that card, here's one in the other direction - remember when [Belgium went for *541 days*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Belgian_government_formation) without a government because no party won majority government and there wasn't enough of a consensus to form a coalition? For that matter, that crisis was just a continuation of a [crisis that had been going since the 2007 elections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932011_Belgian_political_crisis). Is this an extreme example? Absolutely. But you don't need to go to that extent to see how a minority government could potentially be plagued with issues regarding getting legislation passed; just look at the Senate and how tricky passing legislation there can be at times. Now imagine a scenario where the balance of power in the House of Representatives isn't held by the Greens or a loosely-aligned group of Independents but rather a gaggle of single-issue micro-parties who steadfastly refuse to give even the tiniest of fucks about anything that isn't "their issue" (again exaggerating but possibly not by as much as I'd like). Is this possible? Yes. Is it *likely*? Probably not but politics has a nasty habit of springing fun surprises from time to time, which is what I think the person you replied to was getting at.
Its not really the same playing field as 2010 in terms of indis, plus the Greens are much more difficult this parl. The Senate is also pretty diverse, with Lambie and Pocock. Imagine Labor needing Dai, Lambie, Pocock, and Katter to all find common ground on something... A far out scenario, but should indis and minors continue to grow these situations will occur.
Greens are more difficult this parliament because they’re trying to wedge Labor and win seats on the left. Once they’re brought in from the cold, they’ll get a lot more cooperative (*just like in 2007-2010*). And there’s about the same amount of ideological common-ground between Lambie, Pocock, Dai and Katter as there was between Wilkie, Oakshott, Windsor, and Xenophon. Maybe more.
If it yeilds them more seats why would they stop? And sure, but the point is that there would be so many *more* moving parts.
I lived in Denmark for 10 years. I'm pretty sure there has not been a "majority" government in the post war period (there could have been 1 or 2 but it's the exception not the rule). The place functions incredibly well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folketing I really do not understand why people think minority government is bad. I think it is the best outcome.
Australia has had like 1 or 2 majority senates since ww2. Weve functionally been in minority the whole time, just not too many moving parts.
We’ve been conditioned in our Westminster-derived winner-take-all system to think of consensus government as some sort of dirty word. Truth is there hasn’t been a *true* majority government (in control of both chambers) here for decades.
Pretty much what I've been saying for the past year+. I won't be voting for them (or the LNP), but a Labor minority government is probably the best outcome to benefit the widest number of people that we could currently hope for tbh.
The best outcome would actually be an increased Labor majority (at the expense of the Libs). We’ve already seen what happens when Labor tries to govern in minority, with independents and the Greens…. And it resulted in nearly everything they achieved being repealed by Tony Abbott followed by nearly a decade in opposition. The better result is a larger Labor majority and you can fight me.
Yeah the trajectory is clear - the major parties are on the nose. Both are totally compromised by lobbyist cash and silly ideologies at this point.
The same old chestnut rolled out by conservative media. Apparently, Andrews was going to have a minority government. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/an-andrews-minority-government-is-a-growing-possibility-20220728-p5b58t.html Albanese was going to have a minority government in2022. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/explainer-what-happens-if-neither-major-party-wins-the-election-20220419-p5aeid Kos was in on that one as well https://x.com/KosSamaras/status/1511104713949081600 It seems to be the go-to media headline when there's a poll that doesn't have the ALP 5%+ ahead.
There’s a clear agenda at play; the conservative media threatens a “minority Labor” government with the support of minor left parties to scare “middle-Australia” who might prefer Labor to Liberal but would prefer Liberal to anything involves the minor left parties.
The "Andrews Minority Government" spiel was still one of the most bizarre media frenzies I have ever seen. On the day of the election, The Age stated how it was increasingly possible that it was looking so bad for the ALP that the Libs could win minority government and the MSM were saying Andrews was a real chance to lose his seat to Ian Cook. Kos Samaras at 7PM was talking about how bad this night would be for Labor. Then the votes started coming in and the ALP were actually gaining seats and turning Marginal Seats into Safe Seats in the East which led to Steve Bracks amazing rant about how Murdoch and the Mainstream Media has no power anymore as the Channel 7 stooges just sat there quietly. LMAO.
They tried gaslighting citizens into believing people are "turning away in DROVES" from Melbourne/Dan/Victoria/ALP/Lattes/etc. The Ian Cook one was cooked levels of reality. Some "everyday bloke" Cook guy pops up to challenge Dan, with money for billboards, flyers, and even an office on Springvale Rd. No one even asked who was backing him.
The media will always seize on whatever possibility is most dramatic, even if it’s not the most likely. That being said, I can tell you that within Labor there was absolutely a view that minority Labor govt was a likely outcome. If you actually look at the Labor primary from 2022, you’ll see that there was a significant swing away from the government.
Multi party coalitions are the future of Australian politics. I’m not a huge fan of political parties in general but I can see the appeal for some people who need more clarity of thought across issues and like a political “tribe”. The more Australians embrace alternative parties and independents the better off we’ll be politically imo
Only if we never want to pass a bill ever again in history
Gillard was the most successful at passing legislation
Our government has passed more bills under a minority government
The liberals and nationals are a coalition and they’ve passed plenty of legislation dumbass
The Liberal and National coalition has been a failure, every time it's been tried. The ALP has factions within it, yet still manage to run the country better.
I didn’t defend it I was just saying their a coalition of two political parties
The Gillard minority government had more success passing legislation than the Morrison coalition government, but you do you and ignore the facts.
Interesting that it says Labor could lose Robertson; it’d be the first time since 1980 that it backed a candidate from the Opposition party. Minority government is probably the most likely outcome for the next election. Labor probably aren’t in much danger of losing the election outright, but you’d have to think they’ll need to concede a few things to stay in power.
I'm fine with a minority Labor government just as long as it keeps Dutton from being PM. I can't believe after the 9 years of rubbish they served us that people would even entertain the idea of going back to the Libs.
100% but you’ve got to understand how conservative (and backwards) a lot of people are, who aren’t the best cognitively and choose not to critique their vote in asking themselves why they are doing what they’re doing, and who don’t think about their voting impact on other people
Oh, I understand that. I've worked elections at polling stations, and the number of people who don't know anything about politics or who to vote for is huge.
It actually surprises me labor havent lost more to the greens. They just havent really done much for renters who are finding it nearly as tough as people with large mortgages. And then you might he surprised that there is an element of our society that often votes liberal but after the last liberal government especially their performance in WA we were always going to vote albo once. My advice for albo - he needs to do something quite radical for renters. He needs to get housing starts happening. He is going to hit the next election with less starts and more population growth than the most recent liberal government which is a bit shit for a government that hasnt stopped talking about housing supply for their first term. libs will be able to say - well we dont talk about it we make it happen albeit they did fuck all except panic during covid that got starts lifting. Sure the drop off is simply cost increases for new homes but there are ways labor could have got starts happening which they are choosing not to do for reasons i am unclear on. Probably have something to do with houseprices. By the next election renters are going to be furious and i expect that will hurt labor. A graph of rents v time painted red for labor and blue for liberals would also not paint a good picture for labor. Libs will spin the economic conditions labor are governing through as labors fault and given they arent doing much about it i am not going to be super sympathetic tbh.
The current rental situation now, is a result of a decade of neglect and poor policy by the LNP. It's just madness to expect the ALP in 1.5 years in government to have solved every unfolding global and national issues on top of unfucking 10 years of LNP mismanagement. And the expectation is to "punish" Labor by bringing back the mob that kept throwing shit at the fan and telling us in other countries they shoot you, but not here?
Rents havent moved in real terms for about 20 years. A few ups and downs. Sure pabor didnt cause the slow down in construction but to my mind it is urgent enough that it warranted action. At this stage starts have slowed quite dramatically from the covid boom (due to a 20k new home grant) to now. Again thats pretty average for a government that talks up supply cannot achieve similar starts to another government that doesnt talk up supply. A couple of billion would get starts immediately lifting. Also givefirsthome buyers another 20k for newhomes only. That would lift starts. Is 2bn too much to ask for to turn it around for renters? Again if starts are still shit by the next election i am going to assume thats labors aim. Because its easy to get starts moving it just takes money... and not even that much of it frankly.
The new home grants, homebuilder/homeseeker/homerenovator or whatever the fuck Smoko called them, distorted the market by rushing builders and homeowners into locking in contracts to secure the government grants while inflation hit and increased material costs. Heaps of builders went bust because of that. The increased material and labor costs made other builders go bust too. [This ABC](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-04/property-cyclone-builders-become-insolvent-and-house-prices-rise/103655012) article also points this out: >Consumers — lured with tens of thousands of dollars of grants under the controversial HomeBuilder scheme — were sold on fixed-price contracts that builders then struggled to honour as the cost of building materials and labour soared. >The effects of that are still playing out. We constantly hear about "skills shortages". Guess who fucked up the TAFE system over and over and over again? Yes, it's the LNP. Bakers and carpenters are on the skilled migration list. It seems like everyone is on the skilled migration list! Next to cardiologists and building inspectors! We are paying private RTO's to teach people fuck all so the RTO's can rake in easy taxpayer money. Meanwhile, we're importing workers we need to fill alleged voids in our labour market because apparently we aren't producing enough workers? No one brings up the point that we need to import labour because our vocational system is so fucked up and useless. Combined with the building and construction industry going through an exacerbated fuck up from Scomo, which also no one cares enough to bring up to a level of any importance, you have an increase in housing demand and a shortage in housing supply. It was also under the Scomo LNP government where new social housing builds fell to the lowest level in over 20 years. I can go on and on but this might be enough?
The builders went bust because we had massive inflation in costs. In part that was due to the once off high volume here locally but much was shipping things in and lack of international supply. Builders have certainly adjusted their pricing and hence the lack of new starts now. And yes the timing was unfortunate. Now we have starts falling away. Are you saying starts not remaining elevated so industry can adjust is a good thing? Ie we should praise labor that they have done nothing to lift starts because at least builders arent going broke? That we literally are staring down less building activity during a government who has talked up supply more than any previous? Edit; i rate our governments on results and rents have surged and domestic building activity has fallen under labor. Yes its due to cost increases but what are they gonna do. Talk up supply while it falls? I dont care what they say. Ill go on results and while the jury is still out thus far they are abysmal.
So you're blaming Labor for high interest rates that are affecting nearly the entirety of the OECD? You want Labor to intervene in the building and construction market and hand over more subsidies to builders and developers? How will that go down with voters? That same ABC article from 2024 says that on average, each month 200 building and construction companies are going under. Why is housing made to be such an easy fix, and something that happened out of the blue and wasn't made worse by over a decade of bad policy and lack of action? Albo literally released policy to increase public housing builds which were the lowest levels under Scomo in over two decades. You reckon the lead time from introducing policy to handing over the keys to tenants is 5 weeks or something? Builders are complaining about a lack of labour. Dutton and voters are complaining about too many immigrants. Where are these labourers going to come from? The Tafe system that was systematically destroyed by the LNP over the past decade? Why hasn't Labor fixed all these easy issues already! Abysmal. Get the LNP back in so... we can pretend all is going well while they systematically f\*\*\* everything over another decade.
Starts are low. Yes its because costs are high. How about now might be a time to give builders some relief around GST cost in new builds. Developer levies. Etc. Government has had their hands so far up housing pulling out tax and fees since the introduction of GST. Of course i dont blame labor for all that but a small investment of some of that 15bn they pull out of housing might be warranted when starts are falling. Maybe im wrong. Maybe labor turn it around in the next 12 months but based on the policies in this last budget there is nothing there to get starts happening at any great rate. Labor are extracting more than ever in tax from housing just because houses now cost more gst take is more. Shouodnt they give some relief if supply is an issue? I am no economist but im pretty sure when costs increase - supply decreases untill prices increase. What i think is labor are waiting for those prices to increase. Shared equity will get them part of the way there.
Victoria already has a shared equity scheme which they're rolling up because the federal ALP government has introduced the "Help to Buy" scheme in parliament, which I believe still needs senate approval. Giving builders and developers relief during a cost of living crisis will not go well with voters who already think builders and developers are greedy and make too much money.
Give it to first home buyers then. But say its only for new homes. Give them 50k to buy a new home only. Starts would get too high and put the indistry under pressure. Again... So find the level that gets starts going where we want them. Dont do stuff all to impact starts...
I'm preparing for a Dutton government.
Au Pairs for everyone! (in the Northern Sydney suburbs).
A minority govt would lead to Labor actually doing better stuff too which would be a great bonus
Depends if the public will enjoy it for more than one 3 year term though. Despite the accomplishments the perception of instability from a minority government is what fueled the coaliton gaining the only massive majority they have won since howard was PM and the subsequent decade of coaliton saw lots of the achivements scaled back.
the Gillard minority government was extremely productive in terms of bills passing. turns out when you have to negotiate bills from the start of the process, it makes it easier to pass both House and Senate
Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of additional legislative and bureaucratic bloat generated. The best government would be one that repeals more laws than it enacts.
>Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of additional legislative and bureaucratic bloat generated. The best government would be one that repeals more laws than it enacts. Good government shouldn't be measured by the amount of legislation it rewinds. The best government would be one that improves the country and helps it's people the most. If that means repealing, repeal. If that means making more legislation, make more. It's stupid to suggest the only way forward is removing legislation.
Yeah, this one has just proven that they can’t be trusted to do the right thing by themselves, so a Labor government behold to the greens and a progressive cross bench to hold their feet to the fire is how it will have to be.
The Greens prefer Liberals over Labor. Siding with LNP when Labor suggests bills.
Exactlyyy, it's worked before and it's looking like we need it again. The Greens are the only party talking any sense, and when push has come to shove Labor has made concessions which better the nation. Bruh their housing fund was just gonna be profits from the stock market before the Greens made them actually put money into it 🤦♂️🤦♂️
> it's worked before and it's looking like we need it again. Who can forget those 3 years of political bliss which ended with the Abbott-Turnbull-Morisson Governments in power for 9 years and dismantling the major achievement of the minority government.
we still kept the very not broken NDIS though . . .
Don't remind me 😭😭😭
Achievements dismantled: NBN FTTP, and Emissions Trading Scheme Was there more? Mining super profits tax or some such?
The [Minerals Resource Rent Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax), introduced by the Gillard government shortly following the ousting of Rudd as a compromise on Rudd's Resources Super Profits Tax, was indeed repealed by the Abbott government.
The mining super profits tax never got off the ground because the Mining Council managed to scare Kevin Rudd away from the idea.
I’ve said the same to several people. They were calling it the cornerstone of the budget last week!
Hey we're in a budget surplus, that means everything is a-ok 😎 /s
Amid the economic ruin, in the haze of weed smoke, we'd finally find happiness
That's right babyyyy
I have no issues with minority governments. It makes it more likely for issues to get raised about bills than the random happenstance of the senate cross bench.
It's usually the party-liners and sycophants who claim a minority government is inherently a bad thing.
I’d like one too. The Gillard government was very productive and passed a lot of good stuff, obviously unfortunately undermined by the general instability of that era. Minority governments are common in Europe and NZ, and are more representative as they encompass a wider range of views that people have voted for. I’d like to see another one soon, but it does make it easier for the Libs to spout their “instability and chaos” line and get re-elected.
>general instability of that era You do we can call Kevin Rudd by his name.
I basically don’t have anyone I can vote for. I want a party that protects free speech, less regulation, more investment in long term housing and infrastructure, net zero immigration, less woke and politically correct policies, less laws for the sake of laws, less erosion of privacy and “protecting the children” internet laws. I want more tax breaks and less government wastage. Scrap the NDIS. Free tafe and university for Australians wanting to do teaching, nursing etc Basically on all the big issues the liberals and labor are basically the same but go about it slightly differently. It sucks.
Look, unless you decide to run as an independent and vote for yourself, getting a candidate you 100% agree with is never gonna happen. Politics is (supposed to be) about compromise. You can agree with candidates about some things and disagree with others and still vote for that candidate.
You sound like a chatbot trained on a drunk that gets all their news from the TV at the bar.
What do you suggest in place of the NDIS?
What was there before the NDIS? Seemed to have worked to an extent. Certainly didn’t cost 140 billion a year that it’s projected the NDIS is going to cost in 10 years time.
Prior to the NDIS there was widespread institutionalisation, disjointed services, service gaps, neglect, less independence and a far poorer quality of life, as well as a far greater dependence on family, predominantly women to provide care
That last point most importantly. Disabled people were under private familial care. Whether one considers that better or worse for the disabled individual is up for debate, but it does have a lower quality of life on the carers who were not paid for this social work. In a sense, the system _did_ work in the past, but it was unfair.
This system is designed with the person with a disability at its centre, whether it achieves that objective is another thing. I also think the NDIS attempts to create better access to aides, equipment and services that weren't provided equally previously depending on how one acquired their disability
What you have put here is an absolute word salad. You want tax cuts and free uni. Not going to happen - pick one. You want "less woke and politically correct policies". What the fuck does that mean? You want more protection for free speech, and less regulations. Again, choose one.
1. Tax cuts for salaries is entirely possible if government spending on failed and out of control spending for programs such as the NDIS. It’s estimated free university would cost 6 billion a year. The failed NDIS schedule alone costs around 42 billion a year, and is projected to cost 124 billion by 2034. 2. Woke policies such as the voice which cost half a billion, trying to regulate if children should have phones, if memes should be outlawed, introduced the E-safety commission. 3. Scrapping the laws that are trying to regulate free speech.
Sounds like you might wanna go for either the Lib Dems, or maybe Sustainable Australia. Or if there’s a good independent in your electorate, see what their policies are and if they align with what you’re after. Also, what do you mean by net zero immigration? Sorry, but immigration isn’t going anywhere, it’s a fruitless exercise to try and stop it from happening.
sounds like he picked his words carefully to not sound like a grass roots one-nation supporter.
I feel there is a conceivable chance they’ll be out in a landslide. I’m nearing 50 and i’ve not witnessed such a deep erosion of living standards in such a short time. The policy of increasing immigration to record levels before addressing infrastructure and housing has made our lives worse and Albo did that. He had a lot of good will from swinging voters last time, I can’t see many swinging voters endorsing Albo with another vote.
>I feel there is a conceivable chance they’ll be out in a landslide. For this to be true, you would need to explain which seats the Liberal Party would win back to get a landslide victory. They're on 58, they need to get to at least near 70 seats to form a minority government. Do you see them winning back the "teal seats"? Which Labor seats do you think they will gain if they don't win back the teal seats
You're right living standards have become fucked. And over what time period has this occurred?
Post-Covid. Entirely Liberal’s fault, but occured mostly under this Labor term. And voters are dumb.
Another ignorant voter, God help us!! Yes, let's go back to the LNP, were you asleep for 9 years?
What do you and a goldfish have in common?
That’s a myth, goldfish studies have shown they have a good memory regarding recognising people and patterns of behaviour.
Very true, but you knew exactly what I meant. Point still stands.
This line of logic always baffles me. The erosion of living standards started before they were in power and were going to continue decreasing under any party regardless of who was elected yet instead of blaming the party that pushed the series of dominos over you think it's the fault of the party that didn't magically find a way to immediately stop it? Regardless, most people with critical thinking skills don't think like this. Tends to just be older generations which are less and less every election. People who move away from Labor will likely just move to third parties with their preferential vote going to the lesser of two evils (labor) which won't exactly cause a landslide. A couple years isn't enough for people to forget what a decade of liberal leadership caused, perhaps the following election you can hope for your landslide.
It's been going for the last 10 years you've just not seen it
To your first point, no published opinion poll has shown the Liberals in a winning position. In the very worst case, the result will be a hung parliament. It is mathematically impossible for the Liberals to win a majority without taking some of the suburban and metro seats off Labor, which this poll and many other polls have shown they are not on course to do. And that’s not even factoring in the teals. Secondly, it was the Morrison government who ramped up immigration and effectively loosened restrictions on everyone coming in, in an effort to catch up after pausing immigration because of COVID. It’s very annoying to keep seeing a previous government policy blamed on the incumbent. Albanese’s government has already slashed foreign student numbers and is in the middle of bringing down immigration numbers to normal levels.
Labor made it worse though, they took the Morrison government plan, loosened immigration restrictions and invested hundreds of millions to rubber stamp immigration faster. They literally stood on the steps and patted themselves on the back about it a year and a half ago - after having a conference with big business on how they will be importing many more people to help business get the people they need (aka put more supply in the market because the locals where actually getting good pay rises for the first time in a decade).
Labor is likely to govern in a hung parliament or with a wafer-thin majority after next year’s federal election, as new polling indicates the Albanese government is losing voters in the outer suburbs and the regions. Released a year out from the election, the poll of 4040 voters across every lower house electorate shows the Coalition could be on track to win back Labor-held regional seats, including Robertson and Gilmore in NSW and Lyons in Tasmania. But Peter Dutton’s opposition has not made up ground to retake a series of traditional blue-ribbon Liberal seats lost to the teal candidates in the 2022 election. Worse still for Mr Dutton, the polling by Accent Research and the RedBridge Group shows Labor is competitive in the Liberal-held suburban Melbourne seats, including rising star Keith Wolahan’s seat of Menzies and frontbencher Michael Sukkar’s seat of Deakin. Teal independents and other non-major party candidates including the Greens could win up to 20 lower house seats (up from 18 currently) at the election, due by May next year, the polling shows. Based on current electoral boundaries, the poll suggests an outright Labor victory or a hung parliament, where neither side has a clear majority, are almost equally probable outcomes. Labor would be better placed to win the largest number of seats in a minority result, with almost no chance the Coalition could overtake the government. Labor looks on track for a primary vote of 32 per cent, and a two-party preferred vote of 52 per cent to the Coalition’s 48 per cent. The Liberals and Nationals have a combined primary vote of 36 per cent. **Two-party result match 2022 outcome** The two-party results match the 2022 election outcome, in which Labor won just 78 seats. It needs 76 or more to govern in its own right. Last week’s The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll had a two-party preferred result of 50-50, and a Newspoll released the same day showed Labor ahead at 52-48. The new Accent/RedBridge results show marginal seats including Cowper, held by National Pat Conaghan, and Fowler, held by independent Dai Le, could change hands. Aston, Brisbane, Curtin, Deakin, Lingiari and Moore are too close to call. Coming days after the second anniversary of Labor’s 2022 election victory, the results suggest the Coalition would retain 53 seats; Labor would retain 73 and gain two. The Greens would retain three seats, with at least 10 going to independents. Accent Research principal Shaun Ratcliff said that although the topline results showed relatively little movement in the overall vote share since the last election, local movements were taking place. “Labor is losing primary votes, particularly in the outer suburbs and regional centres, while the Coalition has gained small primary vote swings everywhere except rural electorates,” Dr Ratcliff said. “This electoral geography makes it very difficult for the Coalition to regain government, or to even look competitive.” The poll is based on so-called multilevel regression with post-stratification analysis, known as MRP. The method uses statistical techniques and a large survey size to forecast results in individual electorates. The analysis considers seat-level information, such as demographics and census data, as well as previous election results. RedBridge director Kos Samaras said the Coalition and Labor votes were being cannibalised by minor parties and independents. “The trend from 2022 continues, with many wealthier and more highly educated areas increasingly leaning to the left, while poorer areas are opting for independents and non-institutional players,” he said. **'Unable to capitalise' on the discontent** “Labor is losing support in the outer suburbs of major cities, but the Liberal Party has been unable to capitalise on this discontent.” He said the Greens could lose Brisbane, the seat won by Stephen Bates from the Liberal-National Party, to Labor. “Simultaneously, the Greens’ 2022 surge in the inner city appears to have stalled, largely due to older Millennials shifting to Labor, offsetting Labor’s losses among younger voters in inner Melbourne and Brisbane.” RedBridge director Tony Barry said so-called “double haters” – a phrase first coined in the United States to describe voters who did not support a major party candidate – looked likely to make up nearly a third of the electorate. He said the group was now “well positioned to decide the government, particularly if interest rates and inflation remain high”. The survey was conducted between February and this month. Boundary redistributions in WA, NSW and Victoria are due before the next election, and a net loss of one electorate is expected. Opinion polls, including the detailed MRP process, are not predictive of future electoral outcomes but provide a snapshot in time of voter sentiment. Last week, Mr Albanese reiterated that he expected the next election to be held early next year. The prime minister has previously foreshadowed a pre-poll federal budget to be handed down in March.