Australian news and politics.

[tsf]

Look at cunts like musk. Makes most of his money from getting government contracts and by getting rebates/incentives from government. Then mr free market then gets government to impose levies on opposing businesses and imports so his businesses don’t go under.

Then after all this government help, he shoots off a tweet about communists/students/healthcare etc and the dipshits lap it up and say ‘no government handouts’

 

[HonestSpursFan]

I also got this off Australian Jewish News so not only is it a right wing source within the article, but also a Zionist one reporting it. So I've not gotten some left wing source.

I know AJN is Zionist and many (if not most) Australian Jews lean conservative, but is it really a political source in the sense of left or right? Among Jews and in Israel there are progressive Zionists (just as there are ultraconservative non or anti-Zionists in the Haredi community).

If Labor work with the Greens to push forward positive change for Australian people, then there really should be no problem. The issue as always it's ok for the right to do something, not anyone else.

So if the Coalition worked with One Nation to push forward positive change would that be a problem? Just as it's possible for a centre-left and left-wing party to work together, it's also possible for a centre-right and right-wing or even a centre-left and centre-right party to work together without causing extreme problems, depending on how the power is distributed. For example, in Sweden's Riksdag, there's the Red-Greens alliance with the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens, while the current conservative government is a coalition of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals with confidence and supply from the Sweden Democrats (though there's a degree of moderation in that neither KD or SD oppose same-sex marriage or support Swexit these days).

 

[JS96]

I know AJN is Zionist and many (if not most) Australian Jews lean conservative, but is it really a political source in the sense of left or right? Among Jews and in Israel there are progressive Zionists (just as there are ultraconservative non or anti-Zionists in the Haredi community).

So if the Coalition worked with One Nation to push forward positive change would that be a problem? Just as it's possible for a centre-left and left-wing party to work together, it's also possible for a centre-right and right-wing or even a centre-left and centre-right party to work together without causing extreme problems, depending on how the power is distributed. For example, in Sweden's Riksdag, there's the Red-Greens alliance with the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens, while the current conservative government is a coalition of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals with confidence and supply from the Sweden Democrats (though there's a degree of moderation in that neither KD or SD oppose same-sex marriage or support Swexit these days).

There have been trickles of other parties voting the same as AFD in Germany now. Or more, AFD voting in favour of a social democrats motion and it got it over the line. The Greens then shriek how that's possible and the AFD laugh at them. The Greens can't handle being on the sae voting side as the right. FFS if the motion makes sense for everyone and is practical, bloody implement it!

That's politics I suppose but I don't always enjoying this voting along party lines. There's a young lady in the CDU who has a decent mix of conservative and progressive viewpoints on talk shows and fair play to her for adapting to what is actually happening out there. I wish politics were more about being colleagues and trying to work together rather than taking an adversarial approach.

 

[zimbos05]

So if the Coalition worked with One Nation to push forward positive change would that be a problem? Just as it's possible for a centre-left and left-wing party to work together, it's also possible for a centre-right and right-wing or even a centre-left and centre-right party to work together without causing extreme problems, depending on how the power is distributed. For example, in Sweden's Riksdag, there's the Red-Greens alliance with the Social Democrats, the Left and the Greens, while the current conservative government is a coalition of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals with confidence and supply from the Sweden Democrats (though there's a degree of moderation in that neither KD or SD oppose same-sex marriage or support Swexit these days).

If the policy they put forward and enacted was beneficial for the wider society, then no, there would be no problem. The problem is, they have never enacted positive change, and their policies also do not lean towards positive change.

You are right, there is no issue if parties work together for greater good. So why then does the right and centre right get so hell bent on saying that Labor work with Greens, and because of this it will be horrible and the end of times?

 

[HonestSpursFan]

So why then does the right and centre right get so hell bent on saying that Labor work with Greens, and because of this it will be horrible and the end of times?

Why do the left and centre-left do the same for their opponents? It’s politics, the other side criticises the other side.

 

[zimbos05]

Why do the left and centre-left do the same for their opponents? It’s politics, the other side criticises the other side.

I've always been against criticism for the sake of it. I've actually agreed with the right at times on certain things. It's also my biggest pet peeve with politics. I've said it many times before, politics has gotten to the point where one side could say something like, "we have found a way to solve world hunger without spending a cent" and the other side would be like, "how dare they try to feed people, that is such a horrible thing to do".

But what you are effectively saying is that because you are not on the left, you will oppose anything left or centre-left simply because it is not your side. So your attack on "why don't people push Labor" - which was then proven that people do push them - was not done in genuine faith, but rather out of simple bias and a knowing that even if proven wrong, you would still go with the line.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

But what you are effectively saying is that because you are not on the left, you will oppose anything left or centre-left simply because it is not your side. So your attack on "why don't people push Labor" - which was then proven that people do push them - was not done in genuine faith, but rather out of simple bias and a knowing that even if proven wrong, you would still go with the line.

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that’s why politicians do it. Regarding Labor I was specifically referring to Climate 200 given they claim to be running “independent” candidates yet the elected MPs always vote with Labor and the Greens and only criticise the Coalition (and One Nation).

 

[Pasquali]

 

[Alex M]

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that’s why politicians do it. Regarding Labor I was specifically referring to Climate 200 given they claim to be running “independent” candidates yet the elected MPs always vote with Labor and the Greens and only criticise the Coalition (and One Nation).

As with your previous criticism this is a case of you watching but not seeing.

 

[zimbos05]

That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that’s why politicians do it. Regarding Labor I was specifically referring to Climate 200 given they claim to be running “independent” candidates yet the elected MPs always vote with Labor and the Greens and only criticise the Coalition (and One Nation).

They can still be independent. What it means is that LNP and One Nation have shit policies they don't agree with, hence why they criticise them or vote against them. I think it's well known that many of the Climate 200 are those to moved away from the right, but didn't agree with Labor or Greens as a whole, so it's not really surprising.

As for the politicians doing it, that's not a justification. We should be holding them to higher standards. They should not oppose simply for the sake of it.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

They can still be independent. What it means is that LNP and One Nation have shit policies they don't agree with, hence why they criticise them or vote against them. I think it's well known that many of the Climate 200 are those to moved away from the right, but didn't agree with Labor or Greens as a whole, so it's not really surprising.

That’s the case for some but most teal voters are tactical voters from the left. That’s why the Liberals usually end up getting the most first preferences (except in Warringah where the first two candidates were Tony Abbott and Katherine Deves, make of that what you will).

 

[NicCarBel]

I've always been against criticism for the sake of it. I've actually agreed with the right at times on certain things. It's also my biggest pet peeve with politics. I've said it many times before, politics has gotten to the point where one side could say something like, "we have found a way to solve world hunger without spending a cent" and the other side would be like, "how dare they try to feed people, that is such a horrible thing to do".

But what you are effectively saying is that because you are not on the left, you will oppose anything left or centre-left simply because it is not your side. So your attack on "why don't people push Labor" - which was then proven that people do push them - was not done in genuine faith, but rather out of simple bias and a knowing that even if proven wrong, you would still go with the line.

This is exactly how I see it, and I work in it - unfortunately

 

[patjennings]

That’s the case for some but most teal voters are tactical voters from the left. That’s why the Liberals usually end up getting the most first preferences (except in Warringah where the first two candidates were Tony Abbott and Katherine Deves, make of that what you will).

Tony Abbott won with a primary vote of 60.89 in 2013
Tony Abbott win with a primary vote of 51.65% in 2016
Tony Abbott lost with a primary vote of 39.01% in 2019

Steggall got $354000 from Climate 200 in 2019
Steggall got $25000 from Climate 200 in 2022
Steggall got $0 from Climate 200 in 2025

If Abbott was still popular it would have not mattered what tactical voters were doing in 2019. It is estimated that both sides spent somewhere between $1-2M in Warringah.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

Tony Abbott won with a primary vote of 60.89 in 2013
Tony Abbott win with a primary vote of 51.65% in 2016
Tony Abbott lost with a primary vote of 39.01% in 2019

Steggall got $354000 from Climate 200 in 2019
Steggall got $25000 from Climate 200 in 2022
Steggall got $0 from Climate 200 in 2025

If Abbott was still popular it would have not mattered what tactical voters were doing in 2019. It is estimated that both sides spent somewhere between $1-2M in Warringah.

But look at how much the Labor/Greens votes dropped. Some of her voters were Liberals but the bulk of her base came from the left, not the right.

Who drove the teal vote? It wasn’t unhappy Liberals, says survey

Teal voters were more likely to be Labor or Greens supporters, a new analysis says, portraying Morrison and Joyce as the most unpopular Coalition leaders since 1987.

www.afr.com

 

[Alex M]

But look at how much the Labor/Greens votes dropped. Some of her voters were Liberals but the bulk of her base came from the left, not the right.

I went and had a look. Abbott's vote dropped 12.6% in 2019 (the first election that Steggle ran and won in) the ALP dropped 8.2% and the Green vote dropped 6.1%. In subsequent elections the ALP vote and the Green vote has increased whilst the Liberal vote has continued to decline. Steggle got the bulk of her votes in 2019 from other independents and minor parties, The Libs, The ALP and the Greens in that order.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

I went and had a look. Abbott's vote dropped 12.6% in 2019 (the first election that Steggle ran and won in) the ALP dropped 8.2% and the Green vote dropped 6.1%. In subsequent elections the ALP vote and the Green vote has increased whilst the Liberal vote has continued to decline. Steggle got the bulk of her votes in 2019 from other independents and minor parties, The Libs, The ALP and the Greens in that order.

Combined Labor and the Greens dropped 14.3%, which is more than the 12.6% drop for the Liberals. Plus, Warringah isn’t the only Liberal seat. The Liberals ran two right-wing candidates there so the circumstances are different.

Take Kooyong for example. In 2022, Josh Frydenburg’s vote dropped with a swing of 6.5% against him. Labor’s vote dropped by 10.6% and the Greens’ vote dropped by 14.8%. Combined that’s a drop of 25.4% from 2019 (when the Greens came second). That allowed Monique Ryan with 40.3% of the vote to win with 52.9% of the TPP vote given Labor and Greens voters overwhelmingly flowed to her. In 2025, based on the redistribution (which abolished Higgins and gave the Liberal parts to Kooyong) Ryan increased her primary vote by 3.1% while Amelia Hamer had a drop of 0.3%, but Labor only gained 0.6% and the Greens actually lost 2.1%, which is why she almost lost (50.7% TPP).

 

[patjennings]

But look at how much the Labor/Greens votes dropped. Some of her voters were Liberals but the bulk of her base came from the left, not the right.

Who drove the teal vote? It wasn’t unhappy Liberals, says survey

Teal voters were more likely to be Labor or Greens supporters, a new analysis says, portraying Morrison and Joyce as the most unpopular Coalition leaders since 1987.

www.afr.com

His primary vote - not TPP - was near 61% in 2013, by 2019 it had dropped to 39%. He dropped more than 9% points in 2016 before Steggall was in the picture. He was on the nose in his own electorate and was becoming more so before a well known Steggall was even thought of.

He suffered an almost 9% swing in 2019. While the Liberals had a 1.2% swing nationwide to them.

Could another candidate have done it other than Steggall - maybe. She won by quite some margin. But his dipping popularity, her well known and liked persona and the amount of money she raised (around $1.1m) meant he was always going to be up against it.

 

[Punchanello]

That’s the case for some but most teal voters are tactical voters from the left. That’s why the Liberals usually end up getting the most first preferences (except in Warringah where the first two candidates were Tony Abbott and Katherine Deves, make of that what you will).

That doesn't make any sense. What it shows is that there are a generation of rusted on Liberal voters and always have been.

It fails to account for the fact that there is also a shift in demographics that cares less for "footy tribe" voting. A great many of them are more "traditional" Menzian Liberals (like many of the teals themselves) who could no longer reconcile centre-right economic policies with the hard right populism, prototyped by Howard and personified by the likes of Abbott and Morrison. Some will never vote Labor, some will never vote Trump Nation. Many will vote TeaI and scatter their preferences across the spectrum according to their other sensibilities. It's precisely why the Libs lost blue-ribbon seats and won't get them back.

The AFR is just parroting a News Limited line to an ageing base and this is exactly the thinking that has led the Liberal party to where it is.

 

[HonestSpursFan]

It's precisely why the Libs lost blue-ribbon seats and won't get them back.

I disagree. Do you also think Labor will never win back seats it lost or are threatened with losing? Did you think seats like Parramatta on the state level would always stay Liberal once Labor lost them, and that they now won’t go back to the Liberals?

 

[patjennings]

I disagree. Do you also think Labor will never win back seats it lost or are threatened with losing? Did you think seats like Parramatta on the state level would always stay Liberal once Labor lost them, and that they now won’t go back to the Liberals?

Demographics change, boundaries change and so do political parties and they all have an effect.

At the end of the day it sometimes doesn't come down to 'footy tribe' loyalty but the individual member. When I was younger we had a local state member that the ministry used to call 'the minister for bus stops' because of his pursuit for his electorate.

That's why when an independent that fits the electorate is elected they become incredibly difficult to shift. They not only suit the sensibility of the voters they also fight for their voters needs over what would be a parties agenda.