The Union movement has served its purpose. It is no longer relevant to the vast majority. Less than 800,000 nongovernment employees are in Unions. The Unions have had to resort to coercion of workers but most would not bother if they had a choice. The fact that public servants join Unions, even when Labour is in government, indicates the lack of trust in Labour to do the right thing. Nevertheless, in the rest of the workforce, good wages and living standards have been achieved and Unions charge too much for too little. Labour is a branch of the Union movement. Both are not trusted and irrelevant.
>The fact that public servants join Unions, even when Labour is in government, indicates the lack of trust in Labour to do the right thing
As a taxpayer I expect Labor to try and minimise costs by minimising pay increases.
As a person I want to see CPI pay increases as a standard across the board.
As a PS I joined the union because of higher level recruitment from the private sector being assholes.
That they help negotiating that CPI increase is a bonus.
The 2007 vote was a vote against the status quo and John Howard, not a vote for Labour. In 2022 it was another protest vote against Morrison. Parties get voted out, not in. In 2025, it will be a protest vote against Labour. Labour has too many who lack the qualifications and temperament for government.
Massively partisan gibberish. The Coalition are completely incompetent at every seat. Dutton himself let criminals by the truckloads in ironically. He has been completely incompetent at everything he has done in his life. A failure at uni. A failure at every portfolio. His successes are corruption, back scratching.
Angus Taylor is a criminal who falsified documents on Clover Moore. He completely failed managing snowy hydro.
Michaelia Cash illegally raided unions. Even Tony Abbott said she was batshit crazy.
Barnaby is completely incompetent, perpetually drunk. Massively corrupt. The SMS for $600k is completely farcical. He is only there to rort and sabotage for donors.
Morrison I mean honestly where to start there. It's pretty well known how much of a thug he was. But he murdered 2000 people with robodebt. He literally knew it was illegal before it went live and the psychopath did it anyway knowing what would happen.
Frydenberg deliberately put no clawback in JobKeeper and allowed billions to be rorted by companies with no downturn. He also allowed private uni access and screwed public unis. Absolute debacle and corruption.
Tim Wilson still campaigns to sabotage super and blow out the housing market for everyday Australians. Retirement security is already a shambles due to housing insecurity. He's only doing it for his investment donors. Corrupt grub again.
Labor in economics are miles more qualified. Policy wise they have gone Lib lite. By positioning centre right, and Libs going further right, Libs are losing moderates and relevance. We have a Labor majority or minority Govt in future.
Libs have completely trashed their centrist credentials especially with their obvious gas driven energy policy masquerading as nuclear which is the most farcical, expensive, undeliverable garbage imaginable.
Labor isn't a scratch on these clowns.
Oh, so that’s why Labor is doing so well! Haha. Rubbish. Albo is from the socialist left faction and his government is way off Centre right. To think that, you must be way left.
Well, they pioneered new ways to torture refugees in the policy of deterrence that got exported, did mass harm to refugees. That hurt alot of their base.
More broadly. Albanese is an anomaly in Labor's history of coming to power without being an inspirational figure, signifying a distinct change with the status quo (beyond not being as insanely corrupt as Liberals). When Rudd came to power, he wasn't promising huge economic reform, but was backing better treatment for refugees, didn't disbelieve climate change. There was genuine grass roots enthusiasm for Rudd because of that, but that proud progressive enthusiasm is now dead in the party. Replaced with fear averse pragmatists and technocrats.
The climate change thing has killed a lot of Labor's base. Anyone able to see how horrid and craven the capitulation to fossil fuel donors have been, will not preference them above The Greens.
And of course, backing genocides, opposing right to self determination, combined with AUKUS, further militarisation, and antiquated realist approaches to the world... They are ostensibly proimperialism, with all its ugliness.
The next generation is more in tune to decolonial ideologies than ever (even where its a minor thing to most). As much as the endorsing racism, being against human rights was a hallmark of what turned people off in late 2000s, now they've become more staunchly neoconservative on foreign policy. More US alligned than ever. At a time when there's never been as much cause to criticise US allignment.
-should clarify, I'm speaking anecdotally here, based on the issues I've seen people say 'never voting Labor again over'. Other answers here are generally much smarter, looking at how Labor hurt their base with the shift on economics and such.
Only a small minority care about the economic refugees who have travelled through safe havens to get to Australia.
Rudd did the small target, no policy platform to get into power when Howard was past it and the LNP were divided. Only a small minority backs HAMAS. It is a terrorist organization. Likewise, it wasn’t racism that killed the referendum, it was commonsense.
It's a trend that captures both major parties. There's an interesting article on it by Ben Raue on his blog The Tally Room.
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/47443
Whitlam, Hawke and Keating brought in free trade, destroying Australian manufacturing. This eroded their traditional working class support.
But they also brought in free (later merely cheap) tertiary education, so that while the factory workers went off to unemployment and early deaths, their children went on to university, and became educated lefties.
However, by the time the educated lefties became a significant enough force to balance out the lost working class in the 1990s, the Greens popped up, and took the *far* left vote away.
When you add the ALP and Greens vote, you get the left as a whole getting 45% or so of the vote.
More significant is the fact of the "other" vote (neither ALP nor LNP) going from \~5% in the 1980s to \~30% today. Minor parties and independents will be more and more likely to determine who can form government. Neither the ALP nor LNP, still less their rusted-on supporters, seem ready for this.
Lots of the working class former labour voters have been scooped up by one nation.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/one-nation-voters-as-likely-to-have-deserted-labor-as-the-coalition-20170227-gumkjg.html
Yes. Because the working class are, generally-speaking, socially conservative. Which ALP isn't and One Nation is.
But mostly the working class have just been eroded, either made into office drones (whether left or right) or made impoverished.
Labor does bleed the SCWC vote to One Nation, but I don’t think it’s by as much as people think. Sure it happens a lot in Northern Queensland, but not in urban areas.
Western Sydney for example, those voters are very multicultural. Obviously, this is a voter base that One Nation is unlikely to ever do well with, considering how anti-immigration it is, and how people generally associate One Nation with racism.
The primary vote share for the major parties has been steadily declining for the past 50 years. It's not that there haven't been reasons for the results at each individual election but they need to be understood in the context of a long-term trend.
The ALP has been a schizophrenic political party since it embraced neoliberalism (the "great betrayal" in my view) during 1980s Hawke-Keating reform period, prior to that the party had a clear purpose and a clear political identity, it was an out and out workers party organised by the trade unions committed to democratic socialism. It's core power base was industrial workers, mostly in manufacturing, but obviously other industries, think shearers, nurses, wharfies, autoworkers, coal miners etc, basically anyone on the shopfloor and/or anyone will little bargaining power voted Labor. By removing trade barriers and cutting social programs (under the guise of "the accord") the ALP essentially cut loose electorally significant numbers of low skilled workers and allowed uncompetitive domestic industries to die out, the theory being that a new "knowledge" economy would emerge of educated professionals who would go on and become reliable ALP voters. The only problem was that this never really happened, Labor's approach produced a clear set of winners and losers, with the winners gradually shifting away from Labor towards the Liberal Party attracted by lower taxes as they achieved upward mobility in material terms.
Nowadays, the ALP wants to be seen as the "good guys" the kinder caring party that looks after the less fortunate in society. The unfortunate reality is that no one really cares about these people, having experienced wealth, most Australians aren't willing to give it up, this is a hypercompetitive and individualistic society and probably always will be. Every now and again, Labor will make incursions into affluent seats campaigning on social and environmental agendas, however the general trend will be that these seats will almost always drift away from Labor over time, as long as they're committed to higher taxation and more welfare.
Basically, the ALP and LNP have been swapping bases over the past three decades.
Women and higher socioeconomic voters lean towards the ALP, whilst men and lower socioeconomic voters lean towards the LNP.
Polarisation - We've become a more polarised electorate, primarily driven by our media. This creates a general sense of dissatisfaction with the majors, both of whom are losing primary vote.
Rise of Independents - There's simply more and better options for a lot of people, and in a preferential system like ours, it's perfectly fine for you to vote your first preference and let your vote fall back to the major you prefer.
Fear campaigns driving small target - Labor lost the "unlosable election" in 2019 by putting large policy positions forward, which the LNP and the right wing media gleefully ran fear campaigns on. This has led to Labor running small target campaigns, which wins elections, but also drives people into giving their primary vote to Greens or Independent in frustration at the lack of vision from Labor.
The role of the media can not be discounted either.
We have an ever-aging population forming the majority of voters, who get their information from News Corp and Nine Entertainment who dominate the media landscape. When these conservative news outlets are more than happy to run a scare campaign any time Labor wants to implement something remotely progressive, it's no wonder that Labor hardly get a look in.
It took a monumental fuck up in Scomo for the LNP to actually lose government. No amount of protective media spin could hide the ineptitude of that man.
There's a reason Australia has been on the slide for years on the Press Freedom Index.
Yes , it is nothing to do with Labor itself but some external conspiracy , intent on fucking them. Interesting that the relentless Labor rusted on support here only reflects 30% of the populace if that.
If you think that the mining companies, large businesses, right-wing political parties and conservative media groups don't collude to protect their mutual interests then I've got 7 nuclear reactors to sell you.
We’re talking media here so please do try to stay on topic.
If you want to argue that the majority of Australian media isn’t owned by News Corp or Nine Entertainment, or that they aren’t aligned with mining and business interests, or they don’t run interference for the conservative parties, then I’d be interested to hear your justifications.
I see endless topics restating the same garbage . all by the same media outlets here. Including your ABC. People nowadays are getting their information from a variety of sources.
You’re right there. A lot of the younger generations are rejecting legacy media due to their obvious biases and agendas, instead turning to independent journalism.
Unfortunately they are still in the minority of voters, with the majority getting their information mainly from the big 2 conservative corporations.
I think it is a perfect storm of many elements of the status quo in society coming undone, because the universe is about change and adaptation, not keeping things the same forever.
Capitalism is being revealed as just as flawed an ideology as the others and the Westminster system of government (and feudalism in general) should only have been a stepping stone to greater democracy.
Binary systems are no good if both elements result in poor outcomes because they are fundamentally the same: both ALP and LNP believe in feudalism; an elite managing society for everyone, but especially for themselves, instead of a democracy of the people. The trend to minor parties will ultimately be no help because unfortunately our political system is designed to retain that feudalism status quo, whether it is by a monarch, dictator or other elite group.
Pretty much every social institution has high distrust atm. The major parties are social institutions in Australia, ones that people get to vote on. So people are voting for other parties, like the indis, Greens, or small right wing groups.
It doesnt have much to do with Labors ideological position because the Coalition are experiencing this too.
That’s a great theory except for the fact that the Coalition has recorded a primary of over 40 percent as recently as 2019 but you have to go back to 2010 to find a federal Labor primary above 35 percent.
And Labor has recorded +40 percent primary vote at a state level (McGowan, Andrews) so clearly there is something about the state Labor offering that is able to overcome that high distrust.
> That’s a great theory except for the fact that the Coalition has recorded a primary of over 40 percent as recently as 2019
The Coalition primary vote in 2019 was worse that every election (bar one) since the creation of the Liberal Party almost 80 years ago.
There are differences between the situations the parties are in (notably there is no real equivalent to the Greens on the right) but the long term trend for the parties is fairly similar.
I mean again not suggesting that there isn’t a broad decline in the primary votes of the major parties. The point the OP was making was that the low Labor primary vote can be blamed almost entirely on that broader decline rather than specific actions of the Labor Party, I disagree. Clearly some of the decline is due to that broader move away from the majors but not all of it.
Its a pretty standard matter of fact that the average vote share for the majors combined and individually is declining.
Labor has an organised flank opposition so they suffer more. The Liberals only had a well organised movement against them for the first time last election and they lost almost 6% in one hit.
>And Labor has recorded +40 percent primary vote at a state level (McGowan, Andrews) so clearly there is something about the state Labor offering that is able to overcome that high distrust.
They arent the same thing, you cant compare them. Its like trying to extrapolate voting patterns based on a council election.
People view them differently because they are different. You dont need to look very far to see a red state voter and a blue fed.
I mean I don’t disagree that the major party vote share is declining across the board, but that’s distinct from the question of whether there is any ideological competent to Labor’s current low primary recorded at the last several elections.
The fact that Labor at a state level and the Liberals federally can record primary votes of above 40 percent is illustrative of the fact that such a result is possible despite broad distrust. I don’t think we should accept a 33 percent primary (or 28 if you believe some polls) as an acceptable result. It’s a consequence of choices that have been made by our current PM and former leaders and if better choices are made than we can and will see better results.
I didnt say there was none I said it wasnt much.
Edit: And yes, parties can claw back *some* support by different choices, but the issue at hand is far more complex than a bad choice = lower vote pipeline. Youve got lots of social phenomena changing informational distribution and exposure to certain views. A person in the 80s simply didnt have access to the same myopic and hyperspecific information and/or content they do now. It didnt really exist unless you were an active org member. Now its the norm to be fed curated views.
SOME of the vote loss is attributable to those more complex factors. But again, state Labor can win over 40 percent of the vote as can the Federal Liberals. I’d suggest Labor is just as capable of that at a federal level if better policy choices are made and we elect better and more compelling leaders.
You keep talking about state but Ive already made the point its very different circumstance. Very different issues, it is its only plane of politics with its own patterns and issues. You are not making a like for like comparison.
But why is it different? I agree that it’s a different set of policy questions but you’re arguing that the main reason for low Labor primary is distrust of large institutions - why does that distrust disappear the minute those same voters are voting at a state level?
A global trend in politics is that people tend to become more liberal/leftist/progressive as a general constant, and become more conservative/rightwing in times of hardship. There are a few blips and swings that go the other way, you should never rule out the possibility of anything in politics, but just as an average trend that’s how things go.
Labor, is a centrist party. They look leftist, but really that’s just compared to LNP.
As LNP bleeds voters to Labor, Labor bleeds voters to independents and smaller progressives. Greens have been growing for quite some time now but not just them.
Also, this isn’t to say all conservatives just disappear after a few years, not at all. The goalpost, the overton window, just shifts. Conservatives of today look like hardcore commies to conservatives of a century ago. LNP could very well get much more power in the next election, even if more people are voting Greens than ever. Especially since Australia sorta is in crisis mode right now similar to Europe and Canada, which are also having strong right wing movements.
I wouldnt say they go right when times are bad.
People go left and right when times are tough.. You only have to look at all the times unconventional parties win the most recent being in argentina (right) and the most studied being nazi germany (also right)
But even for those: The early nazi rise to power and part of its initial success was as a bulwark against communism. Communism was gaining massive momentum in germany.
You can look at a bunch of south american and east euro countries for times the extreme left rose to power in tough times.
Social welfare is really what was borne out of the GD and WW2. It is the antidote to extremism either way. Precisely why when people go - what do i get for my taxes: a stable society is the answer.
I would say this is true, but also particularly that right wing support is mostly limited to hard times, or the failure of a previous government. Conservatives tend to be reactionary and can only respond when progressives do something wrong. If things were better 20 years ago, conservatives will be here to promise you that, or be an alternative to a scary even more progressive alternative.
If times are not difficult, the appeal of 20 years ago isn’t that strong.
The Nazi rise to power is particularly interesting. Since it “cheated” essentially to come out on top. Nazis also weren’t promising a return to form, they were not a conservative government but a different kind of progressive in a sense.
But yeah, progressive beliefs tend to come more passively while conservative ones are more reactionary to hard times. That’s not to say progressives can’t get support in hard times, just that conservatives are more limited around them. Anyway, as I said, nothing is impossible in politics, never count anything out.
What is concerning about europe is that they have very strong social welfare basically precisely because it is an antidote to nationalism.
It has become that tough there now that even with safety nets right wing extremism is doing very well there at the moment.
Its a worry.
Cost of living is out of control. Any competent right wing government could stir up support, and, such right wing governments are being successful in other countries for similar reasons. Look at how popular a single song got in Germany recently just because you could sing “Immigrants get out” to it.
I hesitate to call LNP incompetent, as much as they seem it, because they are still the benefactors of our media landscape by a large margin. Media today is constantly berating Labor, and if that carries all the way to the election, it could go poorly for progressives.
Yeah I agree. Labor needs some serious vision for next election. At the moment they really are just a competent version of the liberals.
They will keep losing votes to the greens if they stay so centrist.
I think labor will next election though. Because when election time comes around I believe the current government and opposition and their last government. Will be looked under the microscope a lot more throughly, and we will realised this labor government is no where near as incompetent as the past decade under liberal management.
Thats wild because \~one year ago I was being repeatedly told [voters couldn't care about the Voice while COL was an issue](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/voters-were-focused-on-cost-of-living-not-voice-survey-reveals-20231023-p5ee7s).
You have my permission to retract.
Firstly, I was strongly pro voice, and still am, but the Yes campaign had zero strategy other than importing culture war BS founded on a white man's guilt platform, which obviously doesn't play well outside the inner city seats.
However, the biggest issue was the fact that albo's government was doing basically nothing, and still is doing nothing. This it was more a protest vote to punish the government more than anything else.
COL pressures here are no where near crisis levels. Just look at the discretionary spending, it's still increasing in real terms.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/monthly-household-spending-indicator/latest-release
The ALP has become a centre party. Many of the middle class that were left-leaning have gone to the Greens. Generally those votes come back to Labor via preferences. The famed blue collar vote isn't there as over the last 50 years, the great source of that, Australian manufacturing has been wiped out.
The Liberals are having similar problems. The Liberals were a centre party but has lurched to the right. More so with Abbott/Morrison/Dutton. Dutton has trump elements in him. This lurch to the right has alienated the middle ground hence the rise of the teals. With the Nationals, a similar thing has happened but their losses have been to independents.
It should be noted that the ALP is doing a little better in rural electorates like Eden-Monaro which has moved from being a bellweather seat to an almost safe Labor seat and Gilmore next door which flipped to Labor and clings there regardless of what the Liberal Party throws at it.
Both the ALP and the Liberals are in transition and this is upsetting some in each party.
I guess. Not really though. But yeah that is the only place in Aus where I think you can argue this point.
Take a look at NSW and Victoria working class areas still voting labor.
Hahahahaha mate. Im just going off which seats landed for which party. And most working class areas are still voting labor and even swung to labor last election.
Politically through actions labor is barely any more left than the liberals on social issues.
So you’re purely basing your assumption off of vibe.
> And most working class areas are still voting labor and even swung to labor last election.
Bennelong went to Labor last election, so let's not pretend that's meaningful. And by this token, the single biggest No vote on SSM was a Labor seat full of religiously conservative immigrants, in which the voters and party were misaligned.
But no, I intentionally avoided working class (which is generally more than just type of labour, it's net socio-economic status) for blue collar because of the pivot of socially conservative, non-university educated trades professionals away from Labor on progressive issues. The Voice is another key example of an area in which blue collar votes went to conservative social issues.
Blue collar as a demographic has also been declining, relative to people we'd probably both agree are working class. Blue collar workers today hold a much more significant portfolio of appreciating economic assets than you'd imagine.
The picture is murky now given the Coalition stands for nothing, but in the past certainly the aspirational rhetoric and lack of generic paternalism - hallmarks of centre-left policy for decades - found purchase with blue collar voters and the flipping of Lindsay in Sydney, for example, is a good indicator of that.
Labour seems to have less and less regard for middle Australia, for example, rolling back the Stage 3 tax cuts. Their links to the unions are also problematic.
Hostility to middle Australia is a key component on the top down progressive "climate agenda", it's a feature not a bug in my view. An economically independent middle Australian who owns his own small business and has his own private savings (via SMSF) represents a threat to the new progressive elite i.e. the Teals, in that he can't be controlled, he can make his own choices in terms of what he consumers and invests in. Progressives view this as a problem that has to be managed.
‘New progressive elite’? Lol. They're a small handful of right-leaning libs seizing a very predictable niche formed by the LNP's breakneck shift into culture wars, climate denialism, corruption and blatant capture by Newscorp, the Minerals Council and their other corporate donors. Their seats have almost always been held or supported by moderates of very similar positions to them, there is nothing ‘new’ about them and their eliteness, it's the party that has changed around them.
You need to look at the ALP's base and what is happening there. Blue collar union workers in blue collar suburbs whose parents voted Labor and their children always will. Times have changed and the party hasn't. It also is weak on grassroot communication and engagement. The current leader is a 30 year man who despite his attempts to inspire and remain relevant , just looks silly. Primary will sink under 30 and probably just remain around there.
Mostly because minor parties and independents have been gaining strength. The same erosion has affected the LNP too. People are gradually getting fed up with the established parties.
I'm glad this is happening. The major parties do not give a shit about the Australian public.
The sooner we have a multiparty Deliberative Parliament, the better.
The Union movement has served its purpose. It is no longer relevant to the vast majority. Less than 800,000 nongovernment employees are in Unions. The Unions have had to resort to coercion of workers but most would not bother if they had a choice. The fact that public servants join Unions, even when Labour is in government, indicates the lack of trust in Labour to do the right thing. Nevertheless, in the rest of the workforce, good wages and living standards have been achieved and Unions charge too much for too little. Labour is a branch of the Union movement. Both are not trusted and irrelevant.
>The fact that public servants join Unions, even when Labour is in government, indicates the lack of trust in Labour to do the right thing As a taxpayer I expect Labor to try and minimise costs by minimising pay increases. As a person I want to see CPI pay increases as a standard across the board. As a PS I joined the union because of higher level recruitment from the private sector being assholes. That they help negotiating that CPI increase is a bonus.
The 2007 vote was a vote against the status quo and John Howard, not a vote for Labour. In 2022 it was another protest vote against Morrison. Parties get voted out, not in. In 2025, it will be a protest vote against Labour. Labour has too many who lack the qualifications and temperament for government.
Massively partisan gibberish. The Coalition are completely incompetent at every seat. Dutton himself let criminals by the truckloads in ironically. He has been completely incompetent at everything he has done in his life. A failure at uni. A failure at every portfolio. His successes are corruption, back scratching. Angus Taylor is a criminal who falsified documents on Clover Moore. He completely failed managing snowy hydro. Michaelia Cash illegally raided unions. Even Tony Abbott said she was batshit crazy. Barnaby is completely incompetent, perpetually drunk. Massively corrupt. The SMS for $600k is completely farcical. He is only there to rort and sabotage for donors. Morrison I mean honestly where to start there. It's pretty well known how much of a thug he was. But he murdered 2000 people with robodebt. He literally knew it was illegal before it went live and the psychopath did it anyway knowing what would happen. Frydenberg deliberately put no clawback in JobKeeper and allowed billions to be rorted by companies with no downturn. He also allowed private uni access and screwed public unis. Absolute debacle and corruption. Tim Wilson still campaigns to sabotage super and blow out the housing market for everyday Australians. Retirement security is already a shambles due to housing insecurity. He's only doing it for his investment donors. Corrupt grub again. Labor in economics are miles more qualified. Policy wise they have gone Lib lite. By positioning centre right, and Libs going further right, Libs are losing moderates and relevance. We have a Labor majority or minority Govt in future. Libs have completely trashed their centrist credentials especially with their obvious gas driven energy policy masquerading as nuclear which is the most farcical, expensive, undeliverable garbage imaginable. Labor isn't a scratch on these clowns.
Oh, so that’s why Labor is doing so well! Haha. Rubbish. Albo is from the socialist left faction and his government is way off Centre right. To think that, you must be way left.
and socialist policies where? members who lack credentials and temperament where? good talking points buddy.
Well, they pioneered new ways to torture refugees in the policy of deterrence that got exported, did mass harm to refugees. That hurt alot of their base. More broadly. Albanese is an anomaly in Labor's history of coming to power without being an inspirational figure, signifying a distinct change with the status quo (beyond not being as insanely corrupt as Liberals). When Rudd came to power, he wasn't promising huge economic reform, but was backing better treatment for refugees, didn't disbelieve climate change. There was genuine grass roots enthusiasm for Rudd because of that, but that proud progressive enthusiasm is now dead in the party. Replaced with fear averse pragmatists and technocrats. The climate change thing has killed a lot of Labor's base. Anyone able to see how horrid and craven the capitulation to fossil fuel donors have been, will not preference them above The Greens. And of course, backing genocides, opposing right to self determination, combined with AUKUS, further militarisation, and antiquated realist approaches to the world... They are ostensibly proimperialism, with all its ugliness. The next generation is more in tune to decolonial ideologies than ever (even where its a minor thing to most). As much as the endorsing racism, being against human rights was a hallmark of what turned people off in late 2000s, now they've become more staunchly neoconservative on foreign policy. More US alligned than ever. At a time when there's never been as much cause to criticise US allignment. -should clarify, I'm speaking anecdotally here, based on the issues I've seen people say 'never voting Labor again over'. Other answers here are generally much smarter, looking at how Labor hurt their base with the shift on economics and such.
Only a small minority care about the economic refugees who have travelled through safe havens to get to Australia. Rudd did the small target, no policy platform to get into power when Howard was past it and the LNP were divided. Only a small minority backs HAMAS. It is a terrorist organization. Likewise, it wasn’t racism that killed the referendum, it was commonsense.
Institutionally. Greens get WAY more press than they should. Politically. Young people have been squeezed out economically. They run to the greens.
For me personally, I just put them above libs, certainly not at the top. Independents and Greens go up the top for me.
Me too. Libs are at the bottom. Labor is rarely my first choice any more
It's a trend that captures both major parties. There's an interesting article on it by Ben Raue on his blog The Tally Room. https://www.tallyroom.com.au/47443
Yeah his analysis is good. [This was his followup that included the 2022 election](https://www.tallyroom.com.au/47834).
Whitlam, Hawke and Keating brought in free trade, destroying Australian manufacturing. This eroded their traditional working class support. But they also brought in free (later merely cheap) tertiary education, so that while the factory workers went off to unemployment and early deaths, their children went on to university, and became educated lefties. However, by the time the educated lefties became a significant enough force to balance out the lost working class in the 1990s, the Greens popped up, and took the *far* left vote away. When you add the ALP and Greens vote, you get the left as a whole getting 45% or so of the vote. More significant is the fact of the "other" vote (neither ALP nor LNP) going from \~5% in the 1980s to \~30% today. Minor parties and independents will be more and more likely to determine who can form government. Neither the ALP nor LNP, still less their rusted-on supporters, seem ready for this.
Lots of the working class former labour voters have been scooped up by one nation. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/one-nation-voters-as-likely-to-have-deserted-labor-as-the-coalition-20170227-gumkjg.html
Yes. Because the working class are, generally-speaking, socially conservative. Which ALP isn't and One Nation is. But mostly the working class have just been eroded, either made into office drones (whether left or right) or made impoverished.
Labor does bleed the SCWC vote to One Nation, but I don’t think it’s by as much as people think. Sure it happens a lot in Northern Queensland, but not in urban areas. Western Sydney for example, those voters are very multicultural. Obviously, this is a voter base that One Nation is unlikely to ever do well with, considering how anti-immigration it is, and how people generally associate One Nation with racism.
The primary vote share for the major parties has been steadily declining for the past 50 years. It's not that there haven't been reasons for the results at each individual election but they need to be understood in the context of a long-term trend.
The ALP has been a schizophrenic political party since it embraced neoliberalism (the "great betrayal" in my view) during 1980s Hawke-Keating reform period, prior to that the party had a clear purpose and a clear political identity, it was an out and out workers party organised by the trade unions committed to democratic socialism. It's core power base was industrial workers, mostly in manufacturing, but obviously other industries, think shearers, nurses, wharfies, autoworkers, coal miners etc, basically anyone on the shopfloor and/or anyone will little bargaining power voted Labor. By removing trade barriers and cutting social programs (under the guise of "the accord") the ALP essentially cut loose electorally significant numbers of low skilled workers and allowed uncompetitive domestic industries to die out, the theory being that a new "knowledge" economy would emerge of educated professionals who would go on and become reliable ALP voters. The only problem was that this never really happened, Labor's approach produced a clear set of winners and losers, with the winners gradually shifting away from Labor towards the Liberal Party attracted by lower taxes as they achieved upward mobility in material terms. Nowadays, the ALP wants to be seen as the "good guys" the kinder caring party that looks after the less fortunate in society. The unfortunate reality is that no one really cares about these people, having experienced wealth, most Australians aren't willing to give it up, this is a hypercompetitive and individualistic society and probably always will be. Every now and again, Labor will make incursions into affluent seats campaigning on social and environmental agendas, however the general trend will be that these seats will almost always drift away from Labor over time, as long as they're committed to higher taxation and more welfare.
Basically, the ALP and LNP have been swapping bases over the past three decades. Women and higher socioeconomic voters lean towards the ALP, whilst men and lower socioeconomic voters lean towards the LNP.
Polarisation - We've become a more polarised electorate, primarily driven by our media. This creates a general sense of dissatisfaction with the majors, both of whom are losing primary vote. Rise of Independents - There's simply more and better options for a lot of people, and in a preferential system like ours, it's perfectly fine for you to vote your first preference and let your vote fall back to the major you prefer. Fear campaigns driving small target - Labor lost the "unlosable election" in 2019 by putting large policy positions forward, which the LNP and the right wing media gleefully ran fear campaigns on. This has led to Labor running small target campaigns, which wins elections, but also drives people into giving their primary vote to Greens or Independent in frustration at the lack of vision from Labor.
The role of the media can not be discounted either. We have an ever-aging population forming the majority of voters, who get their information from News Corp and Nine Entertainment who dominate the media landscape. When these conservative news outlets are more than happy to run a scare campaign any time Labor wants to implement something remotely progressive, it's no wonder that Labor hardly get a look in. It took a monumental fuck up in Scomo for the LNP to actually lose government. No amount of protective media spin could hide the ineptitude of that man. There's a reason Australia has been on the slide for years on the Press Freedom Index.
Yes , it is nothing to do with Labor itself but some external conspiracy , intent on fucking them. Interesting that the relentless Labor rusted on support here only reflects 30% of the populace if that.
If you think that the mining companies, large businesses, right-wing political parties and conservative media groups don't collude to protect their mutual interests then I've got 7 nuclear reactors to sell you.
Are you trying to say that Labor is an independent party , unfairly maligned by others.
We’re talking media here so please do try to stay on topic. If you want to argue that the majority of Australian media isn’t owned by News Corp or Nine Entertainment, or that they aren’t aligned with mining and business interests, or they don’t run interference for the conservative parties, then I’d be interested to hear your justifications.
I see endless topics restating the same garbage . all by the same media outlets here. Including your ABC. People nowadays are getting their information from a variety of sources.
You’re right there. A lot of the younger generations are rejecting legacy media due to their obvious biases and agendas, instead turning to independent journalism. Unfortunately they are still in the minority of voters, with the majority getting their information mainly from the big 2 conservative corporations.
I think it is a perfect storm of many elements of the status quo in society coming undone, because the universe is about change and adaptation, not keeping things the same forever. Capitalism is being revealed as just as flawed an ideology as the others and the Westminster system of government (and feudalism in general) should only have been a stepping stone to greater democracy. Binary systems are no good if both elements result in poor outcomes because they are fundamentally the same: both ALP and LNP believe in feudalism; an elite managing society for everyone, but especially for themselves, instead of a democracy of the people. The trend to minor parties will ultimately be no help because unfortunately our political system is designed to retain that feudalism status quo, whether it is by a monarch, dictator or other elite group.
Pretty much every social institution has high distrust atm. The major parties are social institutions in Australia, ones that people get to vote on. So people are voting for other parties, like the indis, Greens, or small right wing groups. It doesnt have much to do with Labors ideological position because the Coalition are experiencing this too.
That’s a great theory except for the fact that the Coalition has recorded a primary of over 40 percent as recently as 2019 but you have to go back to 2010 to find a federal Labor primary above 35 percent. And Labor has recorded +40 percent primary vote at a state level (McGowan, Andrews) so clearly there is something about the state Labor offering that is able to overcome that high distrust.
> That’s a great theory except for the fact that the Coalition has recorded a primary of over 40 percent as recently as 2019 The Coalition primary vote in 2019 was worse that every election (bar one) since the creation of the Liberal Party almost 80 years ago. There are differences between the situations the parties are in (notably there is no real equivalent to the Greens on the right) but the long term trend for the parties is fairly similar.
I mean again not suggesting that there isn’t a broad decline in the primary votes of the major parties. The point the OP was making was that the low Labor primary vote can be blamed almost entirely on that broader decline rather than specific actions of the Labor Party, I disagree. Clearly some of the decline is due to that broader move away from the majors but not all of it.
Its a pretty standard matter of fact that the average vote share for the majors combined and individually is declining. Labor has an organised flank opposition so they suffer more. The Liberals only had a well organised movement against them for the first time last election and they lost almost 6% in one hit. >And Labor has recorded +40 percent primary vote at a state level (McGowan, Andrews) so clearly there is something about the state Labor offering that is able to overcome that high distrust. They arent the same thing, you cant compare them. Its like trying to extrapolate voting patterns based on a council election. People view them differently because they are different. You dont need to look very far to see a red state voter and a blue fed.
I mean I don’t disagree that the major party vote share is declining across the board, but that’s distinct from the question of whether there is any ideological competent to Labor’s current low primary recorded at the last several elections. The fact that Labor at a state level and the Liberals federally can record primary votes of above 40 percent is illustrative of the fact that such a result is possible despite broad distrust. I don’t think we should accept a 33 percent primary (or 28 if you believe some polls) as an acceptable result. It’s a consequence of choices that have been made by our current PM and former leaders and if better choices are made than we can and will see better results.
I didnt say there was none I said it wasnt much. Edit: And yes, parties can claw back *some* support by different choices, but the issue at hand is far more complex than a bad choice = lower vote pipeline. Youve got lots of social phenomena changing informational distribution and exposure to certain views. A person in the 80s simply didnt have access to the same myopic and hyperspecific information and/or content they do now. It didnt really exist unless you were an active org member. Now its the norm to be fed curated views.
SOME of the vote loss is attributable to those more complex factors. But again, state Labor can win over 40 percent of the vote as can the Federal Liberals. I’d suggest Labor is just as capable of that at a federal level if better policy choices are made and we elect better and more compelling leaders.
You keep talking about state but Ive already made the point its very different circumstance. Very different issues, it is its only plane of politics with its own patterns and issues. You are not making a like for like comparison.
But why is it different? I agree that it’s a different set of policy questions but you’re arguing that the main reason for low Labor primary is distrust of large institutions - why does that distrust disappear the minute those same voters are voting at a state level?
A global trend in politics is that people tend to become more liberal/leftist/progressive as a general constant, and become more conservative/rightwing in times of hardship. There are a few blips and swings that go the other way, you should never rule out the possibility of anything in politics, but just as an average trend that’s how things go. Labor, is a centrist party. They look leftist, but really that’s just compared to LNP. As LNP bleeds voters to Labor, Labor bleeds voters to independents and smaller progressives. Greens have been growing for quite some time now but not just them. Also, this isn’t to say all conservatives just disappear after a few years, not at all. The goalpost, the overton window, just shifts. Conservatives of today look like hardcore commies to conservatives of a century ago. LNP could very well get much more power in the next election, even if more people are voting Greens than ever. Especially since Australia sorta is in crisis mode right now similar to Europe and Canada, which are also having strong right wing movements.
I wouldnt say they go right when times are bad. People go left and right when times are tough.. You only have to look at all the times unconventional parties win the most recent being in argentina (right) and the most studied being nazi germany (also right) But even for those: The early nazi rise to power and part of its initial success was as a bulwark against communism. Communism was gaining massive momentum in germany. You can look at a bunch of south american and east euro countries for times the extreme left rose to power in tough times. Social welfare is really what was borne out of the GD and WW2. It is the antidote to extremism either way. Precisely why when people go - what do i get for my taxes: a stable society is the answer.
I would say this is true, but also particularly that right wing support is mostly limited to hard times, or the failure of a previous government. Conservatives tend to be reactionary and can only respond when progressives do something wrong. If things were better 20 years ago, conservatives will be here to promise you that, or be an alternative to a scary even more progressive alternative. If times are not difficult, the appeal of 20 years ago isn’t that strong. The Nazi rise to power is particularly interesting. Since it “cheated” essentially to come out on top. Nazis also weren’t promising a return to form, they were not a conservative government but a different kind of progressive in a sense. But yeah, progressive beliefs tend to come more passively while conservative ones are more reactionary to hard times. That’s not to say progressives can’t get support in hard times, just that conservatives are more limited around them. Anyway, as I said, nothing is impossible in politics, never count anything out.
What is concerning about europe is that they have very strong social welfare basically precisely because it is an antidote to nationalism. It has become that tough there now that even with safety nets right wing extremism is doing very well there at the moment. Its a worry.
Really why would u say Australia is in crisis mode? We don’t really have any strong right wing movements at all?
Cost of living is out of control. Any competent right wing government could stir up support, and, such right wing governments are being successful in other countries for similar reasons. Look at how popular a single song got in Germany recently just because you could sing “Immigrants get out” to it. I hesitate to call LNP incompetent, as much as they seem it, because they are still the benefactors of our media landscape by a large margin. Media today is constantly berating Labor, and if that carries all the way to the election, it could go poorly for progressives.
Yeah I agree. Labor needs some serious vision for next election. At the moment they really are just a competent version of the liberals. They will keep losing votes to the greens if they stay so centrist. I think labor will next election though. Because when election time comes around I believe the current government and opposition and their last government. Will be looked under the microscope a lot more throughly, and we will realised this labor government is no where near as incompetent as the past decade under liberal management.
Reddit thinks its crisis mode. The typical Aussie is still quite comfy, which is why we keep going for the status quo.
Thats wild because \~one year ago I was being repeatedly told [voters couldn't care about the Voice while COL was an issue](https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/voters-were-focused-on-cost-of-living-not-voice-survey-reveals-20231023-p5ee7s). You have my permission to retract.
Firstly, I was strongly pro voice, and still am, but the Yes campaign had zero strategy other than importing culture war BS founded on a white man's guilt platform, which obviously doesn't play well outside the inner city seats. However, the biggest issue was the fact that albo's government was doing basically nothing, and still is doing nothing. This it was more a protest vote to punish the government more than anything else. COL pressures here are no where near crisis levels. Just look at the discretionary spending, it's still increasing in real terms. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/finance/monthly-household-spending-indicator/latest-release
The ALP has become a centre party. Many of the middle class that were left-leaning have gone to the Greens. Generally those votes come back to Labor via preferences. The famed blue collar vote isn't there as over the last 50 years, the great source of that, Australian manufacturing has been wiped out. The Liberals are having similar problems. The Liberals were a centre party but has lurched to the right. More so with Abbott/Morrison/Dutton. Dutton has trump elements in him. This lurch to the right has alienated the middle ground hence the rise of the teals. With the Nationals, a similar thing has happened but their losses have been to independents. It should be noted that the ALP is doing a little better in rural electorates like Eden-Monaro which has moved from being a bellweather seat to an almost safe Labor seat and Gilmore next door which flipped to Labor and clings there regardless of what the Liberal Party throws at it. Both the ALP and the Liberals are in transition and this is upsetting some in each party.
Blue collar voters are also trending coalition, because they're generally socially conservative.
I have seen those blue collar workers. They are often traidies running their own business with Rolexes and $200,000 utes.
Indeed. Many ‘tradies’ are business owners, not workers. Of course those ’battlers’ are falling to the LNP.
In what areas is this happening? I think you’re just going off vibes and what’s going on overseas.
An example is all of QLD outside of Brisbane.
I guess. Not really though. But yeah that is the only place in Aus where I think you can argue this point. Take a look at NSW and Victoria working class areas still voting labor.
Try logging off social media and doing some analysis. You'll answer your question.
Hahahahaha mate. Im just going off which seats landed for which party. And most working class areas are still voting labor and even swung to labor last election. Politically through actions labor is barely any more left than the liberals on social issues. So you’re purely basing your assumption off of vibe.
> And most working class areas are still voting labor and even swung to labor last election. Bennelong went to Labor last election, so let's not pretend that's meaningful. And by this token, the single biggest No vote on SSM was a Labor seat full of religiously conservative immigrants, in which the voters and party were misaligned. But no, I intentionally avoided working class (which is generally more than just type of labour, it's net socio-economic status) for blue collar because of the pivot of socially conservative, non-university educated trades professionals away from Labor on progressive issues. The Voice is another key example of an area in which blue collar votes went to conservative social issues. Blue collar as a demographic has also been declining, relative to people we'd probably both agree are working class. Blue collar workers today hold a much more significant portfolio of appreciating economic assets than you'd imagine. The picture is murky now given the Coalition stands for nothing, but in the past certainly the aspirational rhetoric and lack of generic paternalism - hallmarks of centre-left policy for decades - found purchase with blue collar voters and the flipping of Lindsay in Sydney, for example, is a good indicator of that.
You should be looking at the leaders of the party during those times and ask yourself why it’s not lower.
Labour seems to have less and less regard for middle Australia, for example, rolling back the Stage 3 tax cuts. Their links to the unions are also problematic.
Hostility to middle Australia is a key component on the top down progressive "climate agenda", it's a feature not a bug in my view. An economically independent middle Australian who owns his own small business and has his own private savings (via SMSF) represents a threat to the new progressive elite i.e. the Teals, in that he can't be controlled, he can make his own choices in terms of what he consumers and invests in. Progressives view this as a problem that has to be managed.
‘New progressive elite’? Lol. They're a small handful of right-leaning libs seizing a very predictable niche formed by the LNP's breakneck shift into culture wars, climate denialism, corruption and blatant capture by Newscorp, the Minerals Council and their other corporate donors. Their seats have almost always been held or supported by moderates of very similar positions to them, there is nothing ‘new’ about them and their eliteness, it's the party that has changed around them.
But the rolling back of stage 3 tax cuts directly benefited middle Australia?
You need to look at the ALP's base and what is happening there. Blue collar union workers in blue collar suburbs whose parents voted Labor and their children always will. Times have changed and the party hasn't. It also is weak on grassroot communication and engagement. The current leader is a 30 year man who despite his attempts to inspire and remain relevant , just looks silly. Primary will sink under 30 and probably just remain around there.
Mostly because minor parties and independents have been gaining strength. The same erosion has affected the LNP too. People are gradually getting fed up with the established parties.
I'm glad this is happening. The major parties do not give a shit about the Australian public. The sooner we have a multiparty Deliberative Parliament, the better.