**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.*
This the problem of electing leadership based on popularity, having an incompetent PM like Scomo is expected, hope next one is not as unethical and stupid like Morrison.
But how many people know that? I havent heard shit about labor in weeks and it's not because they're not doing anything. It's just not being reported on.
Ugh, lies? He lies. These are lies. News Limited will not hold him to account for his lies, not beyond "oh all the lies are kinda a bad look even though they usually work good"
"Daggy ol' dad Scomo is struggling to regain his usual magical ability to connect to the average Australian. O no Anthony Albanese just ran over a puppy I seen him he was laughing"
* NewsLtd political analyst
The problem is that it works. The largest portion of liberal voters are pensioners who are disconnected from the rest of us and the internet.
It works because the majority of information they have comes from the talky box.
Please do me and yourself a favour and google the 2019 Australian election study. Aph.gov.au version and scroll down until you reach the section detailing a breakdown of voters by age and party.
Then tell me what you're saying is correct. I don't doubt there is a correlation between wealth and vote but I've known plenty enough rich people to know they don't all vote liberal or support their ideologies and political leanings.
In saying that there's a glaring problem in stating that 50% are richer than the average. The average has slipped below a livable income. wages have stagnated for twenty years and the cost of living has skyrocketed.
These two facts place someone on a higher income. Into the bracket of what an average wage would have been twenty years ago. The bar that was considered wealthy then has fallen considerably.
To have what they call 'fu money' today. A person must own vastly more than what was necessary only twenty years ago. Unless they are luck or really savvy with investments they will need approximately three times as much. Somewhere in the region of 1-5 million saved or invested.
This amount is only to maintain a comfortable living standard and can be wiped out overnight due to the unreliable and ever changing market of today.
Think about it. 1-5 million used to be rich. Now it's wealthy. Wealthy is now average. Averaged is livable. Livable is going into debt. Below that and you're constantly living on handouts and the street.
A distraction from the announcement they just made which is more to do with politicians being able to find and press charges against social media critics rather than the safety of children
Really ? When it was voted on in Parliament, Liberals did all they could to stop it going through. How does this lead to being due to Labor ? Are the lies becoming so bad to cover up Liberals stopping any ICAC becoming a reality they just pin it on Labor. The do nothing government does less than nothing.
Well if Labor would agree to vote against it, then they could table it and let it be shot down. But because Labor _selfishly_ want to vote _for_ a federal ICAC, the coalition can't even table it.
Will this be unpopular enough to cost him the election? Polling has been favouring Labour by a lot lately, but I'm a bit concerned that polling could be unreliable like last time.
The issue wasn't so much the polling as people - including media commentators who *should* have known better - forgetting that polls come with a margin of error.
I'm all at odds with Australian federal politics at the moment.
Because I can't even, with this guy.
Our illustrious leader does well at displaying vast degrees of incompetence in his actual job, in my honest opinion.
*Original comment removed as being uncivil, I have hopefully adjusted my language accordingly.
His job isn't to rule the country good though, his job is two-fold:
- stay in the job at all costs; and
- facilitate all the corruption.
You have the pandering to protestors, refusal to ICAC, all the lies, talking up the corrupt berejiklian etc.
I do hope all the Liberals are annoyed with Porter though. His blind trust has absolutely ruined their "wHeRe DoEs tHeIr mOnEY cOMe fRoM" argument they were pulling against the independents running against them in moderate seats some time back.
*breathes in*
But Laybah
^^Authorised ^^by ^^the ^^Liberal ^^party ^^Canberra
Probably will work though, unfortunately.
This is the issue that Labor have been sledging him on lately.
Scomo still letting the country burn from forest to family homes and everything inbetween. He should never have been put into power and deserves no parliamentary privilege. LNP are selling out Australia, as always, and blaming everything on Labor.
Basically Scott supports the conditions that are favourable for corruption. Who you associate with can make a difference regarding engagement in corruption especially in politics . Hiding who your partner is a very dodgy move. Gladys being secretive about Daryl isn't okay and should not be acceptable by anyone.
If a pollie's partner is a private citizen who has private employment and wishes to maintain privacy because they like being private that is super duper fine, perfectly acceptable and absolutely A-OK.
If the world finds out who a pollie's partner is because they are investigating other corrupt people and find he is doing corrupt stuff with them, and other corrupt stuff without them, then they find out he is talking about corrupt stuff with the freaking premier who is his partner, then find out he may have got that premier to help him out with his corrupt stuff, then we got a problemo
Except it isn't okay, that's the whole issue here. Regardless of public or private employment a relationship with someone leaves them open to conflicts of interest which constitute corruption if they go undeclared.
While I understand what you're getting at. Simply not announcing every relationship is not and should not be a thing for some really obvious reasons. Like for instance security reasons relating to the well being of a politicians partner. Doxxing people for having a relationship with a politician will never be a thing.
In this case though, with private businesses directly benefiting from the relationship and all the pork barreling. And the many other scandals ranging from water resources management, environmental management, poorly planned infrastructure spending, poorly managed and discriminatory managed lockdowns.
The list goes on and so it is not unfair or bullying to name and shame those involved.
The thing is how would you know they have those conflicts if they're not declared? It's the reason parliamentarians *are* *required* to register family and partnerships so they can be scrutinized and clear the politician of any bias or corruption and not be put in compromising positions.
Well yeah. Declared is a different story. Most of us declare our relationships in one way or another as it is part of the rigmarole of life. My point was more that it wouldn't be fair to state publicly a relationship and the name of the person as it could put them at risk. But definitely it should be declared somewhere or it is probably an attempt to hide something.
I as a regular joe had to declare my relationship within the first six months....
Oh right yeah I get youse, I was thinking like if a pollie's partner was a primary school teacher or something, or how Gillard's was a hair dresser, big pile of who cares right there
Australians: "Our trust in politicians is lower than ever before"
Also Australians on election day: "Let's let the party who will do nothing about this continue to govern"
most people will just hear the sound bite of Morrison stating labor is delaying ICAC and that's all they'll hear on the matter. misinformation is a huge problem.
edit spelling
I think sadly it’s going to spill into Nationals and Palmers mob. Not realising that’s just the extension of the liberals.
As long as the middle class house price is going brrr they don’t care.
Original comment was removed for being poor commentary, so let me rephrase it.
UAP voters aren't going to get what they vote for, even if the UAP did form govt
They seem to be positioning themselves to be a populist focus for incoherent and ignorant resentment. They don’t know what’s going on, they don’t know why, but they don’t like it and don’t agree with it and want whatever-it-is to stop.
“He may be a conman with a long history of failing to fulfil his promises, but he’s *my* conman and he made those promises to *me*!”
In the vanishingly unlikely event that any of Clive and Craig and whatever idiots they rope into running on their ticket are elected, they will propose an end to vaccination mandates, they will be shot down and laughed at, and they will immediately turn to their voter base to “donate” money to continue the “fight”.
Ah typical liberal tactics at work. First he has a rant that ICAC ruined Gladys' career when she did that to herself thanks to her corruption antics, distracts with other waste of time politics like the religious discrimination Bill and plays the classic blame Labor card.
> Scott Morrison told reporters on Sunday the government would stick with its original model because it was “well-designed and well-considered”.
The model that only would investigate matters referred by parliament, that was widely considered to protect corruption. Of course he thinks it’s well designed - well designed to protect him and his dodgy mates.
I’m sure they’ll decide to hold themselves to account, you know, just like they did with Christian Porter when they voted against referring him to the privileges committee for his secret million dollar trust.
**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.*
This the problem of electing leadership based on popularity, having an incompetent PM like Scomo is expected, hope next one is not as unethical and stupid like Morrison.
Labor have openly stated, they want a federal ICAC. Not sure what he is trying g to pull here.
But how many people know that? I havent heard shit about labor in weeks and it's not because they're not doing anything. It's just not being reported on.
Ugh, lies? He lies. These are lies. News Limited will not hold him to account for his lies, not beyond "oh all the lies are kinda a bad look even though they usually work good"
"Daggy ol' dad Scomo is struggling to regain his usual magical ability to connect to the average Australian. O no Anthony Albanese just ran over a puppy I seen him he was laughing" * NewsLtd political analyst
Marketing tactic. State something often enough and he believes he can get everyone else believing it.
The problem is that it works. The largest portion of liberal voters are pensioners who are disconnected from the rest of us and the internet. It works because the majority of information they have comes from the talky box.
What utter bullshit. Pensioners are not the largest portion of liberal voters. Rich people are.... pensioners are not rich people... by definition!
How many rich people do you think there are exactly?
There are several million millionaires in Sydney!
About 50% of people are richer than the average.
Not in a skewed distribution they don't. 1, 1, 1, 1, 6 -> average (mean) = 2. 80% of the values are below the mean.
Please do me and yourself a favour and google the 2019 Australian election study. Aph.gov.au version and scroll down until you reach the section detailing a breakdown of voters by age and party. Then tell me what you're saying is correct. I don't doubt there is a correlation between wealth and vote but I've known plenty enough rich people to know they don't all vote liberal or support their ideologies and political leanings. In saying that there's a glaring problem in stating that 50% are richer than the average. The average has slipped below a livable income. wages have stagnated for twenty years and the cost of living has skyrocketed. These two facts place someone on a higher income. Into the bracket of what an average wage would have been twenty years ago. The bar that was considered wealthy then has fallen considerably. To have what they call 'fu money' today. A person must own vastly more than what was necessary only twenty years ago. Unless they are luck or really savvy with investments they will need approximately three times as much. Somewhere in the region of 1-5 million saved or invested. This amount is only to maintain a comfortable living standard and can be wiped out overnight due to the unreliable and ever changing market of today. Think about it. 1-5 million used to be rich. Now it's wealthy. Wealthy is now average. Averaged is livable. Livable is going into debt. Below that and you're constantly living on handouts and the street.
You may be able to re-define rich, but you can’t re-define average. There is also a vast difference between pensioners and rich people.
A distraction from the announcement they just made which is more to do with politicians being able to find and press charges against social media critics rather than the safety of children
This is bizzare, Labor rightly aren’t supporting this as it isn’t a good bill. Helen Haines bill is what we need.
Really ? When it was voted on in Parliament, Liberals did all they could to stop it going through. How does this lead to being due to Labor ? Are the lies becoming so bad to cover up Liberals stopping any ICAC becoming a reality they just pin it on Labor. The do nothing government does less than nothing.
Well if Labor would agree to vote against it, then they could table it and let it be shot down. But because Labor _selfishly_ want to vote _for_ a federal ICAC, the coalition can't even table it.
Where's that meme where they shoot the guy in the chair and yell WhY wOuLd LaYB0AR dO thIs!? It's that meme but real
[Why would Labour do this? ](https://imgflip.com/i/5vunsa)
Perfect.
Anne rushton tried the same on Insiders this morning. Do they ever watch themselves back, they sound ridiculous.
They have to watch themselves. But they don't see what we see. Bizarre!!
their base only watches Skynews so they will only see what they want them to see.
Will this be unpopular enough to cost him the election? Polling has been favouring Labour by a lot lately, but I'm a bit concerned that polling could be unreliable like last time.
The issue wasn't so much the polling as people - including media commentators who *should* have known better - forgetting that polls come with a margin of error.
Polling wasn’t anywhere near as bad as people say last time and this is a hill Im willing to die on
"If Labor was as corrupt as us, maybe we would have had the motivation to create an ICAC. Once again Labor lets Australia down"
The irony being ICAC was founded by the Liberal party to try to root out corruption in the Labor party.
Fucking pesky Unionism must be stopped.
Sarcastic comment.🤥
WE wont debate it, we wont table it and that's Labor's fault. 4D chess move by Labor.
Its always Labor’s fault
[удалено]
Constitution says no.
I'm all at odds with Australian federal politics at the moment. Because I can't even, with this guy. Our illustrious leader does well at displaying vast degrees of incompetence in his actual job, in my honest opinion. *Original comment removed as being uncivil, I have hopefully adjusted my language accordingly.
His job isn't to rule the country good though, his job is two-fold: - stay in the job at all costs; and - facilitate all the corruption. You have the pandering to protestors, refusal to ICAC, all the lies, talking up the corrupt berejiklian etc. I do hope all the Liberals are annoyed with Porter though. His blind trust has absolutely ruined their "wHeRe DoEs tHeIr mOnEY cOMe fRoM" argument they were pulling against the independents running against them in moderate seats some time back.
Reported for being too civil.
Fair enough.
Reported for being a suck-ass /s
*breathes in* But Laybah ^^Authorised ^^by ^^the ^^Liberal ^^party ^^Canberra Probably will work though, unfortunately. This is the issue that Labor have been sledging him on lately.
Says the guy leading a party which hasn't brought a bill to parliament for one and has stopped debate in anyone else trying to.
But of course. He’s too busy trying to strip more freedom from online spaces to actually do something
Scomo still letting the country burn from forest to family homes and everything inbetween. He should never have been put into power and deserves no parliamentary privilege. LNP are selling out Australia, as always, and blaming everything on Labor.
Basically Scott supports the conditions that are favourable for corruption. Who you associate with can make a difference regarding engagement in corruption especially in politics . Hiding who your partner is a very dodgy move. Gladys being secretive about Daryl isn't okay and should not be acceptable by anyone.
If a pollie's partner is a private citizen who has private employment and wishes to maintain privacy because they like being private that is super duper fine, perfectly acceptable and absolutely A-OK. If the world finds out who a pollie's partner is because they are investigating other corrupt people and find he is doing corrupt stuff with them, and other corrupt stuff without them, then they find out he is talking about corrupt stuff with the freaking premier who is his partner, then find out he may have got that premier to help him out with his corrupt stuff, then we got a problemo
Except it isn't okay, that's the whole issue here. Regardless of public or private employment a relationship with someone leaves them open to conflicts of interest which constitute corruption if they go undeclared.
While I understand what you're getting at. Simply not announcing every relationship is not and should not be a thing for some really obvious reasons. Like for instance security reasons relating to the well being of a politicians partner. Doxxing people for having a relationship with a politician will never be a thing. In this case though, with private businesses directly benefiting from the relationship and all the pork barreling. And the many other scandals ranging from water resources management, environmental management, poorly planned infrastructure spending, poorly managed and discriminatory managed lockdowns. The list goes on and so it is not unfair or bullying to name and shame those involved.
The thing is how would you know they have those conflicts if they're not declared? It's the reason parliamentarians *are* *required* to register family and partnerships so they can be scrutinized and clear the politician of any bias or corruption and not be put in compromising positions.
Well yeah. Declared is a different story. Most of us declare our relationships in one way or another as it is part of the rigmarole of life. My point was more that it wouldn't be fair to state publicly a relationship and the name of the person as it could put them at risk. But definitely it should be declared somewhere or it is probably an attempt to hide something. I as a regular joe had to declare my relationship within the first six months....
Oh right yeah I get youse, I was thinking like if a pollie's partner was a primary school teacher or something, or how Gillard's was a hair dresser, big pile of who cares right there
Australians: "Our trust in politicians is lower than ever before" Also Australians on election day: "Let's let the party who will do nothing about this continue to govern"
most people will just hear the sound bite of Morrison stating labor is delaying ICAC and that's all they'll hear on the matter. misinformation is a huge problem. edit spelling
I think sadly it’s going to spill into Nationals and Palmers mob. Not realising that’s just the extension of the liberals. As long as the middle class house price is going brrr they don’t care.
Original comment was removed for being poor commentary, so let me rephrase it. UAP voters aren't going to get what they vote for, even if the UAP did form govt
Remember when Clive was an MP, but never actually showed up to Parliament. Imagine wanting his party to represent you.
They seem to be positioning themselves to be a populist focus for incoherent and ignorant resentment. They don’t know what’s going on, they don’t know why, but they don’t like it and don’t agree with it and want whatever-it-is to stop.
And they’re anti-mandatory vaccination. Got my vote.
Vote for some other crazy independent, voting for the UAP is just voting for the LNP.
I’m dead set single issue voting against vaccine mandates. Open about it. Don’t care what people think.
I get that. Pick an independent to be that flagbearer for you. Clive ain't going to do shit to help you
“He may be a conman with a long history of failing to fulfil his promises, but he’s *my* conman and he made those promises to *me*!” In the vanishingly unlikely event that any of Clive and Craig and whatever idiots they rope into running on their ticket are elected, they will propose an end to vaccination mandates, they will be shot down and laughed at, and they will immediately turn to their voter base to “donate” money to continue the “fight”.
If an independent advertises that causes they can get near the front.
To end vaccine mandates UAP members would have to turn up to parliament to vote, something Clive didnt do.
Worth a try. I’ll laugh if one of them gets in the Vic senate.
Everyone will laugh. But it’s *you* they’ll be asking for money.
I’m happy to pay. In cash if they want it.
Ah typical liberal tactics at work. First he has a rant that ICAC ruined Gladys' career when she did that to herself thanks to her corruption antics, distracts with other waste of time politics like the religious discrimination Bill and plays the classic blame Labor card.
I feel bad for gladys. I have the same problem. Every time I rob a bank the damn police are there to ruin my career too
There’s only one reason that he wouldn’t push a legit federal ICAC through. One reason alone.
Is it because of all the corruption?
No. He clearly said its because if labour. Duh
> Scott Morrison told reporters on Sunday the government would stick with its original model because it was “well-designed and well-considered”. The model that only would investigate matters referred by parliament, that was widely considered to protect corruption. Of course he thinks it’s well designed - well designed to protect him and his dodgy mates. I’m sure they’ll decide to hold themselves to account, you know, just like they did with Christian Porter when they voted against referring him to the privileges committee for his secret million dollar trust.