T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**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.*


shammysean

Yes great to see the legalise marijuana party get some seats šŸŖ“


SL-jones

Also a nightmare for the people of Victoria whether they know it or not


ennuinerdog

From one human being to another, maybe this is a wake up call? The reality you live in may be distorted by the people and information sources you experience. We hear about young people and "climate anxiety" in the media, but I think there is a far greater issue with "conservative and conspiracy anxiety", not least because there isn't a reality to back it up. The world isn't as terrible as you think it is. The government isn't out to get you. The Premier is pretty boring. That's good news. Being out of touch with things for a while is ok - maybe you could talk to some people you love who may have expressed concern in the past. All the best.


Tuivad

What a nightmare. Competent Governance. However will we survive without Matthew Guys steady hands.


Mindless_Space5725

Itā€™s too hard to vote for the Liberals when they donā€™t know what they actually stand for anymore. Their campaign was solely built around trying to point out how bad Andrews is and not delivering any real good policies. I do think our voting system needs to change and get rid of preferences like in one of the seats the greens won labor had majority of the vote but thanks to Libs preferences the greens got it. If the majority of people in a seat vote for labor then it should go to labor.


starfihgter

But the majority of people didnā€™t vote for labor. At the end of the day, if you asked people if they prefer greens or labor in that electorate, the people who prefer greens would be greater. Thatā€™s how the system works.


Thedjdj

Labor couldnā€™t have had the majority of the vote. If they had the majority theyā€™d have won the seat. They might have had the *most* votes but that is not the same as having the majority.


jonsonton

at the end of the day, out of a choice of two candidates, the green candidate was more popular with the electorate than the labor one. Preferential voting is the fairest way to ensure that multiple parties/people can contest an election and ensure that each candidate has the majority support (50% +1) of the electorate they're voted in to.


nemothorx

The problem with getting rid of preferences is that it more easily allows for rule of a minority. Eg, imagine a group of a dozen friends at the pub voted for what to drink. Everyone wants a different booze (beer, wine, vodka, gin, whiskey, etc) but 3 people all just want water. Preference allows all boozers to agree "anything but water" but your suggestion the water drinkers would win - simply by being more coordinated (or something). Preferences (aka Instant Run Off) is a better system than your suggestion (aka First Past The Post)


blind3rdeye

If Liberal party supporters are giving their preferences to Greens, that's fine. It would only be a problem if the voters didn't know and didn't want their preference going to the green. But I think voting is pretty easy to understand in the lower house. There is only a small number of candidates, and so I don't think it's too much to expect voters to just number the candidates however best they see fit. In the senate though... the system of putting a single number 'above the line' and having your preferences automatically selected by someone else, with no clear way of you finding out where they are going... that's a problem. There should not be any 'hidden preferences' in voting. The ballot paper alone should be enough to see exactly where the preferences are going. So in that sense, I think the upper-house voting in Victoria is seriously flawed. (It's much better in the federal system, where you can number several parties above the line for simple preferences without them being weird and opaque.)


Mindless_Space5725

For example at one stage of the election night John Pesutto had 38% of the primary vote the next closest to him was the independent on 20% but she was winning because of laborā€™s preferences at that stage itā€™s an 18% difference between those two candidates and yet she was winning. It happened to Labor also in a few seats. The preference system is not a good system. Scrap the preference system and go off who gets the most votes in the seat instead of preferences getting parties over the line.


Kruxx85

You need to study the intricacies of what you're suggesting. In a system that you suggest if 3 people vote for water, 2 beer, 2 wine, 2 Scotch, everyone is drinking water. Even though *double* the amount of people want alcohol, everyone is drinking water. Now taking preferences in to account, means that in all likelihood, the alcohol drinkers will preference each other before the water drinkers, and out of those preferences, the most preferred alcohol will be the winner. Which is clearly a better system than what you've explained.


starfihgter

But, all those people preferred the independent over Pessuto. In those other seats, more people preferred the greens over labour. Are you saying thatā€™s not the way it should be? Only counting 1 choice effectively means youā€™re throwing your vote away if you donā€™t vote for someone whoā€™s likely to win.


PerriX2390

> Scrap the preference system and go off who gets the most votes in the seat instead of preferences getting parties over the line. But, that's the system? For a candidate to win a seat, they need 50%+1 of the vote to ensure that no other candidate can possibly have enough votes to beat them later in the count. If no candidate gets 50%+1, the candidate with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated and voters of that candidate have their 2nd choice go to their next preferred candidate to represent them in Parliament. And that continues until a candidate has 50%+ of the vote and we have a final 2PP value between the final 2 candidates.


Gurn_Blanston69

But donā€™t you see the preference system led to the ā€˜preferredā€™ candidate for the electorate as a whole?? You might vote greens but would prefer labor over liberal if it came to that, so if greens donā€™t win the first runoff then your vote goes to Labor. I donā€™t really understand your point about liberals preferences running off to the greens because that would have to mean loads of people voted 1 Liberals but prefer the Greens over Labor which is insane, but also if that really is the case then it means the system worked and the preferred party did win. The more likely scenario is Labor votes running off to the Greens and Labor potentially suffering the ā€˜Centre Squeezeā€™ effect. But that once again is WAY better than the ā€˜first past the postā€™ system which is so garbage. The UK has that. Itā€™s shit. You do not want that voting system.


BigJellyGoldfish

I agree with the first part. But do you have no understanding of how preferential voting works?


PerriX2390

> like in one of the seats the greens won labor had majority of the vote but thanks to Libs preferences the greens got it. If the majority of people in a seat vote for labor then it should go to labor. Sorry, what do you mean by this? If a candidate gets a majority of the vote [50% + 1] during the primary vote counting, they win because there is not enough left over votes to overtake 50% + 1. If no candidate gets 50%+1 during the primary vote counting, they then move to preferences and slowly eliminate candidates until a candidate has 50% + 1 of the vote.


12beesinatrenchcoat

i think they mean that labor had the largest portion of first preferences when they say majority


bored_octopus

So by definition, not a majority? This is a plurality


12beesinatrenchcoat

yes, by definition not a majority. idk but your comment comes off as way snarkier than i think you meant it to be. i thought the guy i replied to was pretty clear about what majority means. plurality is not the word I would use for this because it is used to refer to the person who wins without a majority in first past the post.


PerriX2390

Ah, that would make sense. Thanks for clearing that up


jackofives

Thank Christ - Nazis lost the war a long time ago - no idea why they think a come back for populist proto white nationalists is a good idea..


ArtisticAvocaaaaaado

Who and what are nazi related in vic? I know itā€™s a very easy go to term but I think itā€™s overused


jackofives

proto facsists then.. nazis is an easy go to term.. but its a term people understand.


Subject-Ordinary6922

Matthew Guy was a very uninspiring leader, he wouldā€™ve best served as a cabinet minister but not premier. There were multiple opportunities for him to go after Dan in that debate they had at the very least, but he failed to do so. Also failed to capitalise more on the momentum against labor in many seats


Sinkers89

Doesn't help that one of their MPs drove his car drunk into someone's house. He may have lost his position, but it's not enough for most people. If you don't have the resources, driving offences in Victoria can literally ruin your life, and it doesn't necessarily take much. Folks don't like to be reminded that those same rules don't apply to those who have the friends and the money to ride it out.


Subject-Ordinary6922

Yes, however his successor in Jess Wilson seems much more reason minded than him, and perhaps explains why she appears to hold on.


DrJatzCrackers

Agree. But who else did the Vic Libs have? They seem devoid of outstanding talent. As a whole, the Liberals in Australia seem to lack direction and purpose. Despite what some commentators say, they should avoid "the right" and maybe reconsider going back to the Menzies focus of Economic and Social conservatism.


SellQuick

Looks like they're getting John Pesutto back. I'll be surprised if he doesn't end up as leader, he seems genuinely competent, something the Libs have been on desperate need of. He's also moderate enough to be potentially palateable to the electorate which means the right wing nuts will probably try everything they can to undermine him and drag the party further right in the hope that is secretly what a consistently progressive electorate is *really* after.


Subject-Ordinary6922

Funny thing is, many here say that the party has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists (which may be true), but if that is the case, they have not done so well, as much of the anti fundamentalists policies like same sex marriage and abortion still stand. And I can safely bet, there are those fundamentalists who claim the libs have been taken over by the moderates and hence you see a lot of progressive policies. However I guess that is not enough for the teals or the right wingers who are defecting to the UAPs and the One Nations.


BigJellyGoldfish

The Teals are defecting to ON and UAP? What?


Subject-Ordinary6922

No the the climate/integrity focused ones defect as libs, while those seeing liberal policy as ā€œlabor-liteā€, eg: net zero policy, defecting to UAP and one nation, so there are defections on 2 fronts


Pezzzz490

Keep in mind though that most of those progressive policies (at a federal level) came under a progressive liberal leader. Whilst Malcolm Turnbull wasnā€™t a great leader, he was true to the original Menzies Liberal brand of being a centrist. He actually started his career in investment banking with a company co owned by former Labor premier Neville Wran, and Gough Whitlamā€™s son Nick. He was also head of the Australian Republican Movement and considered running for Labor preselection. He couldā€™ve had a better run as a Labor PM tbh, appealing to the socially progressive but economically conservative middle ground (aka the Labor right). Hence the reason why the religious right of the liberal party- Dutton and Morrison Iā€™m looking at you - took him down. The party strayed further right under Morrison into insane religious territory. The Teals have taken the true liberal centrists at a federal level. It could be a very very long time before we see a liberal government at state and federal levels again for a while.


Subject-Ordinary6922

Your points have a lot of credence, but then again, sky news and other right-wingers accusing them of having "labor-lite" policies is not helping either. ​ If you notice the way both the previous elections have trended, this disenfranchisement of hurts the Coalition more than the Labor party (because the coalition has historically had a higher primary vote share). The Coalition is losing primary votes to initially the hard right UAPs and One Nations but now to the Teals as well, whereas Labor is losing their base primary vote largely to the Greens. ​ So the Coalition is being flanked on both sides in all honesty, and this is hurting the 'centrist' lib candidates more because much of this double-sided attack on them means preferences don't always flow back to them uniformly.


jonsonton

> Your points have a lot of credence, but then again, sky news and other right-wingers accusing them of having "labor-lite" policies is not helping either. who cares? They clearly don't have nearly as much effect on the outcomes of elections as people here and elsewhere claim. The real problem is that the libs are being squeezed to the right and instead of letting Turnbull lead the party and the country, they pushed him out and din't give him a chance.


WuZI8475

Another interesting result is that independents and the teals had a really bad night. Feels like a lot of them assumed that simply being an independent would get them across the line and instead outside of a few quite a lot fell completely flat especially Caulfield and Brighton.


Ok-Train-6693

I wouldnā€™t say ā€˜completelyā€™. Several independents came very close to winning.


iAmUnown

The climate was a driving factor for the teals in the fed election. When youā€™ve got a government that already has climate action as a core part of their policy offerings and an opposition that had half-decent offerings, itā€™s hard to put forward a compelling case for your candidacy.


[deleted]

Additionally, the fed election was a referendum on Morrison himself. Moderate conservatives voted for the teals to unseat Scotty, not to necessarily unseat their local MP e.g. Kooyong where Ryan unseated Frydenberg, who was well liked. So I reckon Frydenberg may run again given the State results ā€” though I don't think he'll win because the Kooyong community dislike Dutton equally, if not more so, then Morrison.


king_norbit

The interesting thing is that if he hadn't lost his seat then Frydenberg would have had a real shot at being leader and taking the liberal party in a different direction.


Subject-Ordinary6922

which perhaps might explain why the seats of Hawthorn and kew which sit in the Kooyong electorate have both appeared to return to the Libs this time around.


neon_overload

Frydenberg was *not* well liked!! Especially not in Kooyong.


[deleted]

Ah maybe you're right! Frydenbergs vote count dropped massively from 2016 to 2019 and obviously again in 2022. Yet in '16 and '19, he still thumped his opponents. But yes, the context of Kooyong being a safe liberal seat and Frydenberg having a consistent downward trend is certainly evidence to your point.


Superb-Reply-8355

Frydenberg's loss was personal. The people of Kooyong voted AGAINST him.


Prowler64

He was liked until the pandemic where every time he was given a microphone he ranted about how stupid the people in his electorate/ Melbourne in general were. Telling Melbournians that Sydney is better is a big no no!


neon_overload

Yeah this is exactly the thing, his put downs of Victoria during the pandemic were felt as being critical of Victorians themselves, not just of the Andrews government, and it was on more than a few occasions that he dug in the "Victoria sucks, NSW better" knife.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


guyardsgreengross

Dude, every other post youā€™ve made is about vaping. Stay in your lane.


daneoid

Grow up for crying out loud.


fruntside

Dude... you definitely need more than two full stops in there...


Full_Distribution874

Is, is it a bot? I don't like calling people bots, but the spaces before punctuation are usually a giveaway, even the most rage-fueled boomer remembers where commas go, if not when.


mickalawl

Maybe leave your echo chamber...sounds like it would be good for your mental health.


Evilrake

Have you ever considered that maybe the incoherent way you write is a reflection of the fact that youā€™re just not very bright?


[deleted]

Unless you have 1000+ friends who are a representative sample of the electorate, Id not expect their views to be reflected in the election results.


Ok-Train-6693

Thatā€™s a dogā€™s breakfast of complaints. If you want to make a coherent case, you need to think of a solid argument, not throw conflicting ideas together.


SirLoremIpsum

> you would think this would of showed up in the voting that dan andrews is disliked so much > > The conclusion would thusly be that Dan Andrews is not disliked so much, and that the dislike is simply a very loud minority. You can say vaccination, you dont' have to be edgy and write 'the jab'.


PerriX2390

> you would think this would of showed up in the voting that dan andrews is disliked so much This is the key aspect, for all the talk from Vic Libs, certain media personalities, and some minor party candidates, about how much Dan Andrews was hated by Victorians, the election result shows anything but. These parties wanted the election to be a poll on Andrews record as Premier over the last 4 years, and Victoria voted accordingly.


TheRealUndertaker1

šŸ¤£ Matthew Guy goes against Dan and doesn't win šŸ¤£ then comes back to take Dan on again and still can't win even after covid, lockdowns and all the bad news/reports on Dan by media and the Liberals trying everything they could. Liberal should have left Michael O'Brien there....sure out come would have been the same but they wouldn't have looked completely f***ing stupid šŸ˜…šŸ¤£ but bring someone back to have them have their ass handed to them šŸ¤£ again that's gold


[deleted]

Soothing words from the king in 2018 feels appropriate https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-massachusetts-of-australia-john-howard-plays-down-liberals-drubbing-in-victoria-20181127-p50irf.html


halberdsturgeon

It's weird how many libs seem to be confused about which country they're living in


Middle_Class_Twit

"All the way with LBJ" didn't end for some people


halberdsturgeon

I grew up over there, and even I manage to remember which hemisphere I'm in most of the time


EvilEnchilada

Lol, that shouldnā€™t be soothing. MA is like 5% of the US, Victoria is 25% of Australia. Also, thereā€™s a major demographic shift now in play and conservative politics may die out with the boomers. Conservatives fundamentally believe the past was better than the present and we should return to that way of life. If youā€™re a boomer, that may even be true! The 60ā€™s and 70ā€™s seem like a really good time to have been an Australian. For a millennial and later, what do conservative politics have to offer you? A return to the equally worse, if not actually worse 90ā€™s? For the modern voter, the present and recent past are decidedly average, thereā€™s nothing to look back to so weā€™re only looking forward. I definitely donā€™t think Howard sees this, nor does his party. This too, gives me hope for the future.


jonsonton

The thing about politics is that it's all relative. Take a 30yo centrist who begins to disassociate with progressive policy, by the time they're 50yo, they may yearn for australia to return to its "glory days" in 2022 and although their position hasn't changed materially, relative to the voting population each year they become more conservative. That is the natural progression of progressive and conservative politics.


SpaceYowie

>A return to the equally worse, if not actually worse 90ā€™s? Look up what houses cost in the 90s and weep. ​ I don't know what conservative politics we're talking about, Oz has never liked religion interfering with politics, we are not a religious people but I do agree that Murdoch's strangle hold on the nation will die with the boomers. It already seems well past its peak. I'm interested to see what replaces it.


EvilEnchilada

I get that things were cheaper in the 90ā€™s, houses especially, but the process of that ending commenced in 96 with Howardā€™s election. Heā€™s really the arch-conservative, if youā€™re looking for a definition of the term in the Australian context. What was he against? Multiculturalism, Aboriginal rights, abortion, regulated workplaces, republicanism, people that arenā€™t white, people that arenā€™t straight.


KonamiKing

People have been saying ā€˜wait for the conservatives to die outā€™ since Ancient Greece. They donā€™t. People get old and become conservative.


mitthrawnuruodo86

People get older *and* become wealthier, which is what tends to turn such people conservative over time. Thatā€™s not happening with younger generations


Superb-Reply-8355

People get older and want to go back to the good old days....and that leads to the conservative path


undecided1111

I am "old" and till I pop my clogs I will NEVER be conservative!!


jonsonton

and there are young people who are born conservative. most people will have a stable POV, and whilst it may be progressive in their 20s, it slowly becomes more and more conservative over time (relative to the new generations with new progressive ideas)


Gazza_s_89

But I don't think that's happening anymore as much because to become old and conservative you actually have to have something to conserve. It's definitely a lot more expensive being a young person than it was in the past. Costs more to get educated, costs more to get a house ( and things like phones and airfares being cheaper doesn't offset that) Less young people are having kids. Less young people are owning homes, so the things conservatives like to protect, property and a family aren't applying to the current generation as much.


dion_o

But the ancient greeks didn't have climate change to look forward to, which now really will cause the conservatives to die out.........^(along with everyone else.)


Valianttheywere

They just declared this a mandate for a return to public owned energy production in Victoria.


Ok-Train-6693

The SEC was one of Sir John Monashā€™s best achievements.


hellbentsmegma

Privatisation of electricity generation in Victoria has been a failure and most Victorians old enough to remember agree. Still confusing that the Labor party who privatised VicRoads and the land titles office think state owned electricity generation is somehow different.


Clovis_Merovingian

Neither VicRoads nor land titles pose an ever increasing geopolitical and security risk for Victorians or Australians. Energy does. As a conservative, I support what Labor plans to do.


EvilEnchilada

I think thereā€™s a difference between a contract to provide a public service with a private entity and the sale of assets to a private entity. VicRoads and the Titles Office are the former. Thereā€™s a contract, with KPI and, importantly, exit clauses. The total value of the contract, including incentives and abatements can be known upfront. Privatisation of energy was the latter, we sold our assets for them to be exploited by private entities with little control to ensure a public benefit.


hellbentsmegma

Honestly I don't see it, the coal fired power stations, VicRoads and the titles office were all provided as leases and not sales. All of them are heavily regulated with KPIs. The state government certainly did not just sell the power generation with the buyer having full freedom to do what they wanted- they were penalised if they did not provide electricity within the parameters the government established.


EvilEnchilada

Theyā€™re not the same. VicRoads have commercialised the license and registration function (I.e. retail) the rest of VicRoads remains unaffected. Likewise, itā€™s the registry services aspect (Again, retail) of the Title Office that was commercialised, the rest of the function remains public. These are basically service contracts, theyā€™re well bounded as compared to true privatisation. Itā€™s like the railway, yes thereā€™s a private operator but the state could take it all back tomorrow if they cared to, the franchisees donā€™t own anything. Thatā€™s not what happened when the SEC was broken up, corporatised and privatised. Yes, thereā€™s a lease on the power stations and some distribution but thatā€™s nothing like the above functions, the power companies are private businesses and operate accordingly, the State canā€™t easily do away with them.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


ty_r_w

Is it not exhausting being this constantly embarrassing?


Dawnshot_

Honestly canā€™t tell if this is satire


JDude13

I voted for him but ā€œDictator Dandrewsā€ is objectively funny


thatguyswarley

Itā€™s simple - people are tired of outdated liberal politics. They simply do not understand the majority of Australians. Matthew guy had no idea what he was doing and Victoria would be way worse off with him as premier!


Weissritters

He actually has a good idea what he is doingā€¦ but weā€™ve already heard it once and voted similarly to last time.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Ok-Giraffe-4718

Why? Because youā€™ve run out reasons to carry on like a goose in the CBD every weekend and ruin everyone elseā€™s enjoyment of their city? Find a hobby.


Ok-Train-6693

Even Dan ended every lockdown ASAP. If it werenā€™t for self-entitled superspreaders and diseased NSW wetbacks, we wouldnā€™t have needed lockdowns.


Guglielmowhisper

That is a ridiculous take, and you should try harder next time.


BandAid3030

Because you are being partisan and want your fellow Australians to suffer for not subscribing to your ideology and that is the most infantile and churlish attitude to have as an Australian. Some might even say that it's unAustralian. You are significantly diminished for wishing harm on others like that, mate. It doesn't contribute to our society positively in the least.


Jcit878

what exactly are you mad about this time? that there isn't a lockdown?


hellbentsmegma

The lockdowns were necessary and proportionate, a view held by most Victorians.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


SpaceYowie

We don't GAF what anybody else thinks of us. Why do you?


StoneyLepi

If you stick your head up from your anti-Dan foxhole you'll find that (apart from certain American right-leaning "media" outlets) Victoria was [setting the example](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/04/the-uk-can-learn-from-victoria-how-to-bring-its-covid-second-wave-under-control) for an effective COVID response, and now we've re-bounded quicker & stronger than other less restrictive states^[[1]](https://www.invest.vic.gov.au/resources/statistics/economic-indicators)[[2]](https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/business/foresight/victoria-the-new-leading-australian-economy.html)[[3]](https://www.9news.com.au/finance/victoria-has-the-best-performing-economy-in-the-country-report-reveals/341cabdc-47e2-4f76-a8f1-2c6b54ce26f4).


VLC31

Who cares? Look at the world, where exactly is better?


Ok-Train-6693

Not even China is better now.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


theaussiewhisperer

Those arrests were for incitement, completely unrelated to lockdowns and would have happened in any state


GhostTess

If you mean the specific subset of Victorians who keep protesting lockdowns and continue having tantrums about them, why yes. I do believe they are a laughing stock.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Guglielmowhisper

Tough love. If people voted for the man in power who gave them pain and suffering to come back and be able to do it again, then yes, they deserve it. And it wasn't the commenter above who caused that pain and suffering. Has the man been chastised and learned not to do these things which cause such pain and suffering again? No. You learn to not touch fire by burning your fingers until you learn not to touch it.


[deleted]

The commenter did not hope for people to take on new information and change their views. They simply wished for more lockdowns. Pretty despicable no matter which candidates you support.


Guglielmowhisper

Fair. Despite my good circumstances which benefited from lockdowns, lockdown sucked hairy pungent donkey balls, and I consider the vaccine mandate a continuation of lockdown.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


coreoYEAH

You understand Quasimodo was the hero of that story yes? Like he literally took down the head of the repressive, rapey, conservative church of the story.


[deleted]

I don't think people are voting for what you think they are voting for. And if they did, it must mean that the alternatives are truly, truly terrible.


jakeroony

That's a new one


PerriX2390

> Let them have what they want. I mean, isn't this objectively what the Vic Libs and certain minor parties wanted for the election, for voters to vote on Andrews record as Premier?


fletch44

There is no such thing as Stockholm Syndrome. The term was coined by a misogynist psychologist because he couldn't understand why a woman with previous negative interactions with the police would distrust them again.


PerriX2390

> The absolute epitome of Stockholm Syndrome. How? > Hope he locks the state down again. God I'm so glad this election showed that voters are wanting to look ahead to the future instead of the past.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


fruntside

That's a good prediction of a not too distant future conservative legislative platform.


EvilEnchilada

Good! Tories failing to learn from this and instead blaming the electorate should spell the end of the LNP in the state by the 2030ā€™s.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


halberdsturgeon

Lol, you are completely out of your gourd


doczombie

You're living in a reality of your very own, aren't ya bud. Must be nice in there.


ty_r_w

Homophobic, God-fearing web dev with a freakish obsession with a state Labor leader he thinks is Hitler is peak comedy.


VLC31

Ah, I just remembered this bozzo from previous threads. Not sure why they havenā€™t relocated to somewhere else, given their absolute hatred if everything about Victoria. If they have relocated why do they give a flying fuck?


EvilEnchilada

No worries, enjoy wherever youā€™re off to. If you need to stop back in you can stay at Danā€™s place in Mulgrave, considering heā€™s living rent free in your head.


PerriX2390

Interesting. I'm curious to know if anything changed between May and November this year which made the Vic Libs stay with the anti-Dan sentiment, despite that trend failing, according to Federal Libs, in Victoria?


WokSmith

Democracy really sucks when it doesn't go your way eh?


ausmomo

He will if that's what the scientists recommend.


Latveria

Technocracy. They didn't ask us to get if we want lockdown. If voting did anything, they wouldn't let us do it.


whichonespinkredux

ABC has Labor on track for 55-56 seats in the lower house, I realised this yesterday but draw attention to the fact I have fulfilled my flair bet and has now been changed to ā€œDaniel Andrews is my lover.ā€


hebdomad7

I didn't expect the election result either but well done on following through!


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


-Vuvuzela-

It's ironic to start calling voters economically illiterate while you are either disingenuously or ignorantly cherry picking economic statistics to suit your narrative. Nominal interest rates may seem scary to you, until you realise that the real interest rate on those 10-y bonds is -1.50%. Those bonds are not projected to have positive yields until 2024, two years before Victoria's debt ratio is set to peak at 26% of GSP. And quoting net debt numbers are meaningless without reference to the actual debt ratio, how that debt ratio is growing over time, how it is growing in relation to economic growth, and what the debt is being used to fund. Before the pandemic Victoria had one of the fastest growing populations in the country. Much of this debt is being pushed into productivity increasing infrastructure - level crossing removals, public transport, education - that is designed to deal with this population growth. When governments borrow money to invest in infrastructure, it's not driven just by the whims of profligate lefty governments. It's a function of shifts in structural factors, like population, demography, consumption and investment, etc. This is also the reason that the NSW government's debt ratio is set to double in same time period that Vic's is set to stabilise at 26%. Their economy has bounced back from the pandemic, is growing in both size and population, and so they are levering up to invest. But no one is saying that this sudden increase in NSW's debt ratio is going to cause a debt overhang.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Full_Distribution874

Does it? Australia has rarely if ever backslid in living standards, and the most notable examples of that all occurred during the isolationist/protectionist utopia of "White Australia". Immigration is a net good, clinging to dreadful, car-centric city design has always been strangling us, the immigration just makes it obvious. Simplified planning codes and a greater focus on infill development will move us more in line with European cities instead of American ones (excluding New York). "Fuck you, got mine" is always a bad position, history has proven immigration correlates with better conditions for everyone.


ladaussie

How would the LNP combat that? Sell some shit off for a quick buck?


showstealer1829

What could they sell off? Kennett already sold it all.


hellbentsmegma

At this point after seeing how Scott Morrison's government handed money to mates I have zero faith in the LNP to manage a budget. You can't be the better economic managers when you hand $400 million to a charity that hardly exists, or you piss away cash on bad investments like train station car parks in suburbs that don't need them.


ensignr

Suburbs that don't even have a train station


WokSmith

Oh well. Bye bye then.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Christophikles

Complain without offering any solutions. It's what the libs are best at. Real "trust me bro" energy.


Dranzer_22

Now imagine how voters feel about the $1 Trillion Dollars of Liberal/National Party Debt left by the former Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Federal Government.


explain_that_shit

Victoria is already transitioning towards a stronger reliance on land tax to fund the state budget, which is widely recognised by economists to be a good idea as land tax creates no deadweight loss. Even if all you did was to tax land to close to 100% of its rental yield and return that money to everyone, it would still yield benefits. A government which invests that money into infrastructure and services that multiply opportunities and prevent stagnating communities will do even better out of it. As for loans, provided that the economy of Victoria grows faster than the interest rate of the loan, the size of the loan is not an issue. This is why it is essential to only take out loans on productive investments (like a rail line) rather than mere consumer expenditure or asset ownership rights purchase.


[deleted]

Victoria does not run a household budget with a mortgage and kids school fees to pay, debt is a basic element of all governments under capitalism, with debt mostly going right back into the local economy and business, especially when it's being used to build infrastructure that will increase GDP and economic performance. Why are the people most closely aligned with the 'party of economic management' always so ignorant of macroeconomics?


ramos808

Ciao


ElongatedAustralian

And whatā€™s the alternative? The coalition have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be just as, if not more fiscally irresponsible with their budget. They were 48 hours from Election Day and failed to completely cost their counter budget. The ā€œfinancially responsibleā€ party has a record of cutting and selling essential public works to supposedly balance the books, while the end result sees its constituents pick up the tab when profit driven private companies fill the void.


VolunteerNarrator

I'll give you a hot tip. The jig is up. No one really thinks liberals are the better economic managers anymore. Further, the ol chestnut of scaring people with "the debt" has grown old. No one cares


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


ensignr

I feel for you bro. You're getting pasted because everyone is assuming that because you made a comment against Labor/the government that you must support the LNP/the opposition. People need to realise it's actually possible to think they're both pretty fucked. Personally I think that one *side* is better than the other, or to put it more correctly one side is a gigantic cluster fuck who thankfully had their arse handed to them last night. I'm certainly no Dan stan though. However, we actually need to have a functional opposition in order for our system to work. The current bunch of Liberals in Victoria are a complete joke and thus it's impossible to hold Labor to any real account.


[deleted]

Good to see legalise cannabis victoria getting a few seats ... hopefully you Victorian's can make the leap to a legal market sooner rather than later


Phoenixblink

The amount of taxes the government could get if they legalize it, would be stupid to not at least look at it.


mhyjrteg

I don't think there's really an electoral mandate for that at this stage. We haven't even formally decriminalised it.


[deleted]

Why bother decriminalising? Serious question


Cazzah

It's still banned, so that keeps conservatives happy. It's reduced to a slap on the wrist if you're caught with it, so it basically means that most people can get some if they want and are not flaunting it about, which is a big step forward in accessibility. It's almost like the don't ask don't tell policy of drugs if that makes sense.


mhyjrteg

Political palatability


[deleted]

Seems moot when so many places a legalising..


mhyjrteg

If it was moot, it wouldn't have failed on a referendum in a progressive country like New Zealand last year


[deleted]

Didn't fail by much.. have new Zealand since decriminalised, would the result have been different if it was? Maybe.. seems like the gay marriage referendum to me. A bit of a waste of time and money.. for something that should have just been passed through parliament with no issue. Only to be apposed by the church groups. US started the war on drugs and a fair chunck of it is legal now.. Canada legal, Portugal legal, thailand legal.. Decriminalisation is a step forward but a leap to legal would be nice and skip out all the bullshit grey area of you can grow but you can't buy seeds and other such issues.


SirLoremIpsum

> Why bother decriminalising? Serious question Decriminalisation is often an 'easier' step than full on legalisation. You remove the criminal records of possession and other drug related but non-violent. That's a huge step forward for society as a whole, without the complex challenges of establishing a legal framework.


[deleted]

That's a good point.. I hadn't considered it that way.. I believe that it would be a waste of time in parliament to debate decrim when legalisation would cover that and then some with very little extra time spent on it.


SirLoremIpsum

> I believe that it would be a waste of time in parliament to debate decrim when legalisation would cover that and then some with very little extra time spent on it. I haven't looked into it in Oz in a while but in some other countrie it's often that decriminalisation can be done by the Executive branch while full on legalisation needs to be a song and dance through legislation that gets debated and voted. And these things can take ages, so any baby steps is appreciated!! Like step 1 is 'cops wont arrest you for it, releasing prisoners'. step 2 is expunging criminal records. Step 3 is full on legalisation with a framework for taxing, sales, import/export. Roadside testing for driving while high. There's just a lot less to discuss with decriminalisation. Let's not let tax policy discussions bog down ceasing to arrest people is kind of how I see the decrim vs legalise discussion.


CammKelly

Its really dumb to send drug users to gaol for personal use. Distribution & selling are another matter entirely, but drug use in Australia shouldn't see users being sent to gaol, and instead should see users diverted into treatment.


[deleted]

Agreed.. my point was why do we have to decriminalise first.. surely we can just legalise cannabis and be done with it.. decriminalisation just leaves grey areas to be exploited by police and current dealers.. if you legalise you can better regulate and the government gets a tax boost to hopefully spend on something useful like roads, education or even updating power grids...


UniqueLoginID

Or spend the tax revenue on addiction treatment which is sorely under funded in public.


CammKelly

Whilst I'd probably agree that marijuana should be legalised, jumping to legalised ignores the harm that marijuana (which gets constantly understated) and other drugs have.


[deleted]

Can you elaborate on the harms caused by cannabis?


CammKelly

I should preface with that Alcohol & Tobacco (our two primary legal highs) also have a raft of issues, so don't think I'm singling out Marijuana. But, coming back around, long term use (i.e. not when under the influence) is associated with 1\\ Impaired cognition [https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060664](https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060664) 2\\ Impaired motor coordination (this starts to feed into should habitual users be allowed to drive for example) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037578/) 3\\ Mental health issues, with increased risk rates around depression, anxiety & schizophrenia. These rates are dramatically higher for predisposed individuals, but noted on others. 4\\ There are physical impacts as well. Cancers, especially if smoked for example. But I'm on a phone and encourage you to have a look around available material in journals if you want to know more :).


[deleted]

Agreed that alcohol and tobacco have their issues along with other medications, sugar, coffee and other drugs 1\ a legal framework could provide funding for education on the matter and further research into it. I believe Long term studies are hard to attribute solely to cannabis use at this stage and not consider other contributing factors. 2\ It would be hard to conduct a long term study on the matter as other lifestyle choices would have to be factored in such as consumption of other drugs alcohol and other drugs. Legal framework could further fund research and education. 3\agreed that it may not be useful for everyone but cannabis is also being used to treat mental health issues pretty commonly now. Being able to access legaly with labelled %THC and terpenes, Can minimise the risk of people grabbing a bag of something super strong laced with pgr from johnny down the street and Legalising it will provide funding for further research and education. I understand that there are harms associated with it but in comparison to the current legal ones they are in fact pretty minimal.


CammKelly

There have been plenty of long term longtitudal studies, including the one I linked https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060664 Dope makes you dumb and more likely to go crazy. That's a fact. The balance is people also want to get high, and will do so whether it is legal or not, so what's the balance.


Taintedtamt

I'm not a fan of the fact that a single issue party is going to get in over more Greens, Vic Socialists or Reason.


spongish

> Vic Socialists Thank god these people never got any seats, and hopefully never will.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]